A study for GIZ on the fisheries-based livelihoods in Aghanashini-Gangavali area, Karnataka, India

Indo-German Biodiversity ProgrammeConservation and Sustainable Management of Existing and Potential

Coastal and Marine Protected Areas(CSM-CMPA)

PN: 11.9299.6-001.00

A LIVELIHOOD-BASED ANALYSIS OF AGHANASHINI-GANGAVALI,

UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA

AND SUGGESTIONS FOR AN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR

CSM-CMPA PROJECT

(Contract N°: 83157877)

by

Venkatesh SalagramaConsultant-ICM

Final ReportKakinada, January 2014

Conservation and Sustainable Management of Existing and Potential Coastal and Marine Protected Areas in IndiaA livelihoods-based analysis of the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries in Karnataka and suggestions for implementation of

CSM-CMPA

Disclaimer

This study has been financed through a contract with the Project on “Conservationand Sustainable Management of Existing and Potential Coastal and MarineProtected Areas” (CSM-CMPA), of the Indo-German Biodiversity Programme. TheProject is jointly implemented by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF),Government of India, and Deutsche Gesellschaft für InternationaleZusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for theEnvironment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU).

The information presented and the views expressed in this information product arethose of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the GermanFederal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, norof the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, or the DeutscheGesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this informationproduct do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part ofMoEF, BMU, or GIZ concerning the legal or development status of any country,territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of itsfrontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific organisations, companies orproducts of manufacturers, does not imply that these have been endorsed orrecommended by MoEF, BMU, or GIZ in preference to others of a similar naturethat are not mentioned.


CSM-CMPA

i

Contents1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background to the study..........................................................................................................1

1.2 Objectives of the study............................................................................................................1

1.3 Methodology of the study....................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Structure of the report............................................................................................................ 4

2 Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries - a general overview...................................................................4

3 Modernisation in Aghanashini-Gangavali fisheries.........................................................................6

3.1 Traditional fishing in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries.................................................... 6

3.2 Modernisation in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries................................................................7

3.3 Modernisation: A balance sheet..............................................................................................9

3.4 Present status of fisheries in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries......................................10

4 Primary stakeholders and the livelihood context in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries..........11

4.1 Diversity in Aghanashini-Gangavali communities................................................................. 11

4.2 Livelihood groups in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries......................................................... 12

4.3 Economic context of Aghanashini-Gangavali........................................................................ 16

4.4 Women in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuarine communities.................................................. 18

4.5 ‘Outsiders’ in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries.................................................................... 19

4.6 Summary: Livelihood Context in Aghanashini-Gangavali Estuaries...................................... 19

5 Institutional and legal context in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries....................................... 20

5.1 Traditional management systems in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries................................20

5.2 Government institutions........................................................................................................23

5.3 Laws and regulations in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries............................................. 24

5.4 NGOs and self-help groups in Aghanashini-Gangavali area.................................................. 25

5.5 Research and academic institutions......................................................................................25

6 Current status and issues relating to natural resources in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries......26

6.1 Fisheries.................................................................................................................................26

6.2 Bivalve collection................................................................................................................... 27

6.3 Shell mining............................................................................................................................28

6.4 The Gazni system...................................................................................................................28

6.5 Agriculture............................................................................................................................. 29

6.6 Mangroves............................................................................................................................. 29

6.7 Aquaculture & Salt pans........................................................................................................ 29

6.8 Sand mining........................................................................................................................... 30

6.9 Factors aggravating the problems in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries......................... 30


CSM-CMPA

ii

7 Community responses to the resource declines........................................................................... 31

7.1 Measures to address resource conservation/management concerns..................................32

7.2 Measures for livelihood diversification................................................................................. 33

7.3 Literacy: facing the dilemma................................................................................................. 35

8 Discussion: Management options for Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries...................................... 35

8.1 Discussion: Options for better management of the estuarine ecosystems..........................36

8.1.1 Option 1: Leaving Nature to take its own course..........................................................36

8.1.2 Option 2: Implement a rigorous conservation regimes................................................37

8.1.3 Option 3: Develop innovative mechanisms for co-management..................................37

9 Suggestions for the GIZ CSM-CMPR implementation in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries..........38

9.1 Need to define the scope of different outputs..................................................................... 38

9.2 Specific issues relating to Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries that need consideration whileplanning interventions.......................................................................................................................39

9.3 Suggested actions for A-G estuaries......................................................................................40


CSM-CMPA

iii

List of Accronyms

BHS Biodiversity Heritage SiteCES Centre for Ecological StudiesCMFRI Central Marine Fisheries Research InstituteCRZ Coastal Regulation ZoneCSM-CMPA Conservation and Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas in

IndiaCSO Civil Society Organisation (also Non-governmental Organisation – NGO)DOEF Department of Environment and Forests (Government of Tamil Nadu)DOF Department of Fisheries (Government of Tamil Nadu)FRP Fibre-Reinforced Plastic (also ‘Fibreglass’)GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale ZusammenarbeitMFRA Marine Fisheries Regulation ActMOEF Ministry of Environment and Forests (Government of India)MPA Marine Protected AreaRs. Indian RupeesSHG Self-help groupVFP Village Forest PanchayatKIDB Karnataka Industrial Development Board

List of Tables

Table 1: Key caste groups in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries

List of Figures

Figure 1: Gangavali estuary

Figure 2: Aghanashini estuary


CSM-CMPA

1

1 Introduction

1.1 Background to the study

The objective of the CSM-CMPA Project is to improve conservation and management of biodiversityin a number of existing – or eventually to be created – Marine Protected Areas (MPA) with the aimto support improvements both in biodiversity and the local livelihoods of those depending on thesustainable use of this biodiversity. To achieve this, the CSM-CMPA project expects to obtain threemain outputs by the end of the project:

Output-I: Participatory management of CMPA: Participatory management approachesfor conservation of selected existing and potential CMPA are designed and introduced.

Output-II: Capacity development: Capacity strengthening system for supportingparticipatory management of CMPA is developed for selected states and at the national level.

Output-III: Information, education and communication: Information, education andcommunication content is developed and applied for awareness raising, public relations andpolicy dialogues.

The Project contracted Integrated Coastal Management (ICM), a coastal development managementfirm based in Andhra Pradesh to explore, assess and suggest suitable implementation strategies tobe considered for the suggested sites in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. This report presents ICM’s studyresults for the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries in the Uttara Kannada district of Karnataka.

1.2 Objectives of the study

The current study is aimed to contribute to a better understanding of the livelihood and naturalresource management/conservation issues in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries in coastalKarnataka. The broad objectives of the study were:

1. To gather all relevant information on:a. Composition of the population dependent on the protected areas;b. key economic activities of local communities in the area (both primary and secondary

livelihoods and other economic activities);c. key stakeholders at the local community level;d. key departments whose activities contribute to effective and meaningful conservation

and management of coastal and marine diversity if a protected area is declarede. key ecologic and socioeconomic issues (for example with respect to conservation,

livelihoods, land use patterns, development, etc.) in the area2. To provide, for each site, a summary of all key stakeholders covering local and state government,

community organizations, CSOs, research and academic institutions.3. To assess the possible impacts (positive and negative) to the areas under consideration of

various conservation strategies based on the legal instruments identified above.4. To advise on the most suitable approach to be adopted by the Project for various interventions

in terms of:a. interventions/ approaches for improved conservation and management of coastal and

marine resources;


CSM-CMPA

2

b. interventions/ approaches which would ensure participatory approaches involving keystakeholders and which would minimize conflict situations in the area;

c. interventions/approaches that could alleviate negative consequences for the alreadyexisting livelihood options in the areas.

1.3 Methodology of the study

The overarching focus of the study has been to assess the prevailing livelihood context in theAghanashini-Gangavali estuaries in coastal Karnataka and to identify, through participatoryconsultative mechanisms, a set of best possible interventions that cumulatively assist in sustainablemanagement and better conservation of biodiversity, while keeping in view the broader livelihoodcontext of the coastal/marine resource-dependent communities. The focus, thus, is on assessingoptions to enhance the livelihood and management capabilities of the communities and of theinstitutions supporting them in these areas.

The emphasis on livelihood support becomes important in view of the growing realization at alllevels, based on several recent experiences, that there is an organic link between livelihoods andconservation/management, which is more pronounced in the complex socio-environmental contextprevailing in many coastal areas of India. Widespread poverty, growing population pressure and lackof opportunities for diversification, together with weak or absent social security systems mean thatpeople must not only continue to depend on the natural resources but, given that the choice isbetween their own wellbeing and that of the ecosystems, fend for themselves even at the expenseof the ecosystem-health. And they continue to do so in spite of the existence of a plethora oflegislations and acts that attempt (altogether imperfectly and often antagonistically) to control theiraccess to resources.

A starting point, thus, for any new initiative with a conservation/management agenda will be toassess the livelihood context of the resource-dependent people as much as it is to assess the healthof the ecosystems and the natural resources therein. And the action plan for any sustainableconservation/management initiative must include sufficient activities to cover the livelihood contextof the resource-dependent people in a way that their relationship with the resources will not onlybecome more positive, but any negative implications of the management system on the livelihoodsare adequately addressed through provision of appropriate alternatives.

This study has aimed to understand the livelihood context of the people of Aghanashini-Gangavaliestuaries in coastal Karnataka, so as to identify the extent of their dependence on the estuarineresources, to assess the scope for livelihood enhancement and diversification as a means to reducethe pressure on these resources, and to explore appropriate institutional mechanisms for ensuring agood balance between sustainable livelihoods and the estuarine resource health. Obviously, giventhe scope of the study - especially in the face of an issue of this magnitude - any suggestions can onlybe tentative, but it is hoped that they do provide a way forward to address the two interrelatedissues in a meaningful way.

The bulk of the work for the study took place during December 2013, and involved:

A desk review to obtain an understanding of the current knowledge about the study areas.


CSM-CMPA

3

Expert interviews with individuals and institutions working on coastal resource managementand conservation themes. Besides, a number of experts have been met during the fieldstudy period to obtain their views and suggestions for a balanced presentation of issues.

In order to understand and reflect the perspectives of the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuarinecommunities, the study team has undertaken rapid field assessments in selected locations inthe area. The data collection methodologies largely involved informal interviews with groupsand individuals, individual case studies and field observations.

At the end of the field studies, the study team organized a half-day stakeholder consultationin Kumta, which aimed to bring together some of the key primary stakeholders to discussthe study findings both to validate them and to refine them further. The Kumta consultation,held on 16 December 2013, was attended by 15 participants, who discussed the findings andprovided feedback on the study.

It needs to be mentioned that, given the focus and preoccupations of the study, it could only aim tobe qualitative, using quantitative data only where readily available; however, the broad trends itdescribes are - where available and applicable - adequately supported by quantitative data. To theextent possible, elaborate detail is avoided in favour of summary conclusions.

A note on the secondary data sources, along with an acknowledgement

The short duration of the field study has required that much detail concerning the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries had to be drawn from secondary sources. A major chunk of information aboutthese estuaries comes from the studies done by Dr Subhash Chandran and the team of researchersat the Centre for Ecological Sciences (CES), affiliated to IISc-Bangalore, based in Kumta, who have –besides extending all support for undertaking the fieldwork – also graciously allowed the study teamaccess to their reports. These reports provided much of the flesh – in terms of detail, context, andperspective – to the bare bones that the fieldwork managed to obtain from the communityinteractions. Three CES studies in particular need to be mentioned here because they have beenused so extensively in the report preparation that it is difficult to cite them every time they are madeuse of in the body of the report:

Ramachandra, TV & MD Subhash Chandran, 2013. Traditional Knowledge of the Communities ofAghanashini and Gangavali estuaries in Uttara Kannada District, Karnataka State. Draftreport prepared for Indo-German Biodiversity Programme, CSM-CMPA Project.

Ramachandra TV, MD Subhash Chandran, NV Joshi, Mahima Bhat, Prakash N Mesta and SreekanthNaik, 2013. Estuarine Fish Diversity and Livelihood in Uttara Kannada District, KarnatakaState, Sahyadri Conservation Series: 34, ENVIS Technical Report: 64.

Boominathan, M, MD Subhash Chandran & TV Ramachandra, 2008. Economic Evaluation of Bivalvesin the Aghanashini Estuary, West Coast, Karnataka. Sahyadri Conservation Series: 9; ENVISTechnical Report: 30.

Also helpful has been the film, “Aghanashini and its children”, which provided a succinct summary ofthe socio-ecological context in the Aghanashini estuary, and the study team acknowledges the kindhelp of Professor VN Nayak, Head of the Department of Studies in Marine Biology, KarnatakaUniversity, Karwar in obtaining a copy of the film.


CSM-CMPA

4

1.4 Structure of the report

The report is divided into 9 sections. Section 2 provides an overview of the Aghanashini-Gangavaliestuaries and their resources on which the local communities base their livelihoods. Section 3provides a brief description of the modernisation process in the fisheries sector (which is thedominant livelihood activity in the estuaries) and its implications for the Aghanashini-Gangavaliestuarine ecosystems and the livelihoods of the people. Section 4 provides a description of theprimary stakeholders in the two estuaries and a summary of their livelihood context. Section 5discusses the institutional and legal context in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries, focusing on thetraditional, government and non-governmental institutional structures and processes. Chapter 6provides a bird’s eye view of the current status and issues relating to the various natural resources,and the resource-dependent communities, in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries. Chapter 7summarises the people’s responses to the emerging concerns affecting their livelihoods and thenatural resources. Chapter 8 provides a summary of the issues confronting any conservation-cum-livelihood development/management programmes, and Chapter 9 suggests a few options forintervention in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries for improving – or at least laying the ground forimproving – the general management and livelihood context in the estuaries.

2 Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries - a general overviewAghanashini and Gangavali are two of the five notable rivers in the Uttara Kannada district ofKarnataka. They originate in the Western Ghats (the Sahyadri Range), one of the 34 GlobalBiodiversity Hotspots in the world, and run their course through a narrow coastal terrain beforejoining the Arabian Sea to the west. The rivers are fairly short – Aghanashini (also known as TadriRiver) has a total length of 181 km while Gangavali (also known as Bedthi) has 161km – and theestuarine stretch of each river extends about 24km upstream from the sea. The estuarine expanse ofthe Aghanashini is 2-6km wide and covers an area of 2842 hectares, while the Gangavali estuary ismuch smaller, covering only 558 hectares. The estuary of Aghanashini has several mudflats and smallislands, and a network of drainage canals called kodis. The river mouths of Gangavali andAghanashini are separated by 9km. Neither of the rivers has been dammed hence the tidal patternsand freshwater inflows have remained relatively unchanged over the years.

There are 11 villages bordering the Gangavali estuary while 20 villages lie bordering the Aghanashini.The point of interest about the estuarine ecosystems of Aghanashini-Gangavali is the existence of adiverse range of natural resources – fish, agriculture, forests – which flourish in the area because ofthe high nutrient content, frequent water exchange, and the relative tranquility of the waters. Onthe other hand, the size and the depth of the estuaries, as well as the limited scope for rapidreplenishment of stocks, puts limits on the carrying capacity of the systems – and thus on theabundance of different resources; when exploited beyond their threshold, they show drasticdeclines, as happened with bivalves in the Gangavali area in the recent past.


CSM-CMPA

5

Fig. 1: Gangavali estuary (from Subhash Chandran et al, 2013)

Fig. 1: Aghanashini estuary (from Subhash Chandran et al, 2013)

In the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuarine ecosystems, fisheries are the most prolific natural resource.Aghanashini has 86 species of fish while Gangavali has 55 species, which cover both marine andestuarine varieties. The species composition shows a good mixture of marine and estuarine species.The dominant fish catches include: the ladyfish (Syllago sihama), mullets, snappers and catfish,although statistics are not available to assess their relative abundance and yearly trends.

The shallow basin of the estuaries makes them an ideal habitat for large populations of bivalves tosettle down, and bivalve collection is a very popular activity in the region involving both men andwomen in sizeable numbers. The bivalve collectors of Aghanashini estuary reportedly collect eightspecies of edible bivalves. The bed of the estuary is a repository of mollusc shells which are anothermajor source of livelihood in the area. Besides their economic importance as human food, thebivalves also act as attractants for crabs. The juveniles of marine crabs visit the estuaries to feed onthe bivalves and return to the sea upon attaining full maturity – this allows a good crab fishery to


CSM-CMPA

6

exist in the area. The estuarine ecosystem, especially the mangroves, offers good nursing groundsfor juvenile shrimp which attracts sizeable numbers of marine shrimp to enter the estuary forbreeding.

Besides fisheries, brackish water wetland agriculture is an important livelihood activity in the area,which was once a rice-surplus country exporting sizeable quantities of rice to other regions. The age-old ‘gazni’ system, unique to this area, was developed by the embankment of vast stretches ofshallow backwaters along the Aghanashini estuary for rice-cum-fish culture. The gazni lands coversome 3,500ha in the Kumta Block of the Uttara Kannada district and 90 percent of this land liesbordering the Aghanashini (Naik, pers.comm.). The gaznis are used for extensive cultivation of anindigenous, salt tolerant, rice variety called the kagga. The gazni system remains one survivingexamples of a successful model of traditional management of common property resources,indicating that its importance stretches beyond the local and the specific to the wider concerns ofoperationalising co-management and we shall come back to this in a latter section.

The two estuaries have patches of mangroves. In Aghanashini, the mangroves cover some 120hectares; their coverage is reportedly increasing over the years owing to new plantations andcommunity awareness raising activities. Besides, the estuaries also harbour a rich birdlife – some144 species have reportedly been spotted in the estuaries. The estuarine area is also known for thecoconut orchards, cultivation of spices (especially black pepper, cinnamon and nutmeg) and salt-making, besides a range of other commodities of domestic and commercial use. The areas arenaturally conducive for aquaculture, but the activity has remained dormant in the wake of a series ofdisease outbreaks.

It could not be ascertained if there are any endemic or endangered species in the two estuaries(unless the bivalves are considered as endangered). There is mention of otters and dolphins in theestuaries, and their numbers have reportedly declined due to habitat changes along the estuarinebanks and poaching by nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes like Havugollas. The current status andabundance of the otters and dolphins is not known. But the relatively pristine ecosystems as a wholemay be under increasing pressure over the years; the chief causes being population pressure anddevelopment activities.

3 Modernisation in Aghanashini-Gangavali fisheriesFishing and associated activities are the major activity for people in the Aghanashini-Gangavaliestuaries, providing livelihood for over 90 percent of the population in the two estuaries. Thisindicates that a majority of human actions that have relevance for the health of the ecosystems inthe area stem from, and reflect upon, the fisheries. This requires giving some prominence tofisheries in any livelihood-based assessment of the Aghanashini-Gangavali ecosystems.

3.1 Traditional fishing in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries

As with all estuarine communities, the fishers of Aghanashini-Gangavali have access to bothestuarine and marine waters for fishing and they made use of both seasonally. The advantage withsea fishing lay in the availability of good quantities of fish – mostly small pelagic species like sardinesand mackerels – especially at the river mouths, while the estuarine areas provided more assuredcatches. Another advantage with estuarine fishing is that it can be undertaken almost round theyear – the sheltered bay offers protection against adverse winds and currents so the boats can be


CSM-CMPA

7

operated in all seasons. As suggested by a fisher in Aghanashini, the estuary provided them withtheir daily bread-and-butter, while the sea provided the surpluses necessary to meet other expenses.

Fishing both in the sea and in the estuaries was and remains a caste-bound occupation: some castegroups, such as the Harikantras and the Daljis, are traditionally known for sea-fishing while otherssuch as the Ambiga specialised in estuarine fishing. However, intermingling was common as allfishers moved between the two fishing areas regularly. In any case, the capacity of the fishers waslimited in terms of both skills and fishing technologies to undertake rigorous sea fishing so even thesea-faring fishermen like the Harikantras were confined largely to the near shore waters at sea.Generally, estuarine fishing is common to all fishers during the monsoon months when the sea is toorough and the estuaries are teeming with large fish moving in for breeding purposes.

Traditional estuarine fishing was a subsistence-oriented occupation, passed on from generation togeneration within the fishing communities with little or no changes. And it retains most of itssubsistence orientation to a significant extent to this day. Fishing is carried out with non-motorisedwooden boats and canoes (the latter made locally) and using small nets and hook-and-lines. Costs ofoperation are practically non-existent. One- or two-person operations are common, where the twopeople are generally from the same family or related to each other. An important aspect of fishing inthe estuaries – especially in Gangavali – is the involvement of women; they accompany theirhusbands on the boat for fishing or, frequently, go on their own taking another woman along.

The estuarine fishing cycle closely follows the lunar cycle so the intensity of effort varies according tothe phase of the moon. Keeping with its subsistence orientation, estuarine fishing is confined to afew hours at best and the catch is hardly comparable to that of a ‘modern’ fishing boat. A part of thecatch is used for domestic consumption, while the remaining is sold to meet other domestic needs.The role of women in post-harvest and especially trade has always been strong and – contrary to theexperience elsewhere – it remains strong in the Aghanashini-Gangavali area till date. The locationaway from the main roads and the relative inaccessibility of the villages would require the women tocarry their husbands’ catches to the nearest town for sale in a market or by going door to door. Themoney realised would be handed to their husbands, but the fact that they handle the cash flowsfrom the fishing means that the women at least have some control over the incomes.

3.2 Modernisation in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries

Modernisation came into Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries relatively late and had no major impactupon the estuarine fisheries because modernising the existing systems was not really conducive toestuarine fishing or to increasing incomes. Mechanised fishing fleet – which included trawlers andpurse-seiners – came to be owned by people of a non-fishing background. This owed partly to thealien nature of the technology to the estuarine fishers and more significantly to the lack of financialcapital required to invest in them. That the mechanised boats focused entirely on sea-fishing isanother constraint for the estuary-bound fishers to venture into it. Anyway, a good sizedmechanised trawling and purse-seining fleet came into existence and based itself mostly at Tadadinear the Aghanashini mouth, while a few boats berthed near the Gangavali river mouth. Theestuarine fishers retained their traditional technologies.

That is not to say that modernisation did not touch the estuarine fishers: the growing pressure onthe estuarine waters, coupled with the growing value of marine fish like sardines, led to a need forthe fishers to move into the sea for fishing in larger numbers and with more efficient fishing systems.This resulted in motorisation of the wooden boats, followed by the introduction of fibre-glass (FRP)


CSM-CMPA

8

and plywood boats, introduction of new varieties of fishing nets, and use of ice. However, here too,the extent to which people could move into motorised fishing was influenced by their capacity – orlack of capacity – to invest in the new technology. The limited surpluses in the existing systems, asindicated, only allowed basic subsistence which meant that the extent of motorisation in theAghanashini-Gangavali estuaries remained relatively small, especially in Gangavali where thenumber of motorised boats has remained extremely low in comparison with the non-motorisedboats.

Once fishing moved into the open seas (although still largely confined to near shore waters), itbrought about significant changes to the system of organisation and operations of small-scale boats.It increased fishing duration, brought into focus concerns about the costs of operation (fuel, repairsand maintenance – expenses that hadn’t been relevant in non-motorised operations), shiftedattention from general fishing gears to species-specific nets targeting high-value species, andbrought about a change in the employment of crew: they are no longer kinsmen but labourersworking for a share in the returns. And the shift to sea also meant that the women were confined toland-based operations or to fishing in the estuaries. More importantly, the fish caught by themotorised boats are no longer targeted for the domestic markets – they started moving longdistances, to Goa, to Kerala and elsewhere.

In the estuaries themselves, the one major change brought on by modernisation has been theintroduction of synthetic fishing gears. Otherwise, everything seems to have remained the same. Inother words, the marine fishing operations moved into a more capitalistic mode of production whilethe estuarine operations – with significant contribution from women – retained their subsistence-orientation. Although the dichotomy is not always apparent, it requires careful attention because ofits impact on the local/household economies and, consequently, upon the social structures andsystems. At the household level, some 50% of the family income goes back into fishing investments(while that was not the case in the earlier/estuarine non-motorised operations) so provision must bemade for the investment every time the boat goes for fishing. At the community-level, thedifferences in economic organisation of the activities gave rise to distinctions between themotorised and non-motorised operators, and between the boat owners and crew – this is furtherdiscussed in the next section.

The inability to shift to motorisation, together with the declining productivity of the estuarine waters,has led several fishers – especially from Gangavali – to working as crew on mechanised trawlers. It ispossible that, if the development process followed a more natural mode of progression – from non-motorised to motorised and on to mechanised – many of these fishers might have been assisted toswitch to motorised fishing. This might have meant that they would have remained as boat ownersin control of their operations (or, if they worked as crew in motorised fishing, at least asshareholders in the fish catch) than become wage labourers on trawlers. Moreover, their fishingitself might have remained less destructive of the marine and estuarine resources, which is what thetrawlers are frequently accused of doing. Finally, this would have allowed the shift to be moregradual as the fishers moved from simple to the complex; in its absence, the fishers from traditionalboats were not any more adept on board a mechanised boat than agricultural labourers, with theresult that the latter could gain entry into the mechanised fishing often at the expense of thetraditional fishers for whose benefit the mechanised fishing was introduced in the first place.

Another relatively minor – and now largely dormant – outcome of the modernisation process wasthe coastal aquaculture. The fishers never showed interest in aquaculture which, in its brief life,


CSM-CMPA

9

remained not only alien but – because of its potential impacts upon the estuarine ecosystems – alsodetrimental to the fishers’ interests.

3.3 Modernisation: A balance sheet

Taken from a larger comparative perspective, the impact of modernisation on Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries is perhaps minimal. Despite bringing about some lasting changes to the way thelocal fisheries are organised and managed, the overall impression one gets in interactions with thelocal fishers is that it was incidental to a larger process of change, not a prime determinant as is thecase in other areas like the Palk Bay in Tamil Nadu. All the same, modernisation did give rise to somedeeper structural and systemic changes relating to the way different fisheries are organised andmanaged, which had implications for the wider social and economic context in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries.

At the basic level, the importance of modernisation lies in the fact that it opened up newopportunities for a large number of estuarine fishers to move into the sea. As discussed, althoughsea fishing was practised for generations by certain communities in the region, it was only aftermechanisation and motorisation were introduced that sea fishing became a regular option andinvolved actually going out into the sea rather than being confined to the river-mouths. Over time,sea fishing has come to contribute more to the local and domestic economy than the estuarinefishing.

Also, at a time when the estuarine resources were facing stress, modernisation may have helped todivert at least some of the excess effort into the sea. The stress on the estuarine resources camemainly from within the communities, as fishing households increased in number and the relativelylow-investment needs for estuarine fishing made it an easy option for moving into it. Another stressfactor was the influx of people from agrarian and other non-fishing backgrounds into estuarineactivities like shell mining and bivalve collection. Whatever the reasons, by providing an outlet forexcess labour in the sector, mechanised boats reduced the stress on the communities as well as onthe resources.

Another major impact of the mechanisation process has been that it brought new infrastructure –such as the fishing port at Tadadi – and new markets within reach of the communities. Use of ice hasbecome the norm as is the marketing of high value fish and shrimp to distant urban markets andexport markets channelled through the traders at the Tadadi fishing harbour. The impacts of thenew markets on the economy and the food security of the local communities have beenconsiderable. At a basic level, all catches of good fish have come to be landed at Tadadi harbourwhere a group of traders specialise in procurement of export species.

As indicated, a more important structural change in the communities may have been the co-existence of dual systems of economy in fisheries, whose implications are quite significant.Motorised and mechanised fishing is centred on the individual – the boat owner as the sole decision-maker – as opposed to the traditional subsistence-based operations focused on the collective. Thechange is clearly apparent in the sharing patterns: in the traditional system, fishing was more afamily enterprise involving men and women from the same family, while in the motorised fishing,the crew come from other families though from within the same village. That the crew get a share ofthe income requires selling the whole catch (i.e., without keeping anything for own consumption) inorder to ensure equitable sharing of returns and selling in open auctions at Tadadi rather thanthrough the owners’ wives in the local markets. Although the existing market conditions are not


CSM-CMPA

10

developed enough for such trends to be always visible with all species, the fact that suchtransformations are taking place – especially with export species like shrimp, squid, crabs – inAghanashini-Gangavali estuaries is hard to miss. Yet another significant impact of the individualowner-centred operations is the weakening of the traditional systems of governance as the voice ofthe traditional community leaders (yejamani) tends to get weaker as the value of the fish and fisheryproducts – as well as the costs of operations – keep growing at their expense.

More directly, from an ecological perspective, mechanisation may have contributed to weakeningthe viability of estuarine operations. This could be owing to the fact of over-fishing especially off theriver mouths and not only by the local mechanised fleet but also by boats from far-off areas. Thatmost such boats use trawling with small-mesh nets as the main fishing method also impliesdestructive fishing. Even in the motorised operations, a lot of destructive fishing might be happeningas evidenced by the reportedly high landings of juveniles in the fish catches round the year.According to the fishers, juveniles account for 50 percent of their total catch in certain seasons, theusual excuse for such high landings of juveniles being that, “If we don’t catch them, someone elsewill”. In the same breath, the fishers go on to list a few very important fish species that have ceasedto enter the estuaries for breeding purposes in recent years.

Mechanised and motorised boats constantly operating off the river mouths is said to be a majorimpediment to fish movement for breeding and to the young ones for moving back into the sea.Although the mechanised and motorised boats do not fish in the estuary, the constant churning ofthe estuarine floor by their movement in the estuaries and their discharge of bilge, fish- and engine-wastes into the estuary in places like Tadadi increase turbidity and affect water quality, therebydisturbing fish breeding, behaviour and movements. The other showpiece of modernisation –coastal aquaculture – could not survive in the Aghanashini-Gangavali area but while it lasted, therewere cases of the discharges from aquaculture farms affecting the quality of estuarine waters andthe health of the bivalves and other resources.

3.4 Present status of fisheries in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries

A strong impression that one takes back from interactions with the people in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries is that things have remained static. This is not to say no changes have occurredin these communities, it is just that the changes may have allowed the people to stay where theyhave always been. In other words, if life hasn’t gone up, it hasn’t gone down either – or vice versa.This is obviously a gross simplification of the real state of affairs, but it is evident from their fishingpatterns and even from their housing which has undergone few changes in the last two decades. Theshift from one fishing space to another (e.g., from the estuary to the sea, from the shallow parts ofthe estuary to the deeper parts), from one species to another, from one (local) market to another(distant one), allowed the fishers to keep pace with change, while the higher values that the ever-reducing fish catches earned kept their earnings constant. The fact that the dominant catches fromthe estuaries – shrimp, crab, bivalves – have a good market demand means that the fishers have anassured source of income, for the time being at any rate.

The reason why this needs to be spelled out is that the fishers don’t really find any great urgencyeither for some conservation programmes or for moving out in the immediate future. Anyprogramme that aims to focus on management programmes must necessarily invest a considerabletime, effort and resources in order to raise awareness amongst the people for this purpose.


CSM-CMPA

11

4 Primary stakeholders and the livelihood context in theAghanashini-Gangavali estuaries

Even a cursory look at the diversity that characterises the estuarine communities of Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries would suggest a clear correlation of the people with the resources they target:as with the resources, the numbers of people too is relatively small, but also as with the resources,the diversity is vast and very difficult to capture in a short study like this.

4.1 Diversity in Aghanashini-Gangavali communities

The diversity comes from several factors, including: caste & religion, geographical origin andlanguage, and nature of engagement with the estuarine resources. If one includes the differences inthe levels of literacy, varying levels of women’s involvement in productive functions, extent ofdiversification outside the area and economic status, the complexity becomes almost impossible tocapture.

Caste & religion: A recent study by Ramachandran and Subhash Chandran (2013) categorises theestuarine communities in the Aghanashini-Gangavali area as belonging to three broad castecategories – the fishing communities, the agricultural communities, and the non-fishing (i.e.,supplementary) communities. In each category, there are several caste groups: thus, in fishingcommunities, there are the sea-faring Harikantras, Kharvis, Gabits, and Darji Muslims and theestuarine Ambigas. The differences of caste are quite subtle but extend even to the way a net iscast: the way a person flings a cast net in the estuary marks him as an Ambiga or a Harikantra.Among the agricultural communities are the Patgars, Halakkivokkals and Namdharis, while thenon-fishing communities comprised a number of castes that specialised in artisanal activities likesalt-making, carpentry, basket and mat weaving, earthen-pot making, priesthood, trade,hunting-gathering, and music-making. Most castes have their own traditional occupation,besides being involved in some subsistence-level work in agriculture and fisheries from time-to-time.


CSM-CMPA

12

Table 1: Key caste groups in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries

A majority of people belong to Hindu religion, but there are a sizeable number of Muslims too –the ownership of mechanised boats in places like Tadadi is largely in the hands of Muslims, whoalso have a major stake in fish trade and other land-based occupations. The Muslims are alsocharacterised by migrations to the Middle-East for employment, which puts them in a bettereconomic position within each community.

Geographical origin and language: The estuarine communities of Aghanashini-Gangavali appearto be constituted by people from the local area, by in-migrants from the neighbourhoodcommunities, and also by long-term migrants from Maharashtra-Goa coast. There is aninteresting, if unproven, hypothesis that a majority of fishers in the estuaries are relativelyrecent entrants into fishing, which accounts for their aversion to more risky occupations like seafishing and also the few controls that exist to discourage newcomers to enter fishing, as we shalldiscuss in a later section. Whatever the merits of such a view, the geographical mix of people inthe Aghanashini estuary remains quite wide-ranging and the language mix in the area comprisesof Kannada, Konkani, Marathi, and Urdu, besides some ‘mixture languages’ such as Daldi dialect,reportedly derived from a mixture of different languages.

Nature of engagement with estuarine resources: As already suggested, different categories ofpeople have varying levels of engagement with the estuarine resources; thus, while the Ambigafish in the estuary for the best part of the year, they also fish at sea seasonally, while the reverseholds true to their marine counterparts – the Harikantra. In all cases, the women are variouslyengaged in bivalve collection, fish processing, and fish trade, besides fishing alongside theirhusbands or individually. Some of the fishers have agricultural land and many also workseasonally as agricultural labourers. The non-fishing communities have a foot in agriculture,gazni lands, shell-mining, crab collection, forest produce collection and occasionally fishing,while some communities like Agers are entirely confined to salt-making. In a context wherelivelihood stability is the most important asset to have, the households with a wider range oflivelihood options are considered more highly than even those with relatively higher incomes.

The point that needs stressing here is that these differences give rise to the existence of severalsmaller, largely independent, units of organisation within each community. Each of these groupstends to stick together in every village and so, contrary to appearances, the villages are fracturedinto several clusters along caste lines, each cluster of people having their own social organisation,rituals and economic activities that, in some cases at least, might run counter to the interests of theirneighbours. Under the circumstances, the concept of a ‘community’ (as in 20 communities inAghanashini and 11 communities in Gangavali) is a broad generalisation that can actually divertattention away from the existence of a number of smaller ‘republics’ within each community. Anyefforts at ‘community organisation’ without taking this factor into account can be misleading,especially where ideas such as co-management are sought to be promoted.

4.2 Livelihood groups in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries

The key stakeholders in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries can be categorised into the followinggroups:


CSM-CMPA

13

4.2.1 Fishers

As indicated, the fishing in the estuaries is entirely by means of non-motorised boats, however mostfishers also have motorised boats and work as crew in mechanised boats. This makes it necessary tocategorise the estuarine fishers as those having no access to motorised/mechanised boats and thosewith ownership of, or working on, mechanised/motorised boats in order that their income sources(as well as financial status) can be appropriately understood.

Among the non-motorised estuarine fishers, there are also people who don’t own a boat and usemanual cast nets, stake nets and hook-and-lines by wading in the shallow waters of the estuary. Theboat owners could be operating a stitched, plank-built, boat or a dugout canoe, both locally madeand used essentially for estuarine operations, including shell collection. As indicated, women are animportant component of active fishing operations in the estuaries, and include those fishing onboats as well as those collecting shells with bare hands from the floor of the estuary. Crab collectorsinclude people from a non-fishing background as well.

4.2.2 Fish traders

The subsistence nature of the estuarine fishing activities is reinforced by the complementary roles ofmen and women in the production system: the men catch fish and their wives (or mothers or sisters)take the responsibility for selling them in the neighbouring major markets. Large-scale traders doexist in places like Tadadi, but their focus is confined to export varieties like shrimp and crabs, buttheir importance may be growing as the demand for estuarine species widens to cover ever largerareas within and even beyond the country. One good indicator of the limited size of the fishingpotential in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries is the near absence of ‘advances’ from traders tothe fishers for assured supply of catches. The other indicator is that the traders seldom visit thevillages themselves for collecting the catches (except in case of bivalve traders who supply the localbivalves to Goa and other distant markets); usually, they expect the women to bring the catches tothem.

4.2.3 Fish processors

Although some part of the catch – generally that which could not be sold in fresh condition – gets tobe dried, the proportion of fish going into drying is limited. The limited quantities of fish caught, thegood demand they have in local markets and the limited space available for drying in the estuarineareas preclude scope for much drying in the area. Industrial processing – for shrimp – is certainlyimportant to the girls, but this tends to be outside the local area.

4.2.4 Ancillary workers

A number of ancillary workers do exist, involved in supply of ice and transport services, baskets,ropes, construction and repair of boats and other important needs of fishing industry. These peopletend to belong to non-fishing, artisanal, castes.

4.2.5 Supplementary occupations

Supplementary occupations are those that have no direct role in the fisheries activities, but providethe various non-fisheries related services that the fisher people require for their daily life. Theseinclude grocery suppliers, vegetable vendors, food vendors, house builders, carpenters, electricians,and various other service-related occupations like teachers, postmen etc. It is frequently overlookedthat people such as these are – though not directly involved in fisheries – as dependent on fishing


CSM-CMPA

14

economy as the fishers themselves. A good fishing season is good for the overall local economy justas a bad season means poor incomes all round.

A most important supplementary category in the Aghanashini-Gangavali areas is the moneylender:besides their importance as ready-money suppliers to meet all household needs (albeit at usuriousrates), their hold on the people could be so strong as to influence the fishers’ actions relating tofishing. However, the overall extent of indebtedness to private sources tends to be relatively small inthe Aghanashini-Gangavali communities.

4.2.6 Bivalve collectors – men and women

For a large number of men and women, bivalve collection is an important livelihood activity. Bivalveshave a good local demand for consumption and traditionally renowned as the poor man’s food.Women take an active role in bivalve collection, sorting, and sale in the local markets. An estimated2,347 individuals from 1,202 households are associated with bivalve harvesting; of these 1,738 aremen and 609 are women, who belong to 19 estuarine villages, in Aghanashini estuary. The majoritywho harvest bivalves for trade belong to local fishing communities such as Harikanthras and Ambigas.Halakkivokkals, Namdharis, and Gramvokkals also collect bivalves for domestic consumption and fortrade.

Harvesting is done by hand, feet or with the aid of a small hand-held digging stick. The collectorswork for three to four hours per day during the low tides. Bivalves are collected in cone shaped nets,baskets, plastic boxes, cement bags, etc. Small non-mechanised crafts are normally used forcollection from deeper waters and for transport of bivalves from the collection site to the villages.The boats may be steered by men or women. In recent times, bivalves have found good markets indistant areas like Goa, which increases their value and reduces availability to the local consumers.Spot purchases of bivalves are made by traders who transport them to the distant markets. Thedistant market demand is also said to give rise to excessive effort at collecting the bivalves, drivingthem beyond the threshold level.

4.2.7 Shell-miners – men and women

Aghanashini estuary has large deposits of bivalve shells buried in the estuarine bottom. Collection ofthese shells for shell-lime production has been a traditional activity for a number of people includingnon-fishing castes, but over the last few decades shell mining has become a more organised activity.Armed with a lease for about 800 hectares, valid for 20 years (issued by the Geology & MiningDepartment), some large-scale entrepreneurs have begun to employ large numbers of men in shellcollection activity, which involves digging the shells out by the boatloads for use in manufacture ofshrimp and poultry feeds and other industrial purposes. Shell mining is reportedly done in an area of100 ha per year out of a total lease area of 809.37 hectares. About 600 persons (only men, especiallythose operating native boats) are engaged in shell mining in addition to transporters, who numberabout 200 persons. Each canoe-load of shell-shards earns the collector Rs. 250, which is lucrativeenough for a number of people – both men and women of agricultural background – to move intothis activity.

4.2.8 Saltpan workers

Salt-making is undertaken by people of the ‘Ager’ community, who belong to the Scheduled Castes(SC), in both Aghanashini and Gangavali estuaries. The Sanikatta salt pans in the Aghanashini estuaryare famous for salt production and the Ager community is largely resident in and around that area.The ownership of the salt pans lies in the hands of a few entrepreneurs or with the cooperatives,


CSM-CMPA

15

and a majority of Agers work as daily wage labourers in the salt fields. The alienation of some 1800acres of land in this area for industrial salt making by a private company in the 1970s is a continuingcause for resentment among the local salt workers, especially because the company failed to makeany salt and the land itself – since re-acquired by the government – remains unutilised, yet out ofbounds to the local communities.

4.2.9 Gazni land ‘co-owners’ and workers

People belonging to ‘Patgar’ (‘Gamvokkals’) are the dominant group specialising in cultivation of theGazni lands with salt-tolerant ‘Kagga’ rice variety. Namdharis, Halakkivokkals and other castes alsofigure prominently in gazni cultivation. The gaznis are under a cooperative farming system, eachgazni being owned by a large number of farmers, sometimes going into hundreds (the 405-acreManikatta gazni is reportedly under the ownership of 600 farmers). All active farmer ‘co-owners’ ofeach gazni are supposed to physically take part in the farming operations at every stage and get ashare in the returns accordingly. More discussion about the Gaznis is provided in a later section.

4.2.10 Agriculturalists – farmers and workers

Agriculture, though important in the estuaries, is increasingly facing difficulties and in this, it is nodifferent from elsewhere in the country. Growing costs (fuelled, in part, by reduced subsidies) anddeclining returns have meant that the dependence on agriculture as a livelihood activity isweakening forcing people to move into other activities, especially estuarine shell and crab collection.All the same, some of the estuarine communities continue to own agricultural land and severalpeople also seasonally work as labourers in agricultural operations.

4.2.11 Aquaculture workers

It has been reported that there is no aquaculture in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuarine regions inthe recent past. When it was operational, the investments in aquaculture came from outside thearea and, although the fishers might have been involved in some seasonal work in aquaculture, itdoes not seem to have generated employment opportunities in any reasonable number for thepeople to move into it in sizeable numbers or particularly notice it when the sector went intodormancy.

4.2.12 Sand-miners

Sand-mining is reportedly rampant in the two estuaries, reportedly indulged both by the fishersthemselves and by outsiders, owing to the increased demand for sand in construction work. Manyfishers having skills in boating and manoeuvring in the waters are said to work with sand miningcontractors and sand traders for this purpose. While some impacts of sand-mining are said to bepositive – keeping the river mouths open, reducing siltation effects and so forth – there are alsoseveral negative impacts affecting the estuarine ecosystems and their populations adversely.

Before concluding this section, it is necessary to repeat that there is much cross-over betweendifferent activities by each group of stakeholders both regularly and seasonally and this hasimplications on identifying specific groups of people being dependent on specific resources.


CSM-CMPA

16

4.3 Economic context of Aghanashini-Gangavali

In Gangavali, there are 996 active fishers1, i.e., involved in capture fishing, belonging to 357 families,while in Aghanashini the number is 6139 belonging to 2011 families. While population pressure iscertainly a major issue in the area, these figures also suggest that the actual size of the population inthe villages is not really big: an average of 32 families and 90 fishers for each of the 11 Gangavalivillages and 307 fishers and 100 families for each of the 20 Aghanashini villages. The small-size of thecommunities has an implication on the level of infrastructure and market development, externalsupport for development and, as we shall discuss, on the governance of the commons.

Overall, compared with the general economic picture of the coastal Karnataka, Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries may have remained low on the scale of economic development. This may havebeen compensated by relatively intact social structures, access to diverse non-monetised services,and relatively stable livelihood patterns.

Altogether, poverty and deprivation are relatively less severe – or at least more masked – in theAghanashini-Gangavali estuaries. While subsistence activities are the norm imposed on the level ofexploitation in the estuaries, the region is also quite self-sufficient in meeting the basic needs of thepeople. A district gazetteer, dating back to 1870s, reportedly says of this region that, “The poorest,though burdened with debt, rarely suffer from privation,”2 and this remark holds largely valid evennow. As in any estuarine ecosystem, the access to a diversity of natural resources means that thepeople have a diversified livelihood profile that varies seasonally and within the household, and thisallows life to remain on even keel despite fluctuations in different activities from time to time. Theadaptability of the people to the particular conditions within the ecosystem and the latter’sversatility in providing a range of services round the year are the two strengths that help the peopleto ward off deprivation.

The average fishing income per person for fishing day in Gangavali is estimated at Rs. 442, while theaverage annual income from fishing was Rs. 109,265. For Aghanashini, the figures were lower: Rs.291 per day and Rs. 70,870 per annum per person – although in at least one village in this estuary,the per capita incomes were nearly 10 times as much at Rs. 700,000. Still, while not exactly high,there is no denying that these figures represent a higher income compared to many small-scaleactivities in the region, if not in the country as a whole, especially when it is considered that fishingcan be undertaken for a large number of days in a year.

Also, one should not lose sight of the fact that there are several other goods and services that anestuarine household obtains but which are not always monetised. Thus, most families inAghanashini-Gangavali have small vegetable patches with a few coconut trees (which constitute animportant component of the local cuisine) and vegetables, keep some poultry, store dried fish forown consumption, and use a part of the estuarine fish catch for own consumption. Some familiesown farmland, although only in small patches. Curiously, it does not appear that the people offishing communities have a share in the gazni lands – although they did use to fish in the gazni fieldsat certain times of the year. At the community level, reciprocity and bartering systems aretraditionally ingrained into the social system, so regular exchange of goods, services and even moneyis a regular occurrence.

1 It is not clear if the number includes both men and women.

2 Or, as Thomson (2003) noted, “the scale of production is small but sufficient to meet the needs of the local ruraleconomy.”(Cited in Ramachandra & Subhash Chandran, 2013:3).


CSM-CMPA

17

The point to note is that most of these services are not monetised, hence not included in householdincome calculations, thereby leading to under-reporting of incomes and exaggeration of the levels ofdeprivation. Most, if not all, women are actively involved in a range of activities and services, at leastsome of them (such as marketing fish on behalf of their menfolk) having no apparent monetisedvalue hence not included in the family income estimates either.

All the same, the seemingly stable state of affairs could be deceptive. The equilibrium in which theestuarine communities live may be fragile as their capacity to cope with emerging challenges bothwithin and beyond the estuaries remains weak. While the (necessarily) small-scale extractionactivities in the estuaries provide enough to meet the basic needs of the people, they leave verylimited surpluses to reinvest or diversify within or beyond the sector. In other words, the stability ofthe livelihoods is predicated upon things remaining as they are forever – and things seldom remainconstant forever and so, as the fieldwork showed, the future is always a question mark for thefishers of Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries.

Furthermore, the lack of new employment opportunities in the area mean that not only are thepeople locked into the existing systems, but also that people from other sectors – agriculturemostly – had only the estuarine resources to fall back on when they found their livelihoodopportunities in agriculture dwindle in the face of multiple challenges. There is thus a clear trend ofin-migration into the estuaries, mostly from people of non-traditional castes who move in withrelative ease as this requires very little investment. However, the study found little evidence ofpeople of non-fishing castes entering into fishing per se, but remain a major presence in activitieslike shell mining, salt making and, while it lasted, aquaculture. The one exception to this is themechanised trawling where the ownership has tended to remain in the hands of people of a non-fishing background although the actual fishing crew came largely from within the fishingcommunities.

The fact that industrialisation and urbanisation have remained fairly low-key (if not non-existent) inthe two estuaries – and in their periphery – has meant that they are relatively less affected by thepollution effects. On the other hand, it also meant that there are no new opportunities opening forpeople to move into, thereby reducing pressure on the estuarine resources – and probably move astep higher in an economic sense.

This highlights the fact that, everything said and done, the estuarine ecosystem still pays wellenough to attract people from other areas (or at least as a last resort) and also that, when the pushcomes to the shove in the estuaries, there is nowhere else for the people to go.

Many people consider that the existence of pilgrimage and tourist centres like Gokarna in theneighbourhood, as well as the large expanses of picturesque beaches in the area (contiguous withthe neighbouring Goa state), might mean that tourism can be a sustainable – and largely untapped –avenue for people to diversify into, but – as we shall discuss – this requires more homework beforebeing put into practice.

The relatively small-size of the communities has an impact upon the infrastructure development inthe area. The villages, though not exactly inaccessible, are however not well connected either. Theexistence of a major tourist centre like Gokarna might allow better access to some villages, but ingeneral one has to go out of the main roads to be able to get to the Aghanashini-Gangavali villages.Apart from Tadadi, which has a major mechanised fish landing centre and related infrastructure,there is hardly any infrastructure to support fishing and allied activities in the two estuaries. The size


CSM-CMPA

18

of the fish landings, which necessarily must remain small (owing to few boats and to lack ofpreservation and ready-market facilities), also limit the size and the access to markets. Except for theexport varieties, all other fish are still carried by the fisherwomen to the nearest markets. However,consumption of seafood (fish and bivalves) in the local areas tends to be quite high which help thefishers to earn a good price for the fish. The average price range for fish from the estuaries iscalculated at Rs. 120 to Rs. 600 per kg, which is quite lucrative for the producers and helps to maskthe declines in fish catches by stabilising incomes.

Indebtedness, though prevalent, is not very high in the estuarine communities of Aghanashini-Gangavali. The need for investment in fishing – and other production-related activities – tends toremain low, with only the fishers opting for motorised sea-fishing requiring sizeable sums ofinvestment. For a majority of such fishers, the first – and the obvious – source of loans are the banks,where they use jewellery and agricultural assets as collateral. The system of hand-loans, i.e.,borrowing from relatives, friends and neighbours, seems well developed and carries no interest, so itis another ready source of investment. Finally, there are some self-help group mechanisms in thevillages (set up by some NGOs or by the people themselves) that seem to take care of the minorinvestment needs. Moneylenders do exist and several people are indebted to them, but overall thedependence on them is relatively less acute than in other fishing communities.

At the community level, social security systems seem to have retained their strength and vigour overthe years, and this means that the weaker and vulnerable sections of the society (old people,children) receive adequate care and assistance.

4.4 Women in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuarine communities

As already described, the women in the Aghanashini-Gangavali communities have a strong role inboth productive and domestic spheres. Here, to avoid repetition, a summary of their functions isprovided:

Fishing in both estuaries:o Women go fishing with their men, or on their owno Women are actively involved in bivalve collection, shell-mining, salt pans etc.

Fish trade: in both areas, women take the primary responsibility for selling fish in theneighbouring markets; they are also involved in dried fish production

Non-fishing: seasonally, women work as wage labourers in agriculture and other local activitiessuch as cashew nut processing; they are actively involved in keeping chickens and ducks,firewood collection and revolving fund management.

Non-local activities: women go to distant towns like Goa and Malpe to work in shrimp processingfactories

Women also have a strong management function, as being the sellers of the fish catches which givesthem some handle on the family incomes.

4.5 ‘Outsiders’ in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries

The issue of ‘outsiders’ – i.e., people of a non-estuarine background moving into the estuaries tomake a living – remains a tangled web that remains quite knotty at the moment. It is quite possible


CSM-CMPA

19

that outsiders may have always been coming into the estuaries. Thus there are at least three sets ofoutsiders co-existing in the Aghanashini estuary. Firstly, there are people like Daljis, who have beenresiding in the area for generations and involved in marine fishing operations. The next batch ofmigrants from agrarian communities may have arrived in the 1970s from the neighbourhood villages.Part of the reason for their movement was said to be the construction of permanent dykes to thegazni lands by the state government in the early 1970s, which reportedly resulted in the fisherslosing their fishing grounds in the gazni lands and the non-fishers finding themselves at a loose end –having given up their gaznis on long-term lease for aquaculture. The third batch of migrants startedarriving in the last decade or so, the declining profitability of agriculture forced several morepeople – mostly landless labourers – into the estuaries.

The influx of outsiders and the varying levels of engagement in exploiting the estuarine resources bydifferent people also mean that the socio-economic organisation of the communities in the regionremains highly complex, dynamic and fraught with (largely silent) tensions. As discussed, there is acaste-based specialisation of activities and exploitation patterns in the estuaries and, with pressures(both economic and in-migration related) mounting, such social barriers keep breaking down leadingto antagonism, competition and conflicts.

The existence of large numbers of outsiders in activities like sand-mining and shell-mining gives riseto the fishers viewing the activities themselves as alien, thereby providing them with a convenient‘other’ on whom all the problems in the estuaries can be blamed. Thus, during the field interactions,in almost every instance, the blame for declining productivity of the estuaries was put squarely onshell-mining – which might well be the case – thereby absolving the fishers themselves ofcontributing in any way to the decline. On the other hand, for the outsiders, activities like shell-mining are the glue that holds them together in sufficient quantities to be able to withstand anypressure they might face from the local people. They have a vested interest not only in continuingwith it, but also to spread it far and wide in a way that the area under their ‘control’ keepsexpanding – at the expense of the local fishers and of the health of the ecosystems as a whole.Needless to say, the combination of these antagonisms is highly potent and needs extreme cautionwhile handling.

Thus, clarifying the issue of outsiders and the extent of their dependence on the estuaries becomesimportant in order to ensure proper representation for these important, yet frequently overlooked,stakeholders in any management process. That they are frequently involved in potentiallydestructive activities like shell-mining also requires their inclusion in the management process.

4.6 Summary: Livelihood Context in Aghanashini-Gangavali Estuaries

Based on the description in the foregoing sections, a few points can be made about the livelihoodcontext in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries:

The livelihood stability to the estuarine communities comes from the fact that they can workseasonally at sea, in the estuary, and in its peripheral areas; this allows them round-the-yearfishing and related opportunities.

This implies that all ups-and-downs in different activities get evened out overall; thus, thelivelihood security of the people may be under stress but not seriously threatened.


CSM-CMPA

20

For the fishers, the estuarine incomes may not be as good as they may expect, but at least betterthan what they might get from any other source, given the limitations of their capacity and (non-)availability of options in the local area.

This is apparent from the widespread assertion by the fishing people that the youngergeneration may also continue to work in fisheries, in the absence of appropriate alternatives.

The continued movement of people from non-fisheries background into the estuaries alsosupports the suggestion that the estuarine resources offer a better income than the others.

However, there is evidence of increasing stress on the estuarine fisheries and the options toreduce this without affecting the already-precarious livelihoods of the fishers remain a majorchallenge.

The largely subsistence nature of the economy implies that the fishers capacity to undertake anylivelihood enhancement or diversification measures – especially involving resource managementor conservation activities – remains extremely limited.

5 Institutional and legal context in the Aghanashini-Gangavaliestuaries

As with most coastal ecosystems in India, the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries too have a multiplicityof institutions – community-based organisations, government and non-government supportedcooperative initiatives, as well as government departments – and their rule systems cover differentaspects of the life and livelihoods of the communities. Thus, broadly, the traditional community-based organisations look after the socio-cultural organisation of the society, the governmentdepartments and cooperatives look after their economic development and welfare issues, and theNGO initiatives focus on equity issues, focused on gender, environment, and poverty. Thesefunctions are never water-tight as frequent overlaps take place between one system and the other.Also, the profusion of organisations does not always mean a well-ordered system of organisation ofall aspects of life or livelihoods, and there exist huge gaps or grey areas – such as natural resourcemanagement – that remain unattended.

5.1 Traditional management systems in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries

Looking at the (admittedly paltry) documented sources about the traditional governance systems inthe Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries, one finds two important – if mutually contradictory –characteristics, one relating to fisheries and the other to forestry and gazni agriculture.

5.1.1 Lack of resource management function in traditional governance

The first of these is the clear absence of any tenurial arrangements, or rule systems to control theexploitation efforts, concerning the estuarine resources in the traditional systems (e.g., the yajamanisystem)3. Fishing, it appears, has remained more or less open access to anyone who wanted to movein. This is particularly surprising in semi-enclosed ecosystems like the Aghanashini-Gangavaliestuaries, which teemed with dozens of specialist castes and specialised fishing methods and

3 The traditional community governance systems do have a conflict resolution role, but this is confined to land-based issues only. Cases where the source of conflict relates to fishing, even if it involves outsiders such asmechanised boats, the concerned boat owners themselves have to resolve it on their own.


CSM-CMPA

21

flooded by constant influx of new migrants, both seasonal and long-term. Most othercoastal/estuarine ecosystems show some kind of traditional management, a fact that led Bavinck(2002:28)4 to suggest that the question is not whether or not there is a system for regulating accessand withdrawal rights, but – if it doesn’t exist – to ask what prevented its development or caused itto disappear. But, in Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries, not only did such management systems notexist, but there is no evidence that they had ever done so.

This study could not explore this issue in any detail except to get some very tentative answers. It hasbeen suggested by some that the lack of controls may have been owing to the abundance of fishcatches in the estuary and to the opportunity to fish at sea as well as in the estuary, but this theoryonly partly explains the issue, given that the same set of conditions did not prevent other estuarineecosystems from developing some measures of management. Also, even in Aghanashini-Gangavali,there has always been seething competition between different resource users in the estuaries. It ispossible that the reciprocity arrangements that existed between different communities and whichallowed every community to move into another occupation seasonally precluded the possibility ofcurtailing entry for new entrants, although this does not explain the existence of large numbers ofpeople of a non-local origin in the estuaries. Yet another explanation is that the small size ofpopulation dependent upon the estuaries, and their relatively isolated distribution along the coasts,might have reduced the scope for any strong tenurial claims to be made or, if made, respected by all.

Whatever the reasons, the absence of community controls on entry has meant that the communitieshave no means to stop new migrants from coming into the estuaries even when there is noreciprocity involved and their entry has a direct negative impact for them and the resources. At abroader level, the lack of ability – if not indifference – on the part of the local communities toaddress the governance issues in the estuaries has a significant bearing on their participation in anyfuture management programme, which makes this subject important enough to warrant furtherattention.

The yajamani system in fishing communities

The different fishing groups in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries are organised with a hereditaryleader, the Yajamani, who is the notional authority on all social and religious matters. TheYajamani’s main functions related to organising the village festivals, supervising weddings andfunerals, and conducting occasional caste group meetings. Interactions with some Yajamanisrevealed that they are mostly ceremonial figureheads now. With the estuarine economy undergoinga major transformation owing to several external and internal pressures (as well as opportunitiessuch as new markets and employment), the Yajamani’s current relevance and legitimacy are owedmore to the people’s interest in continuing with an ancient tradition than to any practicalconsiderations. As the head of the ritual processes in the community, the Yajamani system is nomore than a ritual itself and the ceremonial leadership position of a Yajamani does not give him anyauthority to impose his will. As one Harikranta group Yajamani suggested, his authority extends onlyso far as the fishers are willing to accept it, i.e., so long as he says what they want to hear. Also,being a boat owner or a crewmember himself, the Yajamani is as much a part of the system that heis supposed to ‘govern’ as anyone in his presumptive flock. Finally, aside from the fact that theYajamani system never really had a management function in the estuarine fisheries, the apparent

4 Bavinck, M 2001. Marine Resource Management: Conflict and Regulation the Fisheries of the CoromandelCoast, Sage Publications.


CSM-CMPA

22

inability of the few recent initiatives of the Ambigas and the Harikantras to address the shell-miningissue through the Yajamani system also make it doubtful whether the system could really take on amore powerful conservation and management function in the coming years.

5.1.2 Strong community-based resource management systems in the gaznis and in forestry

In clear contradiction to what has been discussed in the last section, the same Aghanashini estuaryis also renowned for the the existence of vibrant community-based management systems governingaccess to at least two resources: the gazni lands and the forests.

The gazni management systems

The traditional gazni system is a unique joint farming system which was developed by reclamation ofthe backwaters and low-lying lands of the Aghanashini estuary for cultivating paddy. Using entirelynatural and organic processes, the gaznis offered an exceptional way to provide large numbers oflivelihoods with limited harm to the system. The unique features of the gazni system that havewidespread relevance in the current context of achieving conservation and management objectiveswhile sustaining livelihoods of the dependent communities can be summarised as:

• The rice grown is of an endemic, high-resistant, and nutritious variety• Best use of the conditions prevailing at different times and seasons to obtain the most benefit

from natural processes, so there is no time in a year when the lands are left fallow.• Every aspect of fish culture activities that succeed each crop of rice paddy cultivation uses

natural means - and this includes seed, fertilizer, feed, water management and even harvesting.• The fish feed on the decaying organic matter from the stalks of harvested rice, while the fish

wastes fertilize the soil for the next cycle of agriculture.• The system of cultivation uses natural means, with no adverse environmental or biodiversity-

related implications• The management system provides an indigenous example of ‘co-management’ at work; the

complex organisation of the system, which also insists on equal contribution by everyone of themembers, can be an example for replication elsewhere too.

• By insisting on the shareholder being a worker in the gazni activities, the system removes‘absentee landlords’ from the benefit sharing process while ensuring that all stakeholders areappropriately benefited according to their contribution. At the same time, the insistence on thefamily as a unit for taking their share, it avoids fragmentation of the ownership as familiesexpand and split up over time.

• The system has the powers to impose punishments on errant members (i.e., those whocontribute less than what they can and must); more importantly, it has the capacity to enforceits will, which is an important pre-requisite for any legal system to be effective.

Village Forest Panchayats (VFP)

There is evidence of the existence of traditional systems of governance to regulate the use of variousresources among different stakeholder groups along caste lines in the Aghanashini estuary. A well-documented case in point is Masur-Lukkeri, an island in the centre of Aghanashini estuary. Here,seven categories of stakeholders – fishers, agriculturists, horticulturists, entertainers, service castes,artisans and traders – had been accommodated into a well-managed system for allocation ofdifferent resources in an equitable and sustainable manner.


CSM-CMPA

23

An even better illustration of the existence of strong community-based institutions for conservationand management of natural resources comes from the village forest panchayats in Aghanashinivillages like Halkar, Holangadde, Chitrigi and Vannalli. Here, the realisation of the prior existence ofsuch informal institutions in the villages led the colonial administration to formalise them under theprovisions of the Indian Forest Act of 1927. The system of VFPs provided for self-governance offorest resources through elected councils representing various (caste-based) user groups in thevillages. Although the state government tried to take over the forest management functions fromthe VFPs in the 1970s, some of the VFPs not only managed to hold on to their rights but eventuallygained reputation as a model for joint forest management in the latter years. The VFPs, where theyexist in the Aghanashini estuary, are a well-developed and sustainable system to base any futuremanagement initiatives and to replicate wherever feasible for management of Biodiversity HeritageSites (BHS) and other community-based management initiatives.

5.2 Government institutions

The government’s role, though not exactly absent in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries, ischaracterised by a sort of ‘benign neglect’. A quick look at the Department of Fisheries (DOF)illustrates this phenomenon.

5.2.1 Department of Fisheries (DOF)

The DOF supported the modernisation process through mechanisation, motorisation, infrastructuredevelopment and promotion of coastal aquaculture in the Aghanashini-Gangavali areas. At a broadlevel, the DOF’s welfare and development functions are reflected in providing subsidised fuel (whichis confined to sea-faring fisheries, i.e., motorised and mechanised operations, so of no directrelevance to estuarine fishing), housing, insurance, distress relief, and access roads. It also supportsthe community cooperatives and SHGs with revolving loan funds and provides some fishingequipment. Most of these activities are also implemented in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries.

However, the small size of the support, together with its inability to take account of the specificneeds of the estuarine fisheries, has meant that the DOF’s support to the communities remainsrandom and largely symbolic. This is because, historically, estuarine fisheries are a sort of grey areain the DOF’s work, which meant that the estuarine fishers were generally clubbed together withmarine fishing communities and received services and assistance accordingly. The lack of specificattention towards estuarine fisheries accounts for the absence of robust information or statistics onthe health of the estuarine resources or on the status of the livelihoods dependent upon them.Management issues such as overfishing, destructive fishing and competition and conflicts are onlyinadequately understood in the context of the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries and, apart fromsome vague measures, effective steps to tackle them are sorely missing. With the lack of appropriatehorizontal linkages with other departments that have a role in licensing/controlling activities – shell-mining, sand-mining – that have an effect on the estuarine ecosystem and its resources, the DOF’sability to tackle the emerging threats to the fisheries and the fishing communities needs muchstrengthening before it can be found adequate.

5.2.2 Department of Forests

Another critical department that could have a significant role in the assessment and conservation ofthe vulnerable estuarine resources is the Department of Forests, but its role in the Aghanashini-


CSM-CMPA

24

Gangavali estuaries seems to have been confined to mangrove conservation and plantation effortsaccompanied by some awareness campaigns.

However, the Forest Department’s interventions through VFCs in developing eco-friendly tourism inOm Beach (near Gokarna) and at Nushikote in Aghanashini estuary reportedly showed good results.At Nushikote, the community-based eco-tourism efforts received a blow when the KarnatakaIndustrial Development Board (KIDB) – which had been holding ownership of the 1800 acre landsince 1970s after the proposal to set up a private sector salt-manufacturing factory failed tomaterialise – objected to the Forest Department’s mangrove plantation programmes and the use oftourist boats in the area. Besides weakening a promising initiative, this also highlights a criticalproblem within the government departments: the lack of inter-departmental coordination amongthem, which also results in duplication of efforts in some respects and mutually contradictoryinvestments in others.

5.2.3 Department of Mining & Geology

This department is said to have issued permits to private parties for shell-mining and sand-mining inthe Aghanashini estuary. The licensing process – if genuine – seems to have been opaque as far asthe local communities are concerned. More serious, obviously, is the fact that the potentialimplications of such activities on the local ecosystems and their resources appear to have beencompletely overlooked – in practice, if not on paper. There is no evidence of the department staffever inspecting the quantities of shell and sand mined, or their implications for local people andecosystems.

5.2.4 Department of Agriculture

The gazni farmers complain that, subsequent to the Kharland project some 40 years ago, theDepartment of Agriculture has done very little to preserve the unique gazni system or theindigenous Khagga rice variety, which is said to be highly nutritive while also being salinity-anddisease-resistant, and capable of being grown with limited investment in any kind of soil. Some gaznifarmers also complained about the government policy of selling rice at highly subsidised rates, whichis said to depress the price of rice in general and make rice cultivation a loss-making proposition.

5.3 Laws and regulations in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries

From the community interactions, it was not apparent that any major legislations or regulations hadinfluence on the life and livelihoods of the estuarine people one way or the other. The CoastalRegulation Zone (CRZ) Act, though applicable in the estuarine regions, has not found any use in theAghanashini-Gangavali estuaries, which is considered a lacuna that gives rise to new industrialactivities being proposed to be implemented in the area at regular intervals. The increase inmangrove plantations in the estuaries is expected to make the claim for application of CRZ Actstronger, hence protect the estuaries from future threats of industrialisation and other kinds ofencroachments.

The Karnataka Marine Fisheries Regulation Act (MFRA) includes the monsoon fishing ban that isapplied in the coastal waters of Aghanashini-Gangavali area as well, but it applies only to themechanised fleet, while the non-motorised and motorised fishing operations continue unimpededboth at sea and in the estuaries. Given the potential for destructive and over fishing by these fleets,it may well be that whatever benefits the monsoon ban might have are more or less dissipatedowing to these exemptions.


CSM-CMPA

25

5.4 NGOs and self-help groups in Aghanashini-Gangavali area

Many women – and some men – are members of self-help groups (SHG) in Aghanashini area.Snehakunja, an NGO based in Kasaragod-Honnavar has reportedly set up 50 SHGs in the Aghanashiniestuarine villages. They also set up some SHGs in Gangavali, but their numbers are not known. Theactivities of the Snehakunja SHGs included: training for alternative income generation, value-addition to fish and fishery products, mangrove conservation and regeneration (in association withthe Department of Forests), and financial literacy. Some of these SHGs also received matching grantfrom the government programmes. However, the NGO does not seem to be active in the areaanymore.

A majority of people also received support from the Sri Kshetra Dharmasthala Rural DevelopmentProject (SKDRDP), which is promoted by the Dharmasthala Temple Trust for undertaking holisticdevelopment of rural and urban poor. It runs different development programmes aimed atpromoting livelihood opportunities for the disadvantaged people. SHGs are the focal point ofdelivery of all Dharmasthala services including credit, but the study could find no evidence of anyother activities by the Trust in the Aghanashini-Gangavali areas.

The SHGs in Aghanashini-Gangavali areas are primarily focused on savings and revolving creditprogrammes and their performance varies from group to group, owing both to the internal dynamicsof the group as well as to the extent of management support they receive from the externalagencies. Given the relatively small size of the investments, the SHG loans are said to be adequate tocover most household needs in some cases.

Overall, the Aghanashini-Gangavali area is marked by the existence of relatively few civil societyorganisations, whose activities also give the impression of being rather patchy and one-off effortsfocused on specific issues of their interest rather than that of the communities. This institutionalvacuum is an important constraint to undertake a proper assessment of issues and implement moresystematic attempts to address them. Most importantly, it leaves the local communities without avoice to represent their needs in the appropriate forums or to have their grievances redressed.

5.5 Research and academic institutions

There are a few research and academic institutions in coastal Karnataka, some of them in the UttaraKannada district itself, but the extent of their involvement with the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuarieshas remained limited and ad hoc. As a result, lack of qualitative and quantitative information on thestatus of, and trends relating to, the resources and the people depending on them remains a majorgap in assessing Aghanashini-Gangavali ecosystems and their problems.

As mentioned, the Centre for Ecological Sciences (CES), affiliated to IISc-Bangalore, has doneextensive documentation of the resources – both natural and human – in the two estuaries and thisinformation will need to be fine-tuned for appropriate policy-level actions in the coming years.

The Department of Studies in Marine Biology at the Post-Graduate Centre of the KarnatakaUniversity in Karwar, the College of Fisheries in Mangalore and the Karwar Research Centre of theCentral Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) have worked on different aspects of the ecologyand biological resources in and near Aghanashini-Gangavali areas. Some of these agencies wereactive in promoting ecological sustainability issues in the area, especially in advocating caution whilepromoting new development initiatives. With their support, the local communities have successfully


CSM-CMPA

26

agitated against thermal power stations, but the research support for such future actions may needto be on a stronger and more reliable foundation.

Overall, there is a clear need for more intensive applied research to study Aghanashini-Gangavaliecosystems as holistic socio-ecological entities.

6 Current status and issues relating to natural resources inAghanashini-Gangavali estuaries

As elsewhere, there is a serious lack of robust data on different natural resources and theirutilisation patterns in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries, which makes it difficult to undertake atrend analysis of the status of resources over time. If anything, this lack of data is even morepronounced in case of these two estuaries than in case of the neighbouring marine fishingcommunities as there are at least some data – however dubious – concerning marine fishing whilethe estuarine fisheries do not even figure in the available statistics. This makes it necessary todepend on anecdotal evidence from the estuarine communities themselves for any evidence of thestatus of the resources.

6.1 Fisheries

There is unanimity of agreement amongst all stakeholders met during the field study – and thisincludes both primary and institutional stakeholders – that the fishery resources in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuary are over-exploited. The evidence for this comes from:

• Less quantities, and smaller size, of fish being caught in the estuary• Prevalence of juveniles in the catch, which reportedly exceeds more than half the total catch

during some seasons• Collapse or disappearance of some commercial species – the catches of ladyfish and catfish are

reported to have come down to half from what they used to be a decade ago.

The estuaries are reportedly getting shallower with sedimentation, owing partly to shell mining andpartly to reduction in freshwater flows. The freshwater flows declined, according to the respondents,owing to poor and fluctuating rainfall from year to year and attributed to climate change. However,changes in the upstream forest vegetation and drinking water supply for urban centres such asKumta and Honavar can be more directly considered to have reduced freshwater flows into theestuary. The increased siltation in the estuaries reportedly affects fish movements, especially fromthe marine waters. It also increases salinity in the estuary to a point where some species find ituncongenial to undertake lifecycle activities.

As the estuary gets shallower, the existing deeper parts in it may be experiencing severe stress as allestuarine fishing operations are concentrated there. This may be leading to the fishing moving closerto sensitive habitats like fish breeding grounds and affect the resources.

Alongside the estuaries getting shallow, there are also places within them that get deeper anduneven due to indiscriminate sand mining – this in turn contributes to further upsetting theecosystem balance.


CSM-CMPA

27

6.2 Bivalve collection

Bivalve collection from the estuarine bed, which has been a traditional activity in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries from time immemorial, acquired all the trappings of a slash-and-burn techniqueover the last decade with results that are hardly positive for anyone connected to the activity or tothe ecosystem health.

Traditionally, the bivalve collection in the estuaries focused on various species of clams. Both menand women were involved in the activity, which was done by wading in the waters for collection ofthe clams by hand. The main consumers were the local people, especially the poor, for whom clamwas a delicacy and an essential source of protein. In fact, clams were considered a poor man’s fooduntil early 2000s.

From around 2002, the demand for bivalve meat skyrocketed as the growing demand from distantareas like Goa, Kundapur and Bhatkal saw a huge increase in the prices paid to the bivalves. Asagainst the local sale price of Rs. 40-50 per 100, the bivalves are said to fetch Rs. 100 for the samenumber in Goa. As a consequence, there was an alarming increase in the numbers of peoplecollecting them. Many of the newcomers came from non-fishing castes as well as clam collectionrequired little investment and less expertise. It is said that men and women from Aghanashinistarted going to the Gangavali area for bivalve collection probably because the latter had a biggerresource. Estimates indicate that about 22,000 tons of bivalves were collected from Aghanashiniduring 2008-9.

During the peak of this boom, each man or woman reportedly earned up to Rs. 1000 a day which,together with intense competition, gave rise to a serious fight to the finish and by 2011, the bivalvepopulations in the Gangavali area collapsed almost to zero. There was a serious decline in clampopulations in the Aghanashini estuary also. As of today, it is reported, there has been no sign of theclam populations showing a revival. A few women continue to collect clams on the estuarine bed inthe Aghanashini area, but they agree that the activity is already past its prime.

The fishers claim that bivalves need to be collected in order to flourish, which is why the enormousquantities collected during the boom period could not possibly have contributed to the decline. Theyproffer other explanations for the collapse, most important of which is the shell-mining activity that,as discussed, just happens to be one where mostly non-fishing people predominate and henceprovides a justification for transferring the blame. This is not to say that the shell mining has notcontributed to the crisis as the fishers describe it; it may well have been the case, except that thebivalve collectors themselves cannot be totally absolved of responsibility.

6.3 Shell mining

Shell mining involves collecting bivalve shells buried in layers under the estuarine bed and involvesscooping them out with shovels. People from both fishing and non-fishing backgrounds are involvedin shell mining for supply to a contractor who is reportedly issued a license for shell mining by theDepartment of Mining and Geology. The terms of the license, the area of its coverage and theduration of its validity remain shrouded in mystery and this study could not go beyond the basics ofthe operation as any enquiry into the activity immediately raises suspicions amongst the peopleinvolved and makes them literally ‘clam up’.

For the traditional fishers and bivalve collectors in the estuary, who apparently avoid working inshell-mining, it is a bane that harms the health of the estuary. Currently, this remains the biggest


CSM-CMPA

28

bone of contention in the Aghanashini estuary. The reason why the traditional fishing castes like theAmbiga and the Harikantra avoid shell mining could not be ascertained, apart from their ownassertion that it was owing to the negative impacts of shell mining on the estuarine ecosystem,especially the bivalve populations. It is possible that shell mining is intrinsically antagonistic tofisheries, which obviously makes the fishers antagonistic to it. The fact that the non-fishing castespredominate the activity might also put them off the shell mining work.

Whatever the reasons, there is truth in the fishers assertions about the negative impacts of shellmining on the estuarine resources. Hundreds of hectares of the estuarine bed are affected adverselydue to the large-scale mining activities, which create deep pits and subsidence of soil. It affects thebivalve populations whose substrata are destroyed by mining. The destruction of bivalve bedsreportedly reduces the availability of fish and crabs that come into the estuary to subsist on thebivalves, thereby reducing fish catches. By increasing turbidity and suspended particles in the watercolumn, it affects fishery health, fish life cycle events and migratory pathways. It also changes theestuary bed as the dug up mud clogs the river mouths and movements of boats and people in theestuary.

Although the fishing communities attempt to address the issue of shell mining, their feeble collectivepower remains inadequate to tackle the bigger – and well-connected – business interests at work. Ofequal importance is the local support that the activity receives from other groups in the area, whichhave developed a vested interest in its continuation.

6.4 The Gazni system

In the early 1970s, i.e., around the same time that the modernisation process was taking root infisheries, the Government of Mysore undertook a kharland project for protection of the gaznis in theAghanashini estuary. This involved constructing permanent stone embankments to replace the mudwalls that protected the gazni lands from incursion of estuarine waters. The bunds reduced thehazards of periodical inundation of the gazni lands or the breaching of bunds, cut down on therecurring expense and labour involved in maintaining bunds, and provide good road network toaccess the estuarine fields. On the flip side, it meant many major changes in the social and economicspheres, but the most important of these was the conversion of the now-permanently protectedgazni lands to aquaculture (undertaken by individuals who took the land on lease from thecommunity). This resulted in the traditional fishers who used to fish in the gaznis being kept out ofthe land, the workers who depended on gaznis and their regular maintenance having to move intoother activities and even the co-owners in the gazni system – who had little to do once the land wasauctioned off – also having to find another activity. All of this meant increased pressure on theAghanashini estuary as every one of these people moved into estuarine activities.

Alongside the dispossession of several people from using the gaznis, the kharland project alsocontributed to the abandonment of rice production in favour of shrimp culture. This however wasshort-lived but by the time shrimp culture folded up, the soil in the gaznis tended to get too saline totake up rice cultivation again. The discontinuation of rice farming in turn affected the quality ofgaznis as fish and shrimp habitats.

The interesting part of the story was that the bunds constructed under the kharland project by thegovernment nearly 4 decades ago have never been repaired ever since. The gazni owners blame thedecline of the gazni system to the poor maintenance of the dykes and other infrastructure, whichrequire massive investments that the owners themselves are unable – or unwilling – to invest


CSM-CMPA

29

themselves. The disinclination of the owners to make the investments owes to various factors, notthe least of which is the reduced profitability of operations in the gazni lands, which are furtherstrained as families grew in size while their interests – and livelihood opportunities – took them faraway from their traditional lands. The gazni owners look to the government to undertake the repairs,but there is no sign as yet of the government considering the requests favourably.

Currently, the gazni lands continue to be used as aquaculture farms, using almost the sameprinciples as applied to the extensive process of fish culture in the earlier times. However, theirproductivity is said to have come down, while the stocking of large quantities saline water forextended periods of time reportedly salinized the ground waters in the whole area, affecting eventhe normal paddy cultivation and the drinking water supplies in the adjacent lands.

6.5 Agriculture

Agriculture in the Aghanashini-Gangavali area is facing the same problems as elsewhere in thecountry, with high production costs and low market returns being the norm while the Statesupport – which covered almost every aspect of the production and marketing systems – slowlywithers away. Alongside, the reported salinization of the groundwater and soil, pressures ofurbanisation and reduced water-flows in the rivers also contribute to making the production systemsuncertain. This has led a number of people to shift from agriculture into the estuarine regions insearch of work, which they found in the form of shell mining, bivalve and crab collection, and sandmining.

6.6 Mangroves

The extent of mangroves in the Aghanashini estuary is reportedly increasing as a result of work doneby the government (Department of Forests) and the NGO, Snehakunja. As a result of this work,mangroves are taking root further upstream than before which, the ecologists believe, will help theAghanashini estuary to be taken more seriously under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) provisionsthat restrict unimpeded economic development in the coastal areas. However, the new mangroveplantations are opposed by the gazni owners who fear that the mangrove growth may lead toaccretion of sand that may affect water flows to the gaznis.

6.7 Aquaculture & Salt pans

Not much information is available on the aquaculture except that it folded up in the region owing aseries of disease outbreaks. The fishers do not see its revival as being possible in the near future.

In the 1970s, some 1800 acres of the estuarine area was handed by the government to a privatecompany for conversion to salt pans. However, the company failed to make much headway with it assalt production was found to be uneconomic. The land was returned to the government which hassince been toying with the idea of setting up one industry or another – plans include a coal-basedmega thermal plant – but with little success so far. Apart from the alienation issue, the privatecompany’s experience also raises doubts about the long-term survival of salt making as a viablelivelihood activity. This is important because of the sizeable numbers of poor people who dependupon it for their livelihoods.


CSM-CMPA

30

6.8 Sand mining

Increased levels of indiscriminate sand mining have reportedly led to:

Scoring of estuarine bed and subsidence of its banks Siltation destroying demersal fishes, fish nurseries and other benthic organisms like bivalves

and crustaceans Increased turbidity reducing light penetration into the estuary and affecting primary

production

6.9 Factors aggravating the problems in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries

While the local factors make a sizeable contribution to the state of affairs in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries, there are a few other factors that must be considered as aggravating thesituation.

Population increase

All problems currently faced by the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuarine ecosystems can be directlyattributed to increased population pressure, both from within the fishing communities and from theoutside. It is widely admitted that the increase in the intensity of fishing in the estuaries owes largelyto the growing size of local fishing populations themselves. The new generation of youngsters, withlow standards of education but having ready access to fisheries right at their doorstep, get recruitedinto fishing at a fairly early age so much so that, by the time they reach 30, they become confirmedfishers for life – and fit for little else.

Adding to the pressure on the estuaries is the continued influx of the people of other persuasions –especially from agriculture – into estuarine activities. The open access entry system into theestuaries provides unhindered access to outsiders to keep moving in, giving rise to furtherdepredation of resources. Even when they do not enter into fishing themselves, their activities –sand-mining and shell-mining have significant implications on the health of the overall ecosystem.Whatever little out-migration out of the estuary-based livelihoods is happening in the Aghanashini-Gangavali areas is made up by a much higher in-migration.

An important manifestation of the population problem in the Aghanashini estuary is the increasinglevels of competition (and smouldering tensions) between different categories of stakeholders astoo many people are forced to chase after too few – and fast declining – resources with an ever-expanding market pull exerting a major influence on the race to catch more fish. Unlike in the sea,where competition could be deflected by movements away to other fishing grounds, the restrictedspace in the estuaries does not allow spreading farther out, which is the reason why community-based systems for tenurial arrangements and allocation of resources prevailed in semi-enclosedwater-bodies elsewhere. In the absence of such options, people are forced to switch to moreintensive and more destructive extraction methods – and a classic tragedy of commons situationensues. The only example of such a thing happening in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries is thebivalve fisheries, but that is salutary enough to suggest the possibility of more such events occurringin future.


CSM-CMPA

31

Climate change

Although this requires a more thorough study to ascertain, it is possible that certain climate changephenomena have been having an impact on the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuarine ecosystems. Thereduction in freshwater inflows into the Aghanashini estuary have been attributed by allrespondents to the uncertain rainfall patterns, although – as indicated – the impact of the increasedupstream utilisation of freshwater for urban drinking water supplies and for irrigation cannot beignored either.

The salt-pan workers provided another instance of climate change affecting the salt-making process:the higher temperatures in the recent years, they claimed, have made it possible to manufacture saltfaster than ever before.

Industrialisation

Although not a major issue at the moment, the idea of setting up industries in the estuarine regionsof Aghanashini has been in the air since at least the 1970s, when a private company was allotted alarge tract of land for salt production in the area with no success. The land thus acquired by thegovernment gives rise to ideas for setting up new industries – including thermal power stations –that have met with stiff, and ultimately successful, resistance from the communities. Althoughtemporarily on hold, the idea of developing the area for industrial purposes has not been entirelydropped. There is also a proposal for developing the Tadadi fishing port at the river mouth into amajor harbour. If once industrial activity is allowed either on the Aghanashini estuary or upstream,experts fear that the ecosystem will face a serious existential crisis.

Pollution

Pollution levels in the estuaries are well under limits, but there are reports of agricultural effluentscausing damage to the estuarine resources. While it lasted, the shrimp aquaculture industryreportedly caused much effluent discharge into the estuary.

7 Community responses to the resource declinesAs with most coastal communities in India, the subsistence orientation of the Aghanashini-Gangavalicommunities goes hand in hand with equal doses of fatalism and opportunism, which are frequentlyfocused on the here-and-now with the larger questions of long-term survival left hanging in the air.Queries about arresting further slide in the natural systems’ capacity to support their livelihoods aremet with the usual world-weary, back-to-the-wall, responses, which include:

"The government must do something about the problem."

"We have no alternatives, and must continue doing this irrespective of whatever happens."

"If we don't take the fish, someone else will”.

Questions about how things came to such a pass are answered more readily – as everywhere, thecause was the ‘others’ and what they do. Who these ‘others’ are varies from place to place –mechanised boats, foreign fishing vessels, aquaculture, motorisation, factory discharges, shippingand ports – the only thing certain about them being that they are never ‘us’ or even ‘one of us’.


CSM-CMPA

32

Obviously, the ‘others’ do bear a good share of responsibility for the state of affairs but they are alsoan excuse, even a smokescreen, for what the local stakeholders themselves might be doing to theresources.

In case of the Aghanashini estuary, the role of the ‘others’ is taken by the shell-miners. There isunanimity of opinion that shell-mining is responsible for the destruction of bivalve and crustaceanfisheries in the Aghanashini estuary: the fishers’ own contribution by means of intensive overfishingis not just overlooked, but even justified as being necessary for the proliferation of the bivalve andother resources. Fishing at the river mouths, intensive and overfishing activities at sea and in theestuaries, use of small-mesh tidal nets across sensitive habitats and water passages and similar otherpractices are all important factors in the degradation of the natural habitats and resources, but thefishers are unwilling – or unable – to accept this. And any management programme that does notstart with a critical self-appraisal and a sincere interest in keeping one’s own house in order isunlikely to be effective.

7.1 Measures to address resource conservation/management concerns

While the conditions for undertaking better management remain rather weak overall, there are afew rays of hope in the form of some micro-level management initiatives that aim to address theconservation/management concerns locally. Examples noted during the field work include:

Both Ambiga and Harikranta leaders have banned use of gillnets at the river mouth where thebivalve beds are located – only hook-and-lines are allowed in order to protect the beds.Transgression of this ban is met with hefty fines and it has been reported that the fines areindeed imposed and collected.

Gazni farmers are insisting that at least some part of the gazni land be utilised for paddycultivation – failure to do so would invite penalties

Harikranta fishers have negotiated with shell-miners to avoid mining activities in their locality inAghanashini estuary. This, they say, helps protect the bed of the estuary near their habitationsand help bivalve production.

A rather roundabout way of conservation may be the recent practice of the Aghanashini bivalvecollectors - both men and women – who obtain large stocks of bivalves from Kerala and elsewherewithin coastal Karnataka. The supplies are stocked at certain places within the estuary, which iseffectively used as a warehouse, until such time that the seasonal demand for bivalves shoots up inGoa and elsewhere when the bivalves are dug up for sale. On the one hand, this exercise illustratesthe extent to which the once-abundant local resources of bivalves have been exhausted, requiringthe import of fresh stocks from elsewhere. On the other, this might allow at least a part of thebivalves planted in the estuary to take root and survive. Obviously, this requires a rigorousenvironmental impact assessment to ascertain the implications of stocking new species of bivalves inthe Aghanashini estuary and also whether stocking of local species in sheltered clam beds might bemore ecologically sustainable than introducing new species.

7.2 Measures for livelihood diversification

Traditionally, as discussed in the foregoing sections, livelihood diversification is a part of life amongthe Aghanashini-Gangavali communities and they are used to working on different livelihoodactivities seasonally; this diverse livelihood profile is also reflected at the household level as itsmembers took to different activities in order to reduce risk and even out shortfalls.


CSM-CMPA

33

However, the need for diversification in the present context differs significantly from that in the past.Whereas in the past, when both the fishing effort and the market demand were limited andremained largely constant, any shortfalls in incomes – seasonally – were met with short-termdiversification of livelihood actions. However, with increasing harvesting capacity, growingcompetition for the resources as well as expanding market demand – all of which are inter-linked –the access to resources becomes increasingly uncertain, requiring people to find long-termalternatives that seek not only to keep the incomes stable but effectively reduce their dependenceupon the resources and even take them out altogether.

There is however evidence of a range of diversification strategies being followed to cope with thedeclining/fluctuating returns. These can be broadly classified into four categories:

1. Diversification within the traditional activity (fisheries) in the local areas2. Diversification outside fisheries within the local areas3. Diversification within fisheries but outside the local area4. Diversification outside fisheries/traditional activities and outside the local area

The short duration of the study meant that only a few illustrative examples could be identified undereach of these four categories, but with more work, it is probable that many more examples oflivelihood diversification can be unearthed from the Aghanashini-Gangavali areas.

Within traditional activities, locally In fisheries, outside the area

Seasonal migration (by Ambiga fishers) fromestuarine to (motorised/mechanised) marinefishing and (for Harikantra fishers) vice versa

From traditional (estuarine) boat operatorsto mechanised fishing crew

From fishing to fish trade: more traders thanfishers in some communities

From fishing to shell-mining, sand-miningand bivalve collection

From gaznis to estuarine activities

(Women) moving from local fresh fish/dryfish trade to industrial shrimp processing inGoa, Malpe, Kerala etc.

Men moving to Malpe, Mangalore and Goato work in mechanised boats for extendedperiods

Outside fisheries, locally Outside fisheries, outside the area

In Aghanashini, shift from fishing to touristboat operations by a few persons

Fishermen in Gangavali (and not inAghanashini) work in agriculture seasonally

Women seasonally working in agriculture,cashew nut processing and other activities

Shift of Gazni operations from rice/fish tomore focused shrimp aquaculture

Educated youth working as teachers and inother local jobs

Youth moving to Goa to work in hospitalityindustry

Educated youth moving to Bangalore andother cities to work in IT and other sectors

People moving to cities to work as unskilledlabourers in construction

Recruitment into army, navy (Sea BirdProject), teaching and police professions

People (especially from Muslim communityin Gangavali) moving to the Middle East foremployment

The livelihood adaptations are both the consequence of a change (i.e., reduced fish catches orprofitability of agriculture), as well as being the cause of another change. Thus, the change in gazni


CSM-CMPA

34

practices forces people to move into estuarine shell-mining activities, which – by affecting thebivalve and fish populations in the estuary – forces the people to move out into the sea or take upanother occupation.

This also highlights the fact that not all diversification strategies have positive implications either forthe resources or for the people themselves. All the same, where positive, these strategies have theadvantage of being those identified by the people themselves which makes them a lot more likely tobe effective than any externally imposed ideas.

Tourism: A Potential Remedy?The proximity of a major pilgrimage/tourist centre like Gokarna, and the relative proximity to amajor tourist hotspot like Goa, gives rise to interest in developing tourism, especially eco-tourism, inthe picturesque Aghanashini estuary and in its neighbourhood as a potential answer to both theecological and livelihood related concerns in the estuary. The Tourism Department of Karnatakastate is reported to be working on this idea, while some fishers in the Aghanashini estuary havealready started operating tourist boats successfully.However, it is necessary to answer a few issues adequately prior to implementing the concept.Obviously, every new idea brings a lot of doubts – and reservations – in its wake, and most of thesemay be found groundless, but experience teaches that it is necessary to subject all potentialsolutions to a thorough critical evaluation in order that they would not turn out to be a problemeventually. The issues concerning promotion of tourism could be summarised tentatively as follows:Economic:

• Who within the communities will actually benefit from the tourism concept?• What are the investments needed and who’ll bear them? This is important because, to

achieve the necessary momentum, huge investments – in infrastructure, transport systemsand promotion – might be necessary and in the absence of a concerted campaign using bigresources over extended periods of time, the idea may not work.

• How many fishing families can really invest in ‘homestays’ and such like (even a ‘basic’homestay requires to have certain amenities that mean investment which the fishers do notalways have) to be able to take advantage of the opportunity?

• If lucrative, does the activity remain confined to the people of Aghanashini estuary alone, orwould it bring outsiders – with more capital, experience and links – into the area?

• Given that the impact of tourism on any local economy as a whole may be a significantincrease in the cost of living, what are its implications for general estuarine populations,especially the poor?

Socio-cultural:• How to address the questionable cultural ‘fit’ between the (generally conservative) hosts

and their guests?• The implications on the social fabric within the communities, including inter-generational

dynamics?• What is the role for women in the tourism industry?

Ecological:• How many people can really overcome their estuarine dependence by shifting to tourism-

related activities?• How to stop fresh migrants from filling the gaps created when some fishers moved into


CSM-CMPA

35

tourism?• The problem of tourist-inflicted pollution and its implications on the estuarine ecosystems…

7.3 Literacy: facing the dilemma

Literacy is generally improving in the Aghanashini-Gangavali communities, although it appears to bestill rather low and its importance not fully appreciated. A majority of people met during the fieldstudy still seemed interested to move into, or get their children move into, fishing as a mainlivelihood activity. This is suggested as owing to a number of reasons, some of which were:

That the endemic poverty requires people to study only up to a maximum of +2 levels and thendrop out to start earning. While this might be true, the fact remains that there are communitieseven less economically endowed than these where the literacy rates show much better progress.

That the relatively accessible fishing grounds are readily available, can be fished round the year(there is actually no non-fishing period in a year), and require relatively less investment.

Finally, that the inability of the educated youth to gain productive employment discouragesmost people from giving more importance to education. It is true that several educated youthhave either remained unemployed or have had to switch to fishing eventually.

8 Discussion: Management options for Aghanashini-Gangavaliestuaries

In many ways, what these ecosystems – especially Aghanashini – represent is the continuing survivalof a system that has remained largely untouched by external and ‘modern’ forces of change andfostered by a strong inter-dependence between the humans and the nature. The necessity for theextraction systems to remain rooted in the realities imposed by the local ecosystem may also rankthe two estuaries among the last bastions – if not relics – of the ‘traditional’ systems, as anythingmore sophisticated could have irreversible effects on the ecosystem and its resources. All evidencepoints to the enduring and mutually reinforcing nature of the inter-dependence between theecosystem services and the human activities (e.g., the bivalves need to be collected in order toproliferate as well as remain within the ecosystem limits; the collective systems of managementgoverning the gazni lands; the traditionally strong village forest committees in certain locations). Thechallenge for any management programme lies in ensuring that the state of equilibrium is allowed tocontinue and strengthen; it needs to build upon the existing man-nature relationships rather thanattempting to curtail them.

Now, for a quick summary of the key issues emerging from the foregoing sections:

The Aghanashini-Gangavali estuarine ecosystems are endowed with a wide diversity ofnatural resources, but which can only support small-scale extraction methods

People make use of the multiple estuarine resources using a diverse range of livelihoodstrategies, which help them to meet their subsistence needs adequately but leave limitedscope for expansion or enhancement of their livelihood profiles

The main stress factors affecting the natural resource health in the two estuaries come from:population increase (including both natural growth in endemic populations and in-migration


CSM-CMPA

36

from other sectors); more intensive extraction methods; growing market demand; andexternal factors (such as mining and other upstream activities).

The ecosystems are characterised by a lack of appropriate and effective institutional systemsfor addressing the management and livelihood concerns; the traditional mechanisms arecharacterised by vibrant – but weakening – management systems in some areas (forestry,gaznis) and by near-absence of resource management functions in others (fisheries).

The government’s attitude to the estuarine ecosystems can be categorised as ‘benignneglect’, while the civil society initiatives are too small, narrowly focused and patchy to bevery effective.

At least three factors: (i) subsistence-nature of occupations, (ii) absence of a perceptionabout the need to conserve resources or to diversify, and (iii) the lack of self-awareness andacceptance of one’s own responsibility in affecting the ecosystem health, limit the extent towhich the people are able/willing to take part in the efforts for major overhaul of systemsand practices

Fragmentation of communities – based on caste as well as occupational differences –reduces scope for effective community-based, consensual, co-management systems toemerge in the short-term.

Livelihood diversification is a fact of life among the estuarine communities, and it is changingfrom a short-term, seasonal, migration to one of a more permanent nature; however, thecurrent magnitude of diversification as well as the people’s perceptions would seem toindicate a preference to remain in traditional estuarine occupations.

Continuing influx of outsiders into the estuarine areas contributes to a tragedy of commonsscenario while reducing scope for strong community-based collectives to emerge andundertake effective management programmes.

In the final analysis, the overall system – as it exists now – is in a static mode, neitherevolving nor regressing as far as supporting the estuarine livelihoods is concerned, and thismay be the most significant barrier for the communities to take a more active role inmanagement and conservation efforts.

8.1 Discussion: Options for better management of the estuarine ecosystems

The options for intervention can be discussed in three scenarios:

8.1.1 Option 1: Leaving Nature to take its own course

This involves doing nothing and leaving things as they are so that nature – and the compulsions ofsurvival – would allow the conditions in the estuaries to improve on their own. That the estuaries –and the communities that depended on them – have survived for centuries without any consciousefforts at management (either external or internal) would support this view. However, the growingimportance as well as the pressures of the external world in influencing the local conditions andattitudes would suggest that these ‘little islands of quiet and harmony’ are unlikely to survive intothe future without more conscious and well-directed efforts to keep them that way. So, even if theconditions in the estuaries today were as good as they had ever been in the (largely idealized, if notwholly bogus) past – which doesn’t seem to be true anyway – a case can still be made for a bettermanagement of the overall system if only to ensure its continued survival in its present form.

That there are people already diversifying out of sectors like fisheries is undoubtedly true, but theirmovement cannot be viewed as a well-directed structural shift happening across the communities


CSM-CMPA

37

nor does it seem especially to curtail effort in the estuaries themselves, owing to continuedrecruitment into the systems of the younger generations as well as outsiders. If anything, morepeople appear to be entering the system than are leaving it. Lack of opportunities elsewhere wouldalso mean that people will continue to draw upon the local resources – which at least provide forbasic subsistence – for as long as they can.

8.1.2 Option 2: Implement a rigorous conservation regime to protect the natural resources

The case for a more stringent and rigorously-implemented conservation regime for improving theestuarine habitats and resources is even weaker than the one for letting things be (Option 1).Although some of the more important resources in the estuaries are under considerable stress,things have not yet reached a stage where access to the resources has to be curtailed at any cost.There may be a few specific locations – stretching over a few acres each – that may be identified forrestriction of all extraction activities, and there are also several activities – shell-mining and sand-mining, to name just two – which require to be regulated with more vigour, but overall theecosystem health does not warrant a strict regime of control and curtailment. Sensitive andendangered resources like the bivalves will need to be conserved with a more rigorous, andscientifically driven, management strategy, but even here close collaboration with the communities(i.e., people and their institutions) is an obvious requirement if only to ensure compliance.

Also, the existence of large numbers of poor and endemic estuarine communities making theirlivelihoods directly or indirectly based on these resources would mean that any wholesale measureto curtail access to the ecosystems, habitats and resources will meet with resistance and effectivenon-compliance. On the other hand, their understanding of the resources, traditional knowledgeand experience of working in the ecosystem are actually assets that would require their co-optioninto any management system rather than exclusion from it altogether.

8.1.3 Option 3: Develop innovative mechanisms for co-management

The assessment of Options 1 & 2 is only a prologue to suggesting co-management as the onlyfeasible option for conservation and management of the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries while alsoensuring the livelihood security of the estuary-dependent people.

However, the idea of co-management is even more difficult to conceptualise in the Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries than it is in other areas. For one thing, the lack of strong representativeinstitutional frameworks – community-based, government or NGO-related – to take part in theprocess remains a major bottleneck for co-management. The heterogeneity of the communitygroups and their conflicting needs will mean that setting up a co-management system to harmonisethese various demands will be a very difficult task. And developing mechanisms for morerepresentative, participatory, community-based institutions to emerge from the communities willrequire time and resources that most development projects do not have at their disposal.

All the same, a case can be made for at least making such an attempt because, without such aprocess having been gone through, there is nothing to facilitate the emergence of strong grassrootslevel organisations willing to take responsibility for their own actions and to have the capacity toimpose enforceable rules for management of resources. And whatever progress such efforts maymake will still be worth a lot more than generating short-cut ‘success stories’ that would rarelyoutlast the project itself.


CSM-CMPA

38

Equally important in a co-management process is the participation of the government agencies inthe decision-making process with the communities, the critical point being their willingness to seethemselves as equals with the community representatives. The limited nature of prior engagementof the various line departments – fisheries, forests and agriculture – with the estuarine communitiesis probably a good thing because they do not see their roles as being set in stone, henceunchangeable. All the same, much capacity building will need to go into the governmentdepartments as well to make them contribute to a participatory process of decision-making in a less-imposing way.

The community’s own participation in the co-management process is indelibly linked with theirexpectations of being able to obtain sustainable livelihoods – and not in a distant, unknowable,future, but almost right away. This will mean that unless the co-management process also addressesthe immediate livelihood needs of the communities, their participation in the management processwill only be perfunctory. Considering that it is their own livelihood strategies that are mostly thesubject of any management agenda, it is necessary that the agenda include some means tostrengthen and enhance the same.

9 Suggestions for the GIZ CSM-CMPR implementation inAghanashini-Gangavali estuaries

The CSM-CMPA Project has three main outputs, focusing on (i) setting up participatory managementsystems, (ii) capacity building for primary and institutional stakeholders to take part in themanagement process and (iii) awareness raising, public relations and policy dialogue.

9.1 Need to define the scope of different outputs

A few points made in connection with the Palk Bay study remain pertinent in this instance too,hence are reproduced here from the Palk Bay report:

Firstly, the order of the outputs needs to be turned upside down: for the participatory managementsystem to be established and become functional in its true spirit, it is necessary that the requisiteawareness raising and capacity building have been undertaken first. Experience shows that bysetting up a system first and trying to develop the necessary infrastructure and rules for its effectivefunctioning has proven to be a case of putting the cart before the horse. It is necessary to start byidentifying: which resources need to be conserved; who the stakeholders are and what their ‘stakes’may be concerning the said resource; and how equity and sustainability can be incorporated into thedecision-making process. And this can be achieved only through considerable groundwork – in theform of awareness raising and capacity building for all concerned parties (and not just the primarystakeholders) – which needs to be done prior to establishing a new management system.

Secondly, going by the emphatic need for incorporating livelihood issues into any managementsystem in order to make it work, it is necessary that the capacity building component (Output 2) beexpanded in scope to include livelihood support in the form of enhancement of existing livelihoodsalong more ecologically sustainable ways and diversification into alternative systems. Without adirect contribution to the livelihood enhancement and diversification in the project remit,community buy-in into the proposed management system will very likely remain only peripheral.


CSM-CMPA

39

Also important under this output is the consideration that capacity building is not the same astraining, as understood in most development programmes. It needs to be stressed that capacitybuilding is much more than just transferring knowledge; it also requires empowering thestakeholders so they are able to accept and employ new ways of doing and experiencing things.Especially in case of a co-management-oriented CMPA mechanism, the primary stakeholders’inability to put their views forcefully enough into the discussions comes from an inherent powerimbalance in the relations between the government stakeholders and the people. The capacitybuilding component here needs to break the hierarchical relations that prevail among people fromdifferent categories of life. This once again highlights the need for enhancing the scope of thisoutput to cover a broader range of issues (biological, technical, social, economic and institutional) ofrelevance to the coastal communities.

Finally, while recognising that awareness-raising is a very important strand of work for the project toinvest in, it is necessary to highlight the need to keep two important considerations in mind in thisrespect:

One, awareness generation is a two-way process (or, in a multi-stakeholder context, it is amulti-way process), where everybody must accept the need to learn from everybody else. Thesystems and processes that influence the day-to-day actions of the coastal communities arealmost as alien to the intervention agencies as the scientific justifications for undertakingrigorous conservation programmes are to the community stakeholders.

Two, awareness generation at the community level is not just about why they should conservethe resources. It is common experience that the communities have a far better – and more firsthand – understanding of how resources are being over-exploited and why this is not a goodtrend. What is lacking here is not so much the ‘why’ of conservation as the ‘how’ of it, i.e., howconservation could be achieved with limited impacts upon the livelihoods. Obviously, in a casewhere one’s personal wellbeing is hanging in balance with that of the natural resources, it isalmost irrational to expect the latter to take priority over the former. Without being supportedby some successful options to pursue for improved (or at least consistent) incomes, simplyraising awareness of the communities on the resource conservation aspects will amount to little.

9.2 Specific issues relating to Aghanashini-Gangavali estuaries that needconsideration while planning interventions

9.2.1 Institutional vacuum

A major constraint for any sustained development/management initiative in the Aghanashini-Gangavali is the paucity of institutions – government, NGOs or community-based – that have a goodstanding and long experience of working with the communities. Any new institutional frameworkthat the project may consider bringing into existence will face an uphill task, beginning with acredibility gap that can only be filled in over time. One possible option might be to set up a multi-agency platform, which includes the CES as the nodal agency, the departments of forests andfisheries from the government’s side, the NGO – Snehakunja, and some selected communitystakeholders (both men and women) to develop and undertake preliminary assessments and projectimplementation plans. As the project progresses, this platform could give rise to more community-based, preferably village-specific, management bodies to look after the management functions.


CSM-CMPA

40

9.2.2 Diversity of community groups and disparate agendas

The existence of several small, caste-based, clusters in each village is likely to be another majorconstraint for meaningful co-management mechanisms to emerge at the community level. The factthat the groups are split along caste, geographical origins (migrants and local people), andoccupations (traditional fishers vs sand/shell miners) would mean that the interests of each groupcould potentially run against those of the others, with the consequence that consensus building willbe quite a difficult task. It is necessary to undertake some intensive awareness generationprogrammes at the community level, probably focused on the exploitation patterns for specificresources and their implications at the ecosystem level, and to foster a core group of interestedindividuals (especially youth) to emerge from each community to take up the conservation andmanagement agendas.

9.2.3 Research into status of biological resources & valuation of ecosystem resources/services

Aside from largely impressionistic and anecdotal evidence that suggests over-exploitation ofresources and destruction of sensitive habitats and resources, there remains a major gap in thescientific data on the status of the various resources. Also missing is the economic valuation of theecosystem services and resources which will be necessary in assessment of options for livelihooddiversification for the estuarine communities. Organisations like CES, the Department for Studies inMarine Biology-Karwar and the College of Fisheries-Mangalore, have the necessary capacity toundertake such studies and these may be supported to implement them, with one requirement: thatall assessments should be carried out during a timeframe that allows the project to make use ofthem for necessary policy actions.

9.3 Suggested actions for A-G estuaries

• Awareness generation

– To raise self-awareness among the communities on own responsibility for the presentstate of resources

– To harmonise conflicting demands on the resources and their implications forlivelihoods and for resource health

– To highlight the need for livelihood support in conservation/management processes inongoing/proposed management programmes of the DOF and Forest Department

• Capacity building: needs to work at three levels

– Enhancement of current livelihood actions to improve incomes while reducingenvironmental impacts – include loss reduction strategies and value addition strategiesto maximise returns using fewer resources

– Support for livelihood diversification, using the existing community-orienteddiversification strategies as a template to further strengthen the migratory pathwaysand by exploring new livelihood diversification pathways such as ecotourism andsupport village youth to acquire necessary skills for the purpose


CSM-CMPA

41

– Develop and strengthen management capacity of all stakeholders to take part in amanagement system that recognises the communities’ responsibility towards theresources and has the necessary powers to enforce its rule system with sufficient vigour

• Set up participatory co-management mechanisms

– Explore scope for the traditional governance systems such as gazni associations and theVillage Forest Panchayats (VFPs) to undertake more rigorous, and legitimate,management functions through pilot-scale interventions

– Initiate pilot scale actions for developing consensual decision-making processes at thecommunity level, involving different stakeholder groups and ensuring a management-livelihoods linkage

– Set up pilot-scale Biodiversity Management Committees in specific locations under theappropriate legal measures/provisions of Biodiversity Act-2002 by involving allstakeholders with the help of NGOs and encourage them to develop commonmanagement plans for the resources

A study for GIZ on the fisheries-based livelihoods in Aghanashini-Gangavali area, Karnataka, India

Documents

Transcript of A study for GIZ on the fisheries-based livelihoods in Aghanashini-Gangavali area, Karnataka, India