Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Government-led development of India's marine fisheries since 1950 : catch and effort trends, and bioeconomic… Bhathal, Brajgeet 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_fall_bhathal_brajgeet.pdf [ 2.56MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0103394.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0103394-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0103394-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0103394-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0103394-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0103394-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0103394-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0103394-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0103394.ris

Full Text

    GOVERNMENT-LED DEVELOPMENT OF INDIA?S MARINE FISHERIES SINCE 1950: CATCH AND EFFORT TRENDS, AND BIOECONOMIC MODELS FOR EXPLORING ALTERNATIVE POLICIES.  by BRAJGEET BHATHAL B.Sc., The Punjab University, 1998 M.Sc., The University of British Columbia, 2004   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Zoology)    THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)   March 2014  ? Brajgeet Bhathal, 2014 ii  Abstract At present, more than 50% of global marine fisheries catches are made in developing countries, and an increasingly large fraction of these catches are entering the world market. Thus, fisheries-related issues in developing countries must be addressed as part of any discussion of global fisheries issues. This thesis analyses the status of marine fisheries in India by reconstructing essential data and constructing biological and economic models.  First, effort data were reconstructed over the period of 1950-2005 at the state level. This showed a continuous increase. Then, the catch data were updated and assembled from 1950-2005 at the species level for all states, which showed a gradual increase over time but began to level off toward the end of the period in question. CPUE, an index of relative abundance, was estimated per study area using the final time-series of catches and effective fishing effort from 1950-2005. This measure illustrated a continuous decline.   Using the above-compiled data, i.e., time series of catch and CPUE, surplus production models (Fox-linear and Schaefer-non-linear) were created for India and its east and west coasts. Both types of model used in this study indicated that at present, fisheries yields in India are near MSY, but this is achieved at excessive levels of effort and is based on a spatial expansion that is unsustainable.  Economic performance was evaluated by bioeconomic models for India in which three scenarios were generated for fishing cost based on the inclusion of different levels of subsidies. The results illustrate that economic overfishing is occurring in the Indian fisheries and the current level of fishing effort is almost twice that corresponding to fMEY, i.e., far beyond the level that maximizes economic rent. iii  Overall, the analysis indicates that fisheries are operating unsustainably, pointing toward a serious problem. Thus, India should not continue on its present course of expanding its fisheries through massive subsidization, given the depletion of stocks and poor economic efficiency of this sector. India needs to curb its existing overcapacity and could effectively start with the phasing out of trawlers, which would increase the income of other sectors and their catch per effort.  iv   Preface This dissertation is original, unpublished and independent work of the author, Brajgeet Bhathal. Dr. Daniel Pauly provided guidance and editorial oversight on all the Chapters. v   Table of contents  Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ...................................................................................................................................... iv Table of contents ....................................................................................................................... v List of tables ............................................................................................................................. ix List of figures ......................................................................................................................... xii List of acronyms ................................................................................................................... xvii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ xix Dedication ............................................................................................................................ xxii Chapter 1 The evolving marine fisheries of India ..................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction: the global context ....................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study areas ....................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Oceanographic features ................................................................................................... 6 1.4 Fishery resources ............................................................................................................. 8 1.5 Fisheries management: policies and legal framework ..................................................... 9 1.5.1 Central government policies ................................................................................... 10 1.5.1.1 Five year plans ................................................................................................ 11 1.5.1.2 Comprehensive marine fishing policy (CMFP) - 2004 ................................... 12 1.5.1.3 Other policies: deep sea fishing policy (DSFP) .............................................. 15 1.5.1.4 Other policies: trade policy ............................................................................. 16 vi  1.5.2 State government policies ....................................................................................... 17 1.5.3 Legal framework ..................................................................................................... 18 1.6 History of fishing in India ............................................................................................. 22 1.7 Development of different sectors of fisheries ............................................................... 24 1.8 Existing and emerging problems ................................................................................... 34 1.8.1 Ecosystem health: fishing down marine food web in Indian waters ...................... 35 1.8.2 Unreported catches: discards .................................................................................. 36 1.8.3 Overcapitalization ................................................................................................... 37 1.8.4 Malthusian overfishing and sectoral conflicts ........................................................ 39 1.8.5 Overexploitation ..................................................................................................... 42 1.8.6 Poor socio-economic condition of fishers .............................................................. 44 1.9 Thesis goal and objectives ............................................................................................. 45 1.10 Thesis outline ............................................................................................................... 45 Chapter 2 Effort and catch per effort reconstruction, 1950 to 2005 ....................................... 48 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 48 2.2 Materials and methods ................................................................................................... 51 2.2.1 Effort reconstruction ............................................................................................... 51 2.2.1.1 Vessels without engines .................................................................................. 53 2.2.1.2 Vessels with engines ....................................................................................... 55 2.2.2 Catch reconstruction ............................................................................................... 63 2.2.3 Estimation of catch per unit effort .......................................................................... 70 vii  2.3 Results and discussion ................................................................................................... 70 2.3.1 India ........................................................................................................................ 71 2.3.2 Gujarat .................................................................................................................... 74 2.3.3 Daman and Diu ....................................................................................................... 78 2.3.4 Maharashtra ............................................................................................................ 80 2.3.5 Goa .......................................................................................................................... 83 2.3.6 Karnataka ................................................................................................................ 86 2.3.7 Kerala ...................................................................................................................... 90 2.3.8 Lakshadweep Islands .............................................................................................. 93 2.3.9 Tamil Nadu ............................................................................................................. 97 2.3.10 Puducherry .......................................................................................................... 100 2.3.11 Andhra Pradesh ................................................................................................... 103 2.3.12 Orissa .................................................................................................................. 106 2.3.13 West Bengal ........................................................................................................ 109 2.3.14 Andaman and Nicobar Islands ............................................................................ 112 2.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 114 Chapter 3 Assessing the status of India?s marine fisheries using surplus-production models ............................................................................................................................................... 116 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 116 3.2 Materials and methods ................................................................................................. 124 3.2.1 Fox model ............................................................................................................. 124 viii  3.2.2 Non-linear Schaefer model ................................................................................... 125 3.3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 129 3.3.1 India ...................................................................................................................... 130 3.3.2 West and east coasts of India ................................................................................ 135 3.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 142 3.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 144 Chapter 4 Bioeconomic analysis of India?s marine fisheries ................................................ 146 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 146 4.2 Materials and methods ................................................................................................. 148 4.3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 154 4.4 Discussion .................................................................................................................... 156 4.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 160 Chapter 5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 161 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 169 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 244  ix  List of tables  1.1 - Five Year Plans of India developed by the Planning Commission of India????...13 1.2 - List and details of main acts (federal level) concerning fisheries along with their associated ministries??????????????????????????. 19 1.3 - Marine fisheries related acts and regulations specific to the coastal states and the UTs of India????????????????????????????????.. 20 1.4 - Marine Fishing Regulation Act of the maritime states and the Union Territories??. 25 2.1 - Details of information used to assign starting year to gear-specific vessel categories.. 59 2.2 - Catch and effort of industrial trawlers, 1951-1963, which operated in the Bombay-Saurashtra waters.............................................................................................................. 64 2.3 - Estimated total effort and catches of deep sea vessels, 1972-2005................................ 65 3.1 - Regression results of Fox models for different regions and time periods.................... 132 3.2 - Estimated values of intrinsic rate of growth (r), carrying capacity (K), catchability coefficients (q1 and q2) in Schaefer (non-linear) model for period 1965-2005.............. 135 4.1 - The ex-vessel price of fishes landed in India (1999-2000).......................................... 150 4.2 - Estimates of fisheries subsidies categorized into different types for the year 2005 in USD................................................................................................................................ 153 4.3 - Details of slope of cost curve, calculated MEY, total subsidies, the value of landings at MEY and economic rent for three different cost curves................................................ 156 5.1 - Details of CPUE (kg/kW days) for India and its states and Union Territories???.162   x  Appendix A - List of selected places and institutes visited during field trips made to different coastal states of India  ??????????????????..................????.244 Appendix B ? List of main sources used to compile effort data from 1950 to 2005??....246 Appendix C.1 - Marine fisheries catch (t) for India, 1950-2005...........................................248 Appendix C.2 - Marine fisheries catch (t) for Gujarat, 1950-2005...................................... 253 Appendix C.3 - Marine fisheries catch (t) for Daman and Diu, 1970-2005......................... 258 Appendix C.4 - Marine fisheries catch (t) for Goa, 1970-2005........................................... 261 Appendix C.5 - Marine fisheries catch (t) for Maharashtra, 1950-2005.............................. 264 Appendix C.6 - Marine fisheries catch (t) for Karnataka, 1970-2005.................................. 269 Appendix C.7 - Marine fisheries catch (t) for Kerala, 1970-2005....................................... 272 Appendix C.8 - Marine fisheries catch (t) for Lakshadweep Islands, 1970-2005................ 275 Appendix C.9 - Marine fisheries catch (t) for Tamil Nadu, 1970-2005............................... 278 Appendix C.10 - Marine fisheries catch (t) for Puducherry, 1970-2005.............................. 281 Appendix C.11 - Marine fisheries catch (t) for Andhra Pradesh, 1970-2005...................... 284 Appendix C.12 - Marine fisheries catch (t) for Orissa, 1950-2005...................................... 287 Appendix C.13 - Marine fisheries catch (t) for West Bengal, 1950-2005............................ 292 Appendix C.14 - Marine fisheries catch (t) for Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 1950-2005.... .............................................................................................................................................. 297 Appendix D.1 Marine fishing effort (hp days) for Gujarat, 1950-2005............................... 302 Appendix D.2 - Marine fishing effort (hp days) for Daman and Diu, 1950-2005............... 304 Appendix D.3 - Marine fishing effort (hp days) for Goa, 1950-2005.................................. 306  Appendix D.4 - Marine fishing effort (hp days) for Maharashtra, 1950-2005.................... 308 Appendix D.5 - Marine fishing effort (hp days) for Karnataka, 1950-2005........................ 311 Appendix D.6 - Marine fishing effort (hp days) for Kerala, 1950-2005.............................. 314 xi  Appendix D.7 - Marine fishing effort (hp days) for Lakshadweep Islands, 1950-2005.......317 Appendix D.8 - Marine fishing effort (hp days) for Tamil Nadu, 1950-2005..................... 318 Appendix D.9 - Marine fishing effort (hp days) for Puducherry, 1950-2005...................... 320 Appendix D.10 - Marine fishing effort (hp days) for Andhra Pradesh, 1950-2005............. 321 Appendix D.11 - Marine fishing effort (hp days) for Orissa, 1950-2005............................ 323 Appendix D.12 - Marine fishing effort (hp days) for West Bengal, 1950-2005.................. 325 Appendix D.13 - Marine fishing effort (hp days) for Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 1950-2005...................................................................................................................................... 328 Appendix E - Estimated intrinsic rate of growth (r) for taxonomic categories and species..... .............................................................................................................................................. 329 xii  List of figures 1.1 - Map of India, showing all maritime states and Union Territories????????... 5 1.2 - Types of fisheries, showing subtypes of both small scale and large scale fisheries ???????????????????????????????..??? 33 1.3  - Catch trends of marine fisheries of India, 1950-2010 for industrial (mechanized) and artisanal fisheries ??????...??????.??????????????. 41 2.1 - Total catch of India for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005................. 72 2.2 - Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in India, 1950-2005.... 73 2.3 - Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in India, 1950-2005........................................................ 74 2.4 - Total catch of Gujarat for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005............. 75 2.5 - Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Gujarat, 1950-2005..... .................................................................................................................................................76 2.6 - Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Gujarat, 1950-2005.................................................... 78 2.7 - Total catch of Daman and Diu for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005..... ................................................................................................................................................ 79 2.8 - Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Daman and Diu, 1950-2005.................................................................................................................................. 80 2.9 - Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Daman and Diu, 1950-2005....................................... 81 2.10 - Total catch of Maharashtra for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005... 82 2.11 - Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Maharashtra, 1950-2005.................................................................................................................................. 83 2.12 - Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Maharashtra from 1950-2005.................................. 84 2.13 - Total catch of Goa for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005................. 85 xiii  2.14 - Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Goa, 1950-2005... 86 2.15 - Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Goa from 1950-2005............................................... 87 2.16 - Total catch of Karnataka for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005....... 88 2.17 - Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Karnataka, 1950-2005.................................................................................................................................. 89 2.18 - Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Karnataka from 1950-2005...................................... 91 2.19 - Total catch of Kerala for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005............. 92 2.20 - Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Kerala, 1950-2005.... ................................................................................................................................................ 93 2.21 - Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Kerala from 1950-2005........................................... 94 2.22 - Total catch of Lakshadweep Islands for all species, excludes tuna & billfish, 1950-2005.................................................................................................................................. 95 2.23 - Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Lakshadweep Islands, 1950-2005............................................................................................................ 96 2.24 - Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Lakshadweep Islands from 1950-2005.................... 97 2.25 - Total catch of Tamil Nadu for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005.....98 2.26 - Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Tamil Nadu, 1950-2005.................................................................................................................................. 99 2.27 - Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Tamil Nadu from 1950-2005................................. 100 2.28 - Total catch of Puducherry for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005... 101 2.29 - Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Puducherry, 1950-2005................................................................................................................................ 102 2.30 - Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Puducherry from 1950-2005.................................. 103 xiv  2.31 - Total catch of Andhra Pradesh for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005... ...............................................................................................................................................104 2.32 - Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Andhra Pradesh, 1950-2005....................................................................................................................... 105 2.33 - Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Andhra Pradesh from 1950-2005.......................... 106 2.34 - Total catch of Orissa for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005........... 107 2.35 - Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Orissa, 1950-2005..... ...............................................................................................................................................108 2.36 - Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Orissa from 1950-2005.......................................... 109 2.37 - Total catch of West Bengal for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005...................................................................................................................................... 110 2.38 - Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in West Bengal, 1950-2005................................................................................................................................ 111 2.39 - Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in West Bengal from 1950-2005................................ 112 2.40 - Total catch of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, excludes tuna and billfish, 1950-2005..... ...............................................................................................................................................113 2.41 - Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 1950-2005............................................................................................ 114 2.42 - Catch -per-unit-effort in Andaman and Nicobar Islands from 1950-2005................. 115 3.1 - The natural logarithm of CPUE against annual effective fishing effort in India, 1980-2005................................................................................................................................ 130 3.2 - Total catch versus effective effort in India and the fitted Fox yield curve, 1980-2005................................................................................................................................ 131 xv  3.3 - The natural logarithm of CPUE against annual effective fishing effort in India, 1965-2005................................................................................................................................ 131 3.4 - Total catch versus effective effort in India and the fitted Fox yield curve, 1965 - 2005 ........................................................................................................................................ 132  3.5 - Time series of observed and predicted CPUE fitted in Schaefer (non-linear) model for India, 1965-2005............................................................................................................. 133 3.6 - The trend of catchability coefficient (q) in India, 1965-2005...................................... 134 3.7 - Plot of residuals against fishing area in natural log for India?s shelf fisheries............ 134 3.8 - The natural logarithm of CPUE against annual effective fishing effort for the west coast of India, 1980-2005........................................................................................................ 135 3.9 - The natural logarithm of CPUE against annual effective fishing effort for the east coast of India, 1980-2005........................................................................................................ 136 3.10 - Total catch versus effective effort and the fitted Fox yield curve for the west coast of India, 1980-2005............................................................................................................. 136 3.11 - Total catch versus effective effort and the fitted Fox yield curve for the east coast of India, 1980-2005............................................................................................................. 137 3.12 - The natural logarithm of CPUE against annual effective fishing effort for the west coast of India, 1965-2005............................................................................................... 137 3.13 - The natural logarithm of CPUE against annual effective fishing effort for the east coast of India, 1965-2005............................................................................................... 138 3.14 - Total catch versus effective effort and the fitted Fox yield curve for the west coast of India, 1965-2005............................................................................................................. 138 3.15 - Total catch versus effective effort and the fitted Fox yield curve for the east coast of India, 1965-2005............................................................................................................. 139 xvi  3.16 - The time series of observed and predicted CPUE fitted in Schaefer (non-linear) model for the west coast of India, 1965-2005........................................................................... 139 3.17 - The time series of observed and predicted CPUE fitted in Schaefer (non-linear) model for the east coast of India, 1965-2005............................................................................ 140 3.18 - Trend of catchability coefficient (q) on the west coast of India, 1965-2005............. 141 3.19 - Trend of catchability coefficient (q) on the east coast of India, 1965-2005.............. 141 4.1 - Model- I - Total catch versus effective effort and the fitted Fox yield curve along with total revenue and fishing costs, 1980-2005................................................................... 154 4.2 - Model- II - Total catch versus effective effort and the fitted Fox yield curve along with total revenue and fishing costs, 1980-2005.................................................................... 155     xvii   List of acronyms BOBP: Bay of Bengal Programme CCRF: Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing CIFNET: Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical and Engineering Training CIFT: Central Institute of Fisheries Technology CMFP: Comprehensive Marine Fishing Policy CMFRI: Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute CPI: Consumer Price Index CPUE: Catch per Unit Effort DAHD: Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying DAHD&F: Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying and Fisheries DSFP: Deep Sea Fishing Policy ECC: Equatorial Counter Current  EEZ: Exclusive Economic Zone FiB: Fishing in Balance Index FRP: Fibreglass-Reinforced Plastic GRT: Gross Register Tonnage HP: Horse Power IBM: Inboard Motor ICAR: Indian Council of Agricultural Research IMF: International Monetary Fund INP: Indo Norwegian Project KW: Kilowatt xviii  LOPs: Letters of Permission MER: Maximum Economic Rent MEY: Maximum Economic Yield MFRA: Marine Fishing Regulation Act MPEDA: Marine Products Export Development Authority MSY: Maximum Economic Yield MTI: Marine Trophic Index  NEC: North Equatorial Current  NFF: National Fishworkers Forum OAL: Overall Length OBM: Outboard Motor OMZ: Oxygen Minimum Zone QR: Quantitative Restrictions TC: Total Cost TL: Trophic Level TR: Total Revenue UT: Union Territories WTO: World Trade Organisation xix   Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank my supervisor (guru) Dr. Daniel Pauly, who helped and motivated me persistently throughout this study, through his innovative ideas, guidance, never-ending encouragement, understanding and trust. Particularly, his turn-around time of my long e-mails and revisions of thesis chapters was incredibly rapid. His approach of ?Thinking Big? and suggesting that ?No? is not an option, there is ?always a way?, helped me not only in this study, but during several tests of endurance on this journey. Once again, I thank him from the bottom of my heart, for being my pillar of strength and leaving an everlasting imprint, which I will treasure for the rest of my life.  I am equally thankful to my committee members: I thank Dr. Dirk Zeller, for answering reconstruction-related queries and his generosity of helping even at times when he was not on my committee. I thank Dr. Rashid Sumaila, for answering all economics-related questions with great patience and always encouraging me in his modest ways. I thank Dr. Steve Martell, for helping me immensely in Chapter 3 by introducing me to models in a simple way and for his approachable attitude, which made asking questions much easier.  I thank Dr. Villy Christensen for his insightful questions and suggestions, which prompted me to think in new ways. I thank Dr. Jacqueline Alder (ex-committee member) for her knowledge, expertise, and helpful advice in formative stages of this thesis and also for being a great support and friend who always encouraged and motivated. I thank Dr. Jonathan Shurin (ex-committee member) for his invaluable input and advice. I also thank my external examiner Dr. Derek Johnson for his insightful comments which have improved final version of this thesis. As well as, I thank the Chair, Dr. Vadim Marmer and University examiners, xx  Drs. Peter N. Nemetz and Evgeny Pakhomov, who asked some great questions at my defense. I also thank Anand P. Gupta, Bhagvan Parwani, C. R. Rajan, Cheryl Verghese, Edwin Joseph, G. R. Desh Bandhu, Harcharan Singh Josh, K. P. Raghuram, Kamlesh Fofandi, Lokesh Kapoor, Madhusudhan Kurup, Nithyanandan Manickam, Naveen Rajashekhar,  Rajeev Raghavan, Rajendra Badonia, Rema Devi, R. Korkandy, Satinder Singh, Sunil Kumar, V. Dixit, Vikra Lohia, Yugraj Singh Yadava and many others for their assistance in locating and making the required publications and statistics accessible. I extend my thanks to the staff and students at the UBC Fisheries Centre and Department of Zoology for their great support and valuable ideas, while making my stay memorable. Especially, thanks to Divya Varkey, Rajeev Kumar, Louise Teh and Yajie Liu to help with models and related queries, Vicky Lam for cost data, Jonathan Anticamara and Ahmed Gelchu for suggestions in effort reconstruction. I thank Collete Wabnitz and Robyn Forrest for their words of encouragement and open dialogues, Ahmed Khan, Dawit Tesfamichael, Shawn Booth, Suzzane Mondoux, Sylvie Gu?nette and Wilf Swartz for great discussions and insightful suggestions, Grace Ong for being such a great friend, listening to all my woes and joys, and Janice Doyle and Ann Tautz for their administrative support. I thank Alice Liou from Department of Zoology for her caring and considerate attitude and always going an extra mile to extend her support. She helped me immensely, particularly, in the process of submitting this thesis. I also thank Rebecca Trainor from Student Academic Services for her cooperation, support and e-mails filled with words of encouragement.  I am thankful for the financial support made available by the Sea Around Us, a scientific cooperation between UBC and the Pew Charitable Trusts, Fisheries Economics xxi  Research Unit (FERU), a tuition waiver UBC scholarship and university teaching assistantships. I am deeply thankful to my family, Harminder K. Bhathal, Palminder S. Bhatahl, Amanpreet K. Bhathal, Mandip S. Bhathal, Sharanjeet K. Malhi, Joga S. Malhi, Varinder K. Malhi and Aseem S. Malhi for their support, love and encouragement. I also extend my deepest appreciation to my friends and relatives for being there and understanding, at times when I didn?t show up at social gatherings. I thank Helen Reddy for her beautiful song, ?I am Woman?, which gave me the full dosage of energy boosts in the times when I needed it the most. I am gratefully thankful to the love of my life, Harjeet S. Bhathal, who was always beside me through his indescribable support. Above all, I can?t thank and hug enough my munchkin, Adole S. Bhathal, who could never comprehend why mom needed to study. xxii   Dedication I dedicate this thesis to Dr. Bikkar S. Lalli. He facilitated the initiation of this journey and encouraged me all along assuring that it can be achieved.     1  Chapter 1 The evolving marine fisheries of India 1.1 Introduction: the global context  Humans have been consuming seafood since at least 165,000 years ago (Marean et al. 2007); however, the exploitation rate has increased dramatically in the last century, and specifically in the last few decades. This is due to rapid human population growth and increased seafood consumption rates coupled with the globalization of high value food chains due to their increasing profitability (Delgado et al. 2003; Alder and Pauly 2010; FAO 2012). All this is driven by an enormous increase of our technical prowess, which enables us to essentially fish anything, anywhere, anytime (Pauly et al. 2002).  Although the erroneous belief in the inexhaustibility of the sea has now been largely superseded, except perhaps in some industry circles, several other factors such as changes in land use (leading to habitat modification, coastal degradation and pollution), developments in technology, subsidization and the open access nature of most fisheries, among other things, have proved disastrous to fish stocks (Hardin 1968; Hilborn and Walters 1992c; Pauly 1995; Burger et al. 2001; Watson and Pauly 2001; Kay and Alder 2005; Sumaila and Pauly 2006b; King 2007a; Pauly 2007a; Agnew et al. 2008; Pelletier and Tyedmers 2008; Sumaila et al. 2008; Pauly 2010b; Ganapathiraju 2012). Fisheries sustainability indicators confirm this; for instance, the Marine Trophic Index (MTI; mean trophic level of fisheries catches) is experiencing a decline at a rate of 0.05 - 0.1 trophic level (TL) per decade as estimated based on a global data set (Pauly et al. 1998a), and verified through national studies, i.e., for India (see Section 1.8.1), Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, Greece, Canada, Iceland, Chile and many others (Christensen 1998; Stergiou and Koulouris 2000; Pauly et al. 2001; Furness 2002; Valtysson and Pauly 2003; Pauly and Watson 2005; Bhathal and Pauly 2008; Jaureguizar and Milessi 2008; Freire and Pauly 2010; Kleisner and Pauly 2010; Kleisner and Pauly 2011; Pauly 2011a; Stergiou and Tsikliras 2011). Furthermore, within the last 100 years, 2  the biomass of predatory fishes has declined (Christensen et al. 2003; Myers and Worm 2003) by two thirds in the global oceans, and this decline is still accelerating, as 54% of this decline has occurred within the last 40 years (Christensen et al. 2011a). Humans have played a role in changing global climate and ocean temperature, which impacts species, their distribution, and community interactions (Perry et al. 2005; Cahill et al. 2012; Cheung et al. 2013a).  Cheung et al. (2013b) have recently shown that under a high-emissions scenario, the assemblage maximum body weight of marine fishes is expected to shrink globally by 14 to 24% for the period of 2000 to 2050. The greatest impact will be within tropical and intermediate latitudinal areas with an average reduction of more than 20%. Global marine ecosystems, which are exposed to these negative anthropogenic effects (direct and indirect), are impacted by ecological disruptions, e.g., jellyfish blooms around the world (Purcell et al. 2007; Brotz et al. 2012; Pauly 2012), depletion and even extirpation of marine populations (Pauly et al. 2002; Myers and Worm 2003; Dulvy et al. 2004). This may portend a bleak future for fisheries.  These trends may still be turned around, and rebuilding ecosystems is possible (Worm et al. 2009). However, for this to be achieved, overfishing, along with its environmental and ecological impacts, must be addressed. These impacts pose a threat to the social and economic wellbeing of countries, particularly for developing countries (Silvestre and Pauly 1997; Zeller et al. 2007), where fish is still a cheap source of animal protein for local populations (Pauly et al. 2005; Assan and Kumar 2009; Coulthard et al. 2011; Manach et al. 2012). India, for example, with a population of approximately 1.2 billion (Funge-Smith et al. 2005), continually struggles with the problem of malnutrition, with nearly one in four of the world's malnourished children (North 2012). The loss or even further decline of fish from the diet of its coastal inhabitants would make matters far worse.  3  The rapid growth of populations in the developing world, and in many cases, of incomes as well, has led, in conjunction with the increased demand for fish in developed countries, to a soaring increase in global fish consumption (Delgado et al. 2003; Alder and Pauly 2010). The development of fisheries has led to enormous increases in the effort that is exerted to catch a dwindling resource. Globally, fishing effort is estimated to exceed the optimum by a factor of three to four (Watson et al. 2012). Such extreme overcapacity, coupled with declining fish stocks and high fisheries subsidies, has led to significant economic losses, estimated at 50 billion US dollars annually (WorldBank 2009; Anticamara et al. 2011). Even in a developing country as India, current fishing vessel capacity is estimated to be approximately three times higher than optimum [(Somvanshi 2003); also see Section 1.8.3]. The increasing demand for seafood in the developed world is largely met by imports from developing countries, as their own fishing grounds have long been overexploited. Thus, more than 50% of global marine fisheries catches are made in developing countries, and an increasingly large fraction of these catches are entering the world market (Pauly and Zeller 2003; Zeller et al. 2009). Thus, fisheries-related issues in developing countries must be addressed as part of any discussion of global fisheries issues. Although FAO has compiled and published annual worldwide fishery statistics since 1950, based on member country reports, the datasets in question are assembled by large, arbitrary statistical areas (rather than by ecosystems) and are not verified against local data sets (Pauly and Zeller 2003; Pauly 2013). On the other hand, there is a growing need for catch-and-effort data sets with fine spatial resolution for use in ecosystem models and other estimations, e.g., stock abundance, fishing mortality and fishing cost (Watson et al. 2004a; Christensen et al. 2009) to explore policy options for effective fisheries management. Indeed, local data sets and better local knowledge are preconditions to better policy in the field of marine resource 4  management (Watson et al. 2004a), especially for developing countries, such as India, where millions of people depend on fishing for their very existence. Given that fisheries play such an important role in food security, employment, and income, it becomes essential to closely examine and evaluate the impacts of fishing on marine resources.  This chapter sets the general background for this study, including details on study areas, existing policies and history of Indian fisheries, the development of their different sectors, and my thesis goal and objectives. 1.2 Study areas  India is located between latitudes 8? 4' and 37? 6' N and longitudes 68? 7' and 97? 25' E (Figure 1.1), has 28 states (9 maritime) and 7 Union Territories (UTs are under the direct control of the central government of India) (4 maritime; Daman and Diu1, Lakshadweep Islands on the west, and Puducherry and Andaman and Nicobar Islands on the east), and covers a total land area of about 3.3 million km2 (Arora and Grover 1996d). India?s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) covers a total area of 1.63 million km2 (including the Lakshadweep Islands on the west coast), and in the Bay of Bengal, the EEZ of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands alone covers a total area of 660,000 km2 (www.seaaroundus.org). Based on geomorphological characteristics, India?s mainland coast can be divided into the west and east coasts, each with northern and southern regions, i.e., northwest, southwest, northeast, and southeast (excluding three island groups, i.e., Lakshadweep and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which are treated separately). The northwest coast (15??23? N latitude), comprising of Daman and Diu and the maritime states of Gujarat and Maharashtra, has extensive fishing grounds with the broadest continental shelf [i.e., about 340 km wide, tapering to nearly                                                  1 Daman and Diu were part of Goa until 1987 and become a separate Union Territory after statehood was conferred on Goa in May 1987 (GOI, 2004) 5  60 km in the south (Marale and Mishra 2011)] and the sea bottom is generally muddy (Pillai and Katiha 2004c). The southwest coast (8??15? N latitude), covering Goa, Karnataka, and Kerala, has a narrow continental shelf, but it is one of the major upwelling regions in the Indian Ocean (Chiranjivi et al. 2013). The continental shelf of the eastern coast is narrower i.e., about one-third the western shelf (Ahmad 2012).                  The southeast coast (10??15? N latitude), comprising Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, is characterized by coral and rocky grounds, while the northeast coast (15??21? N latitude), covering Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, and West Bengal, has predominantly muddy sea bottoms (Pillai and Katiha 2004c).  Figure 1.1 The maritime States and Union Territories of India with the Arabian Sea on the west (including the Lakshadweep Islands) and the Bay of Bengal in the east (including Andaman and Nicobar Islands). The shelf (dark grey) and its 200 m depth limits are also shown, along with the rest of the Indian EEZ (light grey). Adapted from the Global Maritime Database, www.gd-ais.com. 6  1.3 Oceanographic features The country tapers off near the Tropic of Cancer into the north Indian Ocean, between the Arabian Sea on the west and the Bay of Bengal on the east.  Although both the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal occur within the same latitude range and are under the direct influence of monsoons, including seasonal reversal of surface circulation, they are very different from each other. The Arabian Sea is characterised by a relatively lower temperature, higher salinity2 and abundant nutrients, due to upwelling discussed below (Pannikar and Jayaram 1966; Jhingran 1975) leading to higher plankton production. Thus, it also has a richer fish fauna, both in terms of diversity and abundance (Ramamirtham and Rao 1973). In contrast, the Bay of Bengal has a higher temperature (resulting in a strongly stratified surface layer), lower salinity [as major rivers, i.e., Irrawady, Brahmaputra, Ganges, Godavari, Krishna and Cauvery drain into this sea; (Gaunsa et al. 2005)], and relatively lower primary productivity (Dwivedi 1993; Chauhan et al. 2001). Thus, its depth integrated primary production is almost one order of magnitude less than in the Arabian Sea (Kumar et al. 2002). The surface circulation of waters in these two seas occurs due to the north equatorial current (NEC), the equatorial counter current (ECC), and the monsoon current (Bowditch 2002; Shankar et al. 2002). There are two monsoons in India: the Northeast monsoon (winter: November to February) and the Southwest monsoon (summer: June to September); the latter causes the reversal of surface currents, i.e., to an easterly flow, and replaces the NEC and ECC.  During the summer monsoon, coastal upwelling occurs at varying intensities along the two coasts with stronger upwelling on the west (Pillai and Katiha 2004c).                                                  2 Only two major rivers, Tapti and Narmada, discharge into this sea; in addition, excessive evaporation over precipitation and saline water intrusion from the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea leads to the formation of higher surface salinities (Kumar et al 2001). 7  In the Arabian Sea, biological productivity is maintained all year long because it benefits from both monsoons. Strong south-westerly winds during the southwest monsoon result in coastal and open-ocean upwelling (Gaunsa et al. 2005). During the north-east monsoon, the prevailing northeast trade winds intensify evaporation, resulting in surface cooling which, combined with reduced incoming solar radiation and high ambient salinity, results in weak stratification, thus driving convective mixing and leading to upward transport of nutrients (Dey and Ramesh 2003). Given the high primary production, the oxygen levels are very low in deeper layers (between 150 to 1000 m), resulting in a well-developed oxygen minimum zone (OMZ), where only a specialist community of organisms can thrive (Banse 1959; Gerson 2005; Larkin 2005).  In contrast, in the Bay of Bengal, there is no evidence of strong upwelling except for very localized ones, such as close to the south-western boundary during summer (Shetye et al. 1991). The scarcity of upwelling is due to the strong upper layer stratification and low-speed winds, which are unable to break the stratification, and restrict vertical mixing to depth of < 20 m. This curtails the upward flow of nutrients, keeping the region unproductive (Gaunsa et al. 2005). These different geomorphology and hydrographic conditions have important consequences for fisheries. Thus, the west coast (the southern portion of which is also known as the Malabar Coast), which has a broader continental shelf, accounts for over 72% of Indian fish catches (based on average catches for the time period 1950?2005). In comparison, the east coast (also known as Coromandel Coast), contributes less than 28% to the total catch. Also, the diversity of the pelagic resources is higher off the west than the east coast and vice versa for the demersal resources (Bensam 2000; Pillai and Pillai 2000). This theme, i.e., the difference in the fish resources of the two areas and their relative contributions to India?s catches, is the topic of the next section. 8  1.4 Fishery resources  The waters along the Indian coast and offshore to the limits of the Indian EEZ are home to a huge biodiversity. Thus, as many as 500 pelagic and demersal fish species contribute to the multi-species, multi-sector fisheries (Pillai and Pillai 2000), and the average contribution of these two groups to the overall catches for 1950?2005 are 53% and 47%, respectively. There also exist species specific fisheries, for example, for Indian oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps), Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and Bombay duck (Harpadon nehereus) and yet the bycatch of these fisheries can be very significant. Few groups dominate the total catch and based on the average for 1950?2005, the clupeoids (29%; including the Indian oil sardine), crustaceans (16%; including prawns) and mackerel (6%; including Indian mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta) jointly contributed 51% of total Indian catches. While Indian oil sardine has contributed significantly to the catches over the years, the population and hence catch of this fish fluctuates strongly, and so does its contribution to the total catch of India, which varied between 1% and 34% (Bhathal 2004, 2005). Major pelagic groups reported in Indian catch statistics are clupeoids such as wolf herring Chirocentrus dorab, Indian oil sardine Sardinella longiceps, hilsa shad Tenualosa ilisha, anchovies Anchoviella spp. and Thrissocles spp., Bombay duck Harpadon nehereus, ribbon fishes, carangids, i.e., jacks and their relatives; including horse mackerel, scads, pomfrets, i.e., black Apolectus niger silver Pampus argenteus and Chinese pomfret Pampus chinensis, Indian mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta, seer fishes Scomberomorus commersoni, S. guttatus and S. lineolatus, and various tuna species (Bensam 2000; Pillai and Pillai 2000; Harper et al. 2011). Some pelagic species enjoy wide geographical distribution, while others, such as shads and Bombay duck have restricted distributions.  9  Major demersal resources contributing to Indian catches are elasmobranchs (i.e., sharks, skates, and rays), eels, catfishes, lizard fishes, perches (i.e., rock cods, snappers, and breams), goatfishes, threadfins, croakers, silverbellies (Leiognathus spp., Gazza spp.), big jawed jumper (Lactarius lactarius), flatfishes (halibut, flounders, soles), crustaceans (penaeid and other prawns, lobsters, crabs, stomatopods), molluscs, and cephalopods (Bensam 2000; Pillai and Pillai 2000).  A detailed listing of the taxa included in Indian fisheries statistics is given in Bhathal (2005),  while FishBase (www.fishbase.org) may be consulted for information on the 1,763 marine fish species currently3 reported as occurring in India (including the taxa mentioned above), based on extensive sources from Indian and other authors. A similar database, SeaLifeBase (www.sealifebase.org) can be used to obtain information on, currently, 87 species of non-fish vertebrates (mainly marine mammals, seabirds and sea turtles) and a much larger and rapidly growing number of invertebrate species in Indian seas.  1.5 Fisheries management: policies and legal framework The Indian Constitution has provisions to guide the policy-making process and to define the functions of different levels of the government, i.e., between the states, UTs and the Union (federal). The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India specifies subjects that are on the Union List, the State List and the Concurrent List (Salim and Narayanakumar 2012). Fisheries within the territorial waters (12 nautical miles from shore) are subjected to state jurisdiction, while the waters beyond this limit but within the EEZ fall under the purview of the central government. Both the central and state governments play a vital role in the development, management, conservation, and monitoring of India?s fisheries (Somvanshi 2001a; Yadav 2001). The central government, however, is also responsible for surveying and assessing fisheries                                                  3 As of August 2013 10  resources, research, and training (Mathew 2003) and for providing financial assistance to the states and UTs for implementation of Central Sector and Centrally Sponsored Schemes (GOI 2004b). In addition, it also has an advisory role, for example, the Marine Fishing Regulation Act (MFRA) was adapted by all the maritime states from a bill that the union government had prepared and circulated in 1979 (Salim and Narayanakumar 2012).  There is no distinct fisheries ministry or department at the national level, and the responsibility for the administration of fisheries lies with the Ministry of Agriculture, i.e., with the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, or DAHD, which was recently renamed Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying and Fisheries, or -DAHD&F under the Indian Council for Agricultural Research, or ICAR. Furthermore, the responsibility for fisheries and the marine habitat is spread over several agencies and ministries at the Central (e.g., Ministry of Agriculture, Commerce and Industry, Environment and Forests, Food Processing Industries, and Defence) and State (e.g., Department of Fisheries, Forests, and Ports) levels (Salim and Narayanakumar 2012), which is discussed within the regulations Section 1.5.3. 1.5.1 Central government policies There are two key policy documents which reveal central policy on fisheries: the Five Year Plans developed by the Planning Commission, and the Central Marine Fishing Policy (2004) developed by the Ministry of Agriculture. Over time, several other policies and guidelines (e.g., trade policy, deep sea policy) were announced in response to changing circumstances in the fisheries sector, as briefly discussed in this section.  The policy shift in 1990s affected the agriculture sector, including fisheries indirectly through the devaluation of exchange rates, the liberalisation of external trade, and less protection to industry. This shift happened because India nearly defaulted on a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1991 due to the severity of the balance-of-payments deficit that it faced 11  since the mid-1970s. Its only escape was to agree to a liberalization strategy drawn up by the IMF, which included the phased reduction of import duties, reduced government participation, and reduced reliance on subsidies (Byers 1998; Johnson 2002).  Moreover, by the end of 1991, it was belatedly realized that the marine fisheries were reaching their maximum catches in the inshore areas and had, indeed, overexploited various fishing grounds, and that therefore, no substantial catch increase could be expected. Thus, the emphasis of fisheries development shifted towards the expansion of the inland sector and aquaculture, as well as to offshore and deep-sea fisheries (ICAR 1998; Johnson 2002). This led to the announcement of a Deep Sea Fishing Policy in 1991 (see 1.5.1.3), as a part of the economic reforms programme.  The liberalisation of the Indian economy in the 1990s coincided with the establishment of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), through which India, one of the WTO?s influential members, became an important signatory to the various trade agreements. Thus, the policies? focus was to stabilize India?s economic performance by guiding the domestic economy, and at the same time, ensuring that all the processes were in line with global trade agreements (Salagrama 2004). 1.5.1.1 Five year plans Until 2004, in the absence of a unified comprehensive policy, the Planning Commission via the successive Five Year Plans of India formulated broad policies, which set out strategies and objectives for the fisheries sector. An overview of these Five Year Plans reveals that, with time, the priorities of the central government gradually shifted from providing fish as a protein supply to the poor (First Five Year Plan) towards increasing foreign exchange reserves (Ninth Five Year Plan), and recently, the need for conservation and management is explicitly recognized (Tenth Five Year Plan?Twelfth Five Year Plan). The main objectives of fishery 12  development policies through these different plans have been to: (1) increase fish supply and promote self-sufficiency; (2) accelerate economic growth and generate employment; (3) increase fleet modernization and foster transition from inshore towards offshore (deep sea) fisheries; (4) improve the socioeconomic conditions of fishers; (5) expand the export of marine products; (6) strengthen the network of research and educational institutions meant to support fisheries; (7) improve infrastructure and post-harvest operations; (8) increase the per capita availability and consumption of fish; (9) adopt an integrated approach to fisheries and aquaculture; and (10) ensure sustainability and maintain ecological integrity and biodiversity (GOI 1951, 1956, 1961, 1969, 1974, 1980, 1985b, 1992, 1997, 2002b, 2006, 2011; Bensam 1999c; Johnson 2002). It will be noted that several of these goals (e.g., increasing local fish supply and exports are, to a large extent, mutually incompatible).  Until recently, fish had been treated as an agricultural commodity in India and was guided by the same goals as agriculture: increasing supply, product diversification, employment, and foreign exchange generation. However, this started to change as the central government promulgated a Comprehensive Marine Fishery Policy in 2004 (GOI 2004b), in which, along with other elements, ecological sustainability was emphasized.  1.5.1.2 Comprehensive marine fishing policy (CMFP) - 2004 The Comprehensive Marine Fishing Policy (CMFP) was originally drawn up in 2000 and adopted in 2004. The 2004 CMFP consists of the following components: (1) ensuring social and economic equity; (2) optimal use of fishery resources; (3) environmental protection; (4) preservation and sustainability; (5) infrastructure development; (6) strict fisheries management system; (7) an improved regulatory and Monitoring, Control, Surveillance (MCS) systems; and (8) fisheries development in the UTs of Lakshadweep and Andaman and Nicobar Islands (DAHD 2004a).  13  Table 1.1 Five Year Plans of India developed and executed by the Planning Commission of India. It details the primary objectives and major developments during a Plan period. Sources: (GOI 1951-2011; Bensam 1999c; Johnson 2002).  Plan period Duration Main objectives and developments I 1951-1956 ? Increase fish catch by introduction of mechanized/motorized boats; ? Improve fisheries statistics, ground and training facilities; ? Initiate the charting for deep sea fishing grounds. II 1956-1961 ? Introduction of new vessels and gears (expansion of existing initiatives); ? Improve infrastructure for preservation, processing, storage, transportation; ? Set up multipurpose co-operative societies for well being of fishers. III 1961-1966 ? Improve equipment and designs of mechanized fishing vessels; ? Adequate equipments and facilities for preserving fish and their marketing; ? Development of fisheries education and research institutes; ? Improve condition of fishers and focus on export trade. Annual Plan 1966-1968 ? Encourage export trade. IV 1969-1974 ? Expansion of export trade; ? Initiation of deep sea fishing (import of trawlers) and their local construction; ? Construction of fishing harbours at major and minor ports; ? Intensification of exploratory fishery surveys. V 1974-1979 ? Declaration of EEZ (1976; came into force in 1977); ? Scheme of chartering of foreign fishing vessels (1977); ? Development of fishing harbours. Annual Plan 1979 ? Diversification of fishery products. VI 1980-1985 ? Motorisation of artisanal crafts and exploratory surveys in offshore grounds; ? Maritime Zone of India Act, 1981 to regulate foreign fishing vessels; ? Encouraged deep-sea fishing via licensing, chartering/ joint venture schemes. VII 1985-1989 ? Revised chartering (Deep Sea) policy (1986; announced in June 1987); ? Development of post-harvest technologies. Annual Plan 1990 ? Further development of deep-sea fishing. Annual Plan 1991 ? Newer Deep Sea Policy, 1991; ? Substantial growth in motorized artisanal fleet of ring seiners. VIII 1992-1996 ? Development of coastal aquaculture; ? Substantial growth in motorized artisanal fleet of ring seiners; ? Export trade changes from a resource-based to food engineering industry. IX 1997-2002 ? Increase fish production (aquaculture and offshore fisheries) and further diversify fisheries and fishery products; ? Onset of multiday fishing and strengthen research activities. X 2002-2007 ? Enhance fish production from aquaculture, marine and inland fisheries; ? Practise responsible and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture; ? Encourage equitable participation; improve socioeconomic status of fishers; ? Central Marine Fishing Policy (2004); ? Expansion of oceanic fisheries, conversion of shrimp trawlers to tuna long liners. XI 2007-2012 ? Increase fish production, focus on unexplored potentials (island fisheries); ? Maintain ecosystem health, conserve aquatic resources and genetic diversity; ? Improve facilities for fish landing, handling and marketing; ? Conversion of shrimp trawlers to tuna long liners. XII 2012-2017 ? Enhance fish production with focus on sustainable development; ? Improve management of fisheries and encourage optimal exploitation; ? Maximize net economic returns and expand export trade. 14  It also emphasizes that the principle of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing (CCRF) should be incorporated into every policy formulation. CCRF provides ample guidelines for the management of fisheries and has been useful for the central government to emphasize and include sustainability in this policy. Earlier, the code was translated into different languages and was widespread in the maritime states of India, as a self-help guide, but implementation was not easy given the involvement of multiple stakeholders with differing viewpoints. In this policy, the need to reform the legal framework was identified, and regional consultations were held to discuss how to make this policy operational. Three key objectives of this policy are (1) ?to augment marine fish production of the country up to the sustainable level in a responsible manner so as to boost export of sea food from the country and also to increase per capita fish protein intake of the masses; (2) to ensure socio-economic security of the artisanal fishermen whose livelihood solely depends on this vocation; and (3) to ensure sustainable development of marine fisheries with due concern for ecological integrity and biodiversity? (DAHD 2004a).  Further, this policy advocates protection, consideration and encouragement of subsistence-level fishers and technology transfer to small-scale sectors, for instance, the motorisation of about 50% of traditional craft and infrastructure support to the industrial sector. The government has brought traditional and coastal fishers, those existing on subsistence and small-scale fishing, together with stakeholders in the deep-sea sector for harmonized development of marine fisheries. This current focus on collective and harmonized expansion is a new development, as there had been a disconnect between different sectors. Mostly, the industrial sector received special attention (often based on political connections) for its further development and expansion, 15  1.5.1.3 Other policies: deep sea fishing policy (DSFP) The Union Government made several attempts to encourage joint ventures in order to promote deep-sea fishing after declaration of its EEZ in 1976; these, unfortunately, were futile. The first deep-sea policy was announced in 1977, providing for chartering arrangements with foreign operators. Subsequently, a newer Deep Sea Fishing Policy (DSFP) was developed in 1986, and a revised version was announced on March 1991, as a part of the economic reforms programme (Rao 2009a). The policy involved three schemes, i.e., (1) leasing of foreign fishing vessels to operate in the Indian EEZ beyond 12 nautical miles; (2) engaging foreign fishing vessels for test fishing; and (3) forming joint ventures between Indian and foreign companies on a 49:51 equity basis in deep-sea fishing, processing and marketing (Atookaren 1991; Das 1993). The provision of transhipment at sea of catch was included in the DSFP of 1991 because of requests by purse seine owners (mainly targeting tuna) for a waiver from the requirement to report back to base ports before export. They argued that it would involve avoidable fuel expenditures and would make such projects more economically viable. As a result, to encourage tuna purse seining operations in India, the transfer of catch at sea was permitted, but only after an issuance of certificate by reputed surveyors (Das 1993). However, as a result of protests from local fishers and immense pressure from the National Fishworkers Forum (NFF), this policy was rescinded in 1997. Nevertheless, there is still continued interest in strengthening the deep-sea fishing policy in order to encourage the exploitation of deep-water resources. However, opinions on this are diverse, with few supporting, especially government and many opposing the involvement of foreign companies claiming to support traditional fishers (Shajahan, 1996; Sathiadas 2000; DAHD 2004a; Salagrama, 2004; DAHD 2011). In 2002, similar to the 1991 provision of DSFP, the new set of guidelines came with an order issued by DAHD for fishing operations in the EEZ. Its main focus was the registration 16  status of foreign fishing vessels; now, those fishing companies with 100% foreign owned-capital may register as Indian companies and fly the Indian flag (Morgan 2006). The Letters of Permission (LOPs) issued under these guidelines to 15 Indian companies (DAHD&F 2005) were condemned countrywide as promoting IUU fishing (Ganapathiraju 2012; Hamid 2012). Furthermore, these guidelines have been criticized as favouring foreign deep-sea fishing vessel operators registered as Indian companies given its two major provisions: (1) deep-sea fishing vessel above 20 m can take a transhipment at sea of fish and can leave the Indian EEZ for foreign ports; and (2) there is no obligation for the vessels to return to the base port in India within a stipulated period (Mathew 2003).  1.5.1.4 Other policies: trade policy In the early 1990s, India faced a serious balance of payments crisis and thus, embarked upon a massive programme of liberalisation (Byers 1998). In order to make trade policies consistent with the new economic policies, substantial changes were made (Bhat 2011). Some of the changes introduced in 1991, which had an effect on agricultural trade and the fisheries sector were that, first, the canalization of exports and imports was significantly reduced in that the government could no longer determine the value or nature of exports or imports. Second, Quantitative Restrictions (QRs), i.e., measures other than tariffs or duties taken to restrict imports or exports within agricultural trade flows, were completely dismantled in April, 2001 (Maya et al. 2001). Out of 715 items, 60 were fishery products, which included both high-value (e.g., tuna, seerfish, pomfret) and low-value (sardines and mackerel) fish. Third, tariffs were reduced, and fish products were allowed to be exported under the open general license (OGL), i.e., they could be exported without a license (Anjani Kumar 2003; Salagrama 2004). Different stakeholders had conflicting opinions on the removal of QRs and the relaxation in tariffs from 60% (1988-89) to 35% (2002-03) (Maya et al. 2001). Seafood exporters and fish 17  processing industries welcomed the policy encouraging international trade. First, the processing factories could fully utilize their capacity, while they otherwise worked at 14% capacity in 2000 and 2001, due to shortage of raw material  during the monsoon season (Maya et al. 2001).  Also, they could import tuna as tuna prices in Indian markets were higher.  Consumers saw it, by and large, as a benefit due to competitive pricing leading to cheaper prices. Others in the fisheries sector, including fishers, feared that this would destabilize prices, and perhaps even crash the market due to large-scale imports, and expose Indian markets to the violent price fluctuations of international markets, thus jeopardizing their means of livelihood. However, this was seen as a farfetched scenario because of (1) the competitive price of fish from India in international markets; (2) imported frozen sea food was more expensive than local fish; and (3) the absence of a market for new imported varieties among Indian consumers who did not appreciate cold water species (Anjani Kumar 2003; Salagrama 2004). 1.5.2 State government policies  State-level fisheries policies and policy statements are also guided by the Five Year Plans and Comprehensive Marine Fisheries Policy, 2004. In many states, there is no exclusive fishery policy, and the subject of fisheries is discussed as part of agricultural policy and sometimes as part of states? industrial policy (GOG 2009; Babu et al. 2012). However, leasing policy for fishing in inland water bodies does exist in most of the states. Even in states where fishery policies exist (e.g., Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa), either on a year-to-year basis (e.g., annual policy notes in Tamil Nadu) or as part of a Five Year Plan, they are usually incomplete. The overall focus has usually been on the further development of fisheries to increase fish catches, and improve the socioeconomic condition of fishers. However, the whole gamut of fisheries (development, management and conservation) is not taken into consideration (BOBP 1990; Fernandez 2004; Tietze et al. 2007; 18  GOTN 2010; Sampath and Srinivasan 2010; GOK 2011; GOTN 2011; GOK 2012; GOTN 2012). Lately, a comprehensive draft of fisheries policies was formulated in three maritime states, Karnataka, Kerala and Orissa, which is still awaiting approval by respective state?s legislatures due to the lack of political will and leadership to take these initiatives forward (Sampath and Srinivasan 2010). Many state governments are also taking steps to gradually develop a vision, policy and strategic action plan for future development and management of fisheries. The Department of Andhra Pradesh, for example, prepared an approach paper called ?Vision 2020? with the main objectives of reducing fishing capacity, while improving fisher welfare and coordination of research activities (GOAP 2012).  Recently, ?sustainable fisheries? is emerging as a key term in several government documents and websites. However, there are no details as to how this will be achieved, and existing regulations do not do justice to the intention of sustainability.  1.5.3 Legal framework A legal framework is essential for the protection and conservation of fisheries resources, which is key component of fisheries management (Cochrane 2002). The British Government had enacted the Indian Fisheries Act of 1897, which restrained certain injurious fishing activities in seas and inland waters. This Act banned and penalized the usage of explosives and poisons to catch fish, and it also empowered the provincial governments to frame rules under it (BOBP 1982a; Srivastava et al. 1991; Bensam 1999b). It is still in force, and various states and UTs have introduced fishery legislations under its enabling provision.  Following Independence in 1947, various Acts and regulations were promulgated. The details of some at national level related to fisheries (directly or indirectly) are listed chronologically in Table 1.2, while state and UT-specific regulations of marine fisheries are listed in Table 1.3.  19  Table 1.2 List and details of main acts (federal level) concerning fisheries along with their associated ministries under which they were formulated (GOI 1972; Nawaz 1981a; Choudhury 1987; Muralidharan 2009; Jayasankar 2012; Salim and Narayanakumar 2012); nm: nautical mile; MPEDA: Marine Products Export Development Authority. Year Acts Details Associated ministry 1897 Indian Fisheries Act Restrains use of explosives or poisons to catch fish.  1972 The Marine Products Export Development Authority Act Provide for the establishment of an authority (MPEDA) for the development of the marine products industry under the control of union. Ministry of Commerce 1972 The Indian Wildlife Protection Act Offers protection to marine biota; amended in 1991 and then in 2001 to include several species of fish, corals, sea cucumbers and sea shells requiring protection. Ministry of Environment and Forest 1974 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act Control of pollution from land-based sources. Ministry of Environment and Forest 1976 Maritime Zones Act Describes various zones, the Territorial Waters (12 nautical miles), the Contiguous Zone (24 nautical miles), the Continental Shelf (200 nautical miles), and the EEZ. Rules framed in 1982, forbid fishing by foreign vessels in coastal areas. Chartered vessels shall fish beyond 24 nm from the shore on the west and beyond 12 nm miles from the shore on the east coast as a general rule. Ministry of Defence 1978 Coast Guard Act Protects and enforces maritime law with its jurisdiction over national, international waters. In 1993, Coast Guard was made directly responsible for combating marine pollution. In 1996, National Oil Spill Disaster Contingency Plan was promulgated explaining course of action in the event of oil spills. Ministry of Defence 1978 Marine Fishing Regulation Acts Provides guidelines to the maritime states to enact laws to regulate fishing vessels in the 12 nm territorial sea, and minimize the disputes among different sectors of the industry Ministry of Agriculture 1980 Forest Conservation Act Provides protection to marine biodiversity. Ministry of Environment and Forest 1986 Environment Protection Act The Coastal Regulation Zone notification, 1991, outlines a zoning scheme to regulate development in a defined coastal strip. It also includes standards to protect and improve environmental quality, control and reduce pollution from all sources. Ministry of Environment and Forest 2002 The Biological Diversity Act Aims at the conservation of biological diversity & sustainable use of its components. Ministry of Environment and Forest 20  Table 1.3 Marine fisheries related acts and regulations specific to the coastal states and the UTs of India (Davidar 1968; Nawaz 1981b; Atookaren 1991; James 1992; GOAP 1994; Rajguru 1994; Arora and Grover 1996b, a, c; JICA 1999; GOL 2000; Yadav 2001; Somvanshi 2001a; MOEF 2002; GOG 2003; GOGD&D 2003; Vivekanandan 2003; Islands 2004; GOP 2008). States and UTs Acts and regulations Year of enactment Gujarat The Indian Fisheries Act  1897 The Gujarat Fisheries Act  2003 Maharashtra The Maharashtra Fisheries Act 1961 The Maharashtra Marine Fishing Regulation Act 1981 Goa Indian Fisheries (Goa, Daman, Diu Amendment Act) 1968 The Goa, Daman and Diu Marine Fishing Regulation Act 1980 Karnataka The Mysore Game and Fish Preservation Act 2 1901 The Karnataka Marine Fishing Regulation Act 1986 Kerala The Game and Fish Protection Regulation Act 12  1914 Cochin Fisheries Act 3 1917 The United Provinces Fisheries Act 45 1948 Government of Travancore-Cochin Fisheries Act 34 1950 The Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Act and Rules 1980 Daman and Diu Indian Fisheries (Goa, Daman, Diu Amendment Act) 1968 The Goa, Daman and Diu Marine Fishing Regulation Act 1980 Lakshadweep Islands The Lakshadweep Marine Fishing Regulation Act 2000 Tamil Nadu Nilgiris Game and Fish Preservation Act II 1879 Government of Bengal and Madras Amendment Act 11 1929 The Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules 1983 Andhra Pradesh Executive Order of the Government of Andhra Pradesh 1983 Indian fisheries (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment Act) 1961 The Andhra Pradesh Marine Fishing Regulation Act 1994 Orissa The Orissa Marine Fishing Regulation Act 10 1981 The Orissa Marine Fishing Regulation Rules 1983 Judgement by the Orissa High court making mandatory the use of Turtle Exclusion Devices (TED) by fishing trawlers 1998 West Bengal Bengal Private Fisheries Protection Act 2 1889 Government of Bengal and Madras Amendment Act 11 1929 Fisheries (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1965 The West Bengal Marine Fishing Regulation Act 1993 Puducherry  The Indian Fisheries (Pondicherry Amendment), Act 18 1965 The Pondicherry Marine Fishing Regulation Act 2008 The Pondicherry Marine Fishing Regulation Rules 2009 Andaman and Nicobar Islands Andaman and Nicobar Islands Fisheries Regulation 1 1938 Andaman and Nicobar Islands Marine Fishing Regulation 2003 21  The Marine Fishing Regulation Acts (Table 1.4) were enacted in response to local issues and attempt to manage fishery resources within territorial waters through following (1) zone regulations based on vessel types; (2) registration and licensing of fishing vessels; and (3) control and restriction of certain gears and mesh size restrictions. For example, in Gujarat, the use of wounding gears, such as spears, arrows and harpoons is prohibited, and in the territorial waters of Tamil Nadu, pair trawling and purse seining are banned (Varkey et al. 2006). Furthermore, the states of Orissa, West Bengal, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh have included Turtle Excluder Device (TED) regulations for trawlers to protect endangered species of sea turtles (Rao 2011).  In addition, MFRAs also include seasonal fishing closures (mainly during monsoon season to restrict the capture of juvenile fishes) and fishing restrictions on specific days or times of the day. Night trawling, for example, is banned in certain parts of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh (Soumya and Shah 2004). Fleet capacity is also regulated; for example, the MFRA of Orissa has clearly specified that allowable fleet size for vessel below 15 m or 25 gross register tonnage (GRT) and operating beyond 5 km from shore is 1000 vessels, and, as per the Kerala?s MFRA, the registration of new mechanized vessels and motorized boats has stopped since October 2008 (James 1992; Muralidharan 2009).  The registration and licensing is essential for all crafts including unmotorized traditional vessels (except in Kerala where vessels without engines were exempted), but they can fish anywhere in the sea, while limits exists for other categories of vessels. Moreover, it is mandatory in all states that the registered number to be written legibly and displayed on either side of the fishing craft (Fernandez 2004).  22  India is also a signatory to several international instruments related to marine fisheries and habitat. Detailed information on these is available in Bhathal (2004) and the websites of FishBase (www.fishbase.org) and the Sea Around Us (www.seaaroundus.org). 1.6 History of fishing in India  Fish and fisheries have a significant place in Indian history dating back to 3,000 B.C. (Jhingran 1975). In Indian mythology, ?Matsyavathara? is an incarnations of God in the form of a fish (Silas 1977). Numerous fish drawings and figurine remnants from the Indus valley civilization, which thrived from 2500 to 1500 B.C. (Prashad 1936; Pushkarna 1998) are also available. Indian ichthyology has its origin in the 18th century, at the time of foreign domination in India, when several contributions were made to the systematic distribution and bionomics of freshwater and marine fishes, notably by Francis Day (1888). FishBase (www.fishbase.org) may be consulted for a comprehensive bibliography on Indian ichthyology. Although fishing traditionally provided livelihoods to the segment of the population living in coastal regions and along river banks, lakes and canals, nothing was done officially to promote fisheries development. The Indian Fisheries Act of 1897 was the first formal step towards marine fisheries development and management which delegated various erstwhile provinces with the responsibility of fisheries administration (BOBP 1982a; Chidambram 1982; Bensam 1999a, b). However, in pre-Independence times, regulations regarding the fisheries were essentially revenue-oriented and expressed little interest in its development  (Devanesen and Chidambaram 1953; Bensam 1999c). The first fisheries department explicitly aiming for advancement of this sector was the Madras Presidency, organized in 1907 by Sir F. Nicholson, also called the ?Father of Indian Fisheries Development?. Several reports were published after World War I by committees and specialists, aiming to encourage the expansion of fisheries such as the reports of the ?Bengal Famine Commission? (GOI 1945a) and ?Scientific Research in 23  India? (Hill 1945), which also emphasized fisheries as an essential aid in increasing the country?s food supply (Panikkar 1957). During World War II (1939-1945), India provided bases for American and other Allied military personnel, which created the problem of supplying adequate amounts of good quality fish. This scarcity of food led to an interest in the expansion of marine fisheries. In preparation for a post-war development phase, Dr. Beni Prasad was asked to review the country?s fisheries and to recommend necessary measures for their development. In his historical memorandum ?Post-War Development of Indian Fisheries,? submitted in 1941, he proposed the first definite programme to develop a research department for fisheries (Prasad 1944; Bensam 1999a). This proposal was followed by the ?Kharegat Memorandum? of 1944, wherein the advisory board of the Indian Council of Agriculture Research laid down the essential elements of fisheries development to be achieved in the country. Among these elements were (1) the establishment of a Central Fish committee as well as of a fisheries research station; (2) a pilot project for the mechanization of catching and for storing catches; (3) the development of pond culture practices; and (4) the improvement of fish transport (Panikkar 1957). Another important document published by Dr. Beni Prasad, who was the fishery development adviser to the government of India, was a report of the Fish Subcommittee of the Policy Committee No. 5 on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, which embodied the results of country-wide surveys carried out by the Fish Subcommittee (GOI 1945b; Samuel 1968b; BOBP 1982a). However, it was only after independence (1947) that concerted efforts were undertaken to develop Indian fisheries, as expressed through a succession of National Five Year Plans (from 1951 onwards). In the 1950s, it was felt that the progress of fisheries would be one of the most promising means of improving the Indian diet. Consequently, fishery planning in India in the 1950s was officially guided by the same goals as agriculture: increasing production and equitable 24  distribution (see Section 1.5.1.1). Over time, though, the priorities of the central government gradually shifted from providing protein to increasing export revenue (also see Section 1.5.1.1).  1.7 Development of different sectors of fisheries  The government of Bombay (now ?Mumbai?) made the first attempt to introduce experimental trawling in 1902, using a steam trawler. Subsequently, several similar experimental and exploratory surveys were conducted until Independence (Mukundan and Radhalakshmy 1998; Somvanshi 2001a, b) by the state governments of Bombay, Bengal and Madras in the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. Once India gained its independence in 1947, fisheries started to get the attention that was commensurate to their potential role. It was after the first All India Fisheries Conference held in 1948 in New Delhi that the Indian government decided to ask for foreign co-operation and technology to develop its fisheries sector. In 1950s, interest was seen worldwide in the development of small boats, and the FAO World Fishing Boat Congress of 1953 in Paris and Miami further reinforced this sentiment (Chidambram 1982). During that time, as India was also embracing the change and participating in the ?Grow More Food? campaign, fisheries were seen as a potential sector to meet growing demands and accomplish self-reliance. As a result, in 1952, a tripartite technical co-operation agreement was accorded between India, the USA and the United Nations for fisheries development. A year later, in 1953, the Indo-Norwegian Project (INP) was started in the state of Kerala following a tripartite agreement signed by the governments of Norway, India and the United Nations. The main objectives of this project were to study the operational efficiency and commercial feasibility of different crafts and gears, propagate various fishing methods, train personnel and provide technical consultancy services (Sandven 1959; Sathiarajan 1987; Johnson 2002). 25  Table 1.4 Marine Fishing Regulation Act of the maritime states and the UTs, which have demarcated fishing areas for mechanized and unmotorized vessels (see Section 1.7), imposed fishing closures and mesh size restrictions. OAL: overall length, GRT: gross register tonnage, nm: nautical miles (GOK 1980; GOO 1982; GOTN 1983; GOK 1986; GOWB 1993; GOAP 1994; Devaraj and Vivekanandan 1999; Somvanshi 2001a; GOG 2003; GOGD&D 2003; Islands 2004; GOP 2008; Muralidharan 2009; Jayasankar 2012). States and UTs Marine Fishing Regulation Act Area reserved for traditional vessels Area available to mechanized vessels Fishing seasonal closures Gear regulations (mesh size restrictions- must not be less than) Gujarat Gujarat Fisheries Act ? 2003 Up to 5 nm (9.3 km) Beyond 9 km 10 June - 15 August  (67 days)  40 mm cod end of trawl net Maharashtra MFRA 1981 Up to 5 - 10 fathoms depth  Beyond 10 fathoms depth  10 June - 15 August  (67 days)  35 mm cod end of trawl net Goa MFRA 1980 Up to 5 km Beyond 5 km 10 June - 15 August  (67 days)  24 mm any net for catching fish;  20 mm for catching prawns. Karnataka MFRA 1986 Up to 6 km Less than 15m OAL: 6 - 20 km;  Greater than 15m OAL: beyond 20 km. 15 June - 10 August  (57 days)  30 mm cod end of trawl net Kerala MFRA 1980 12 - 25 fathoms depth Less than 25 GRT: 20 - 35 fathoms depth 15 June - 19 July  (45 days)  35 mm cod end of trawl net;  20 mm ring seines and dip net. Tamil Nadu MFRA 1983 Up to 3.4 nm (6.3 km) Beyond 3.4 nm (6.3 km) East coast 15 April - 29 May (45 days); West coast 15 June - 29 July (45 days).  25 mm for gillnet;  37 mm cod end of fish trawl net;  40 mm cod end of prawn trawl net. Andhra Pradesh MFRA 1994 Up to 8 km Less than 15m OAL: 23 km; Greater than 15m OAL or 25 GRT: beyond 23 km. 15 April - 31 May  (45 days)  12.5 mm cod end of trawl net Orissa MFRA 1981 Up to 5 km Less than 15m OAL: 5-10 km;  Greater than 15m OAL: beyond 20 km 15 April - 15 June  (60 days)   West Bengal  MFRA 1993 Vessels less than 9 m - up to 8 km Vessels greater than 9 m - up to 20 km but beyond 8 km;  Vessels above 15 m - beyond 50 km  15 April - 31 May  (45 days)   Daman and Diu MFRA 1980 Up to 5 km Beyond 5 km 10 June - 15 August   24 mm any net for catching fish; 26  States and UTs Marine Fishing Regulation Act Area reserved for traditional vessels Area available to mechanized vessels Fishing seasonal closures Gear regulations (mesh size restrictions- must not be less than) (67 days)   20 mm for catching prawns. Lakshadweep Islands MFRA 2000        20 mm for seines and trawl net;   50 mm for gill net. Puducherry  MFRA 2008 3 miles (4.8 km) Beyond 3 miles (4.8 km)     Andaman and Nicobar Islands MFRA 2003 Up to 6 nm (11.1 km)   Up to 6 nm (11.1 km) for vessels less than 30 hp;  Beyond 6 nm (11.1 km) for vessels greater than 30 hp.    25 mm for gill net, shore seine and drag net;  standard mesh size, i.e., 35 mm for trawl net. 27  In the same year (1953), an agreement was signed between the government of India and FAO regarding technical assistance in small craft mechanization or motorization and technology (Pillai and Katiha 2004a). The artisanal sector, which was using vessels without engines and traditional gears, was a mainstay during early 1950s. Thus, in the absence of the technical ability to design and build small advanced boats, new ideas and plans proposed through these initiatives were accepted without too much resistance. As a preliminary plan, it was suggested that the motorization of fishing boats in India be split into a base stage and four subsequent developmental stages, (1) the motorization of existing crafts; (2) the introduction of simple and small mechanized boats; (3) the introduction of bigger, more specialized boats; and (4) the broadening of the fishing fleet. Given that fishers were scattered all along the coast and the existing vessels in operation were adapted to beach landing, evolving a suitable beach landing craft was seen as essential, and it was decided that it should be handled separately. Moreover, the development of ports required huge capital outlay and relocation of fishers to areas where anchorage facilities were available was not feasible, so this initial plan seemed reasonable (Chidambram 1982). In the initial development stages, surveys and observations revealed that several (approximately 35) traditional vessels in the states of Gujarat (Lodhia and Machwa), Maharashtra (Satpati and Versova), Madras (now Tamil Nadu; Tuticorin), Andhra Pradesh (Navas of Kakinada and Masulipattinam), Orissa and West Bengal (Batchari, Chot, Diamond Harbour) were suitable for motorization (FAO 1958). FAO personnel assigned to India under the Expanded Technical Assistance Program (ETAP), however, soon realized that the motorization of the Indian fishing fleet as a nationwide scheme offered little scope for coordinated efforts and standardisation because of unique boat problems and varied local conditions in each state. Thus, the experimental motorization did not make much headway except for local vessels in Maharashtra (i.e., Satpati) and Gujarat (i.e., Lodhia and Machwa). As a result, the scheme for 28  motorizing traditional vessels was discontinued due to technical, economic (e.g., high initial costs) and social (e.g., lack of acceptance by fishers) reasons (Chidambram 1982).  In the state of Kerala, the Indo-Norwegian Project (INP), now called the Integrated Fisheries Project (IFP), also attempted to motorize the existing traditional vessels, though, resulting in failure. Therefore, in 1954, these projects and programmes started to concentrate on developing new designs and prototypes for mechanized boats. The central and state governments also encouraged these endeavours, as they were receiving technical and financial assistance (Pillai and Katiha 2004b). In the late 1950s, the maritime states of Saurashtra, Travancore-Cochin and Madras tried shrimp trawling, purse seining and other methods of fishing using the fishing vessels provided under the Indo-American Aid Programmes. As an initial attempt in designing a beach landing vessel (also called surf boat), FAO naval architects developed several prototypes and extensive trials were undertaken in Saurashtra (Gujarat), Quilon (Kerala), Tuticorin, Madras (Tamil Nadu) and Puri (Orissa). These trials resulted in the creation of a standard design but were only partially successful, and the project encountered great difficulties in finding personnel to handle these boats (Pillai and Katiha 2004a). Thus, in 1963, the Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical and Engineering Training (CIFNET) was founded at Kochi (Kerala) to provide technical training for crew of sea-worthy fishing vessels (Swaminath 1987). Subsequently, under the INP and FAO, various designs and sizes of mechanized harbour vessels were introduced, and in 1963, the Central Institute of Fisheries Technology (CIFT) was tasked with research on designing new craft types, and the activities of INP were directed to exploratory and experimental fishing (Nair 1987). The vessel design popularly known as Pablo was the base of mechanization programme and was mainly used for gillnetting. Trawling with these small boats was attempted in later years. However, in 1962, the INP introduced a new 25-foot boat with a 16 hp diesel engine 29  capable of being used as a small shrimp trawler, which was readily accepted as rich shrimp grounds occurred nearby (Pillai and Katiha 2004a). The development of the shrimp industry and its export-oriented expansion changed experimental trawling into a commercial venture, which soon spread to the entire country (Mukundan and Radhalakshmy 1998). As a result of the developing interest in the Indian seafood industry, especially exports, the Marine Products Export Promotion Council was also set up in 1961. In 1972, it was renamed the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) and put under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Commerce (MPEDA 1987). Other methods of fishing, such as tuna lining [introduced in 1963; (Dixitulu 2002)] and purse seining, were also attempted by the FAO and INP. Extensive trials of purse seiners were reported as successful; however, they were not widely accepted by the fishers because catches consisted mainly of low-priced small pelagic fishes (Indian oil sardine and mackerel) as compared to exportable shrimp, which fetched a high price and was caught in abundance by trawlers. Purse seining on an experimental basis was carried out first in Goa in 1957, but it was only successful in commercial operations in 1964 (Sadanandan et al. 1975; Verghese 1976). Gear design was also given greater emphasis. Notably, synthetic twine for making fish nets was introduced, which, by the 1980s, had almost totally replaced cotton twine (BOBP 1983; Thomas 2000).  During the first two of the Five Year Plans, special emphasis, besides mechanization, was given to remove the ?middlemen? involved in fish marketing through the establishment of co-operative societies. However, by 1961, it was realized that co-operatives set up mainly to avoid the perceived exploitation of fishers by ?middlemen? were not very successful (BOBP 1982; Johnson 2002). This period from 1947 to 1965 is considered as phase 1 or a pre-development stage, where fishing was largely dominated by the artisanal sector (mainly vessels without 30  engines) and, in the later years, underwent rapid metamorphosis through newly introduced mechanization programs (Muralidharan 2009). With the introduction of larger boats, new techniques of equipment handling and improved facilities for fish detection, an urgent need was felt for developing ports.  Thus, the Central Institute of Coastal Engineering for Fishery (CICEF) was established in 1968 at Bangalore in collaboration with the FAO and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) with the main objective of conducting techno-economic feasibility studies regarding the development of fishing ports (DAHD 2004b; NIO 2004). In early 1970s, fibreglass-reinforced plastic (FRP) boats were introduced in India.  They were initially unpopular, due to high cost, lack of maintenance facilities and other problems. However, during the late 1970s and 1980s, these FRP boats become very popular, and largely replaced the traditional wooden canoes (Sheshappa 1998). It was not feasible for a developing country to replace large number of indigenous fishing boats with new mechanized boats, featuring inboard engines. Hence, it was decided to motorize the existing small-scale vessels with outboard engines (Chandy 1970c). Motorization began in 1980s as a program of the Seventh Five Year Plan (GOI 1985a) and the support of financing schemes operated through the co-operative sector. Although efforts to motorize traditional crafts began as early as 1953 in Jaleshwar village, Gujarat, they were initially unsuccessful (Kuriyan 1982; Srivastava et al. 1991). Overall, though, the introduction of outboard motors brought about a revolution in fishing, effectively reducing the search duration, increasing the sea endurance and made accessible areas of high fish concentration, which acted as a temporary reprieve for the artisanal sector. Several other major technological transformations were witnessed in the Indian fisheries, all resulting from successive Five Year Plans (see Table 1.1).  31  Simultaneously, India initiated deep-sea fishing in 1972 with the import of two Gulf of Mexico trawlers from the USA to encourage the development of offshore fisheries (Devaraj 1995). Efforts for deep-sea fishing had been made earlier, in 1946, when the West Coast Fisheries Corporation was established by the government of Travancore. They brought three vessels (19 m) from the UK, but these experienced many operational problems. Around the same time, the Tata Company bought a couple of shrimp trawlers with Mexican crews, but their operations also failed. Then, in 1954, the New Indian Fisheries Company registered as a joint venture with the Japanese Taiyo Fishing Company, which found success and continued fishing for several years (Pusalkar and Mammen 1985). A majority of foreign vessels (stern trawlers, pair trawlers and tuna longliners) started to operate in Indian waters under a chartered fishing scheme. Commercial tuna fishing in India commenced in 1985 and tuna longliners operated in Indian waters under Indian-owned, joint-venture and leased foreign vessels scheme targeting scombroids, i.e., tunas, seerfishes and billfishes (Somvanshi and John 1996). By the late 1980s, over 100 chartered and joint-venture deep-sea fishing vessels, mainly trawlers, were operating, mostly in the inshore grounds up to 50 m (Devaraj 1995). Many different countries entered into joint ventures with India over time, including Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, Poland, Denmark, Bulgaria, France, the USA, Germany, Thailand and Italy. Some stayed for long period and others left after operating for short durations either due to difficult government procedures, operational problems or lack of economic viability (Pusalkar and Mammen 1985). However, increasing numbers of deep-sea vessels were clearly competitors of the artisanal sector, as they operated in same waters and targeted the same resources. Due to widespread unrest, several limitations were imposed on offshore fishing operations, and various regulations were enacted by the states (see Table 1.4). The issue of industrial trawlers came into the spotlight when a revised DSFP was announced in March 1991, reflecting the liberalization of 32  the Indian economy by encouraging foreign investments (detailed in Section 1.5.1.3). The Indian fishery organizations (e.g., NFF) protested vociferously against this, and highlighted serious conflicts between the domestic small-scale and industrial joint-venture fleets. They claimed that Indian boats could reach those areas themselves and there were no guarantees that the joint-ventures boats would not poach fish further inshore. These protests were so strong that the Central Government shelved the issuing of licenses to foreign fishing vessels and launched a commission of inquiry in 1994, to review this joint venture; the policy was rescinded in 1997 (Kocherry 1999; Johnson 2002). Over time, various advanced designs and sizes of mechanized vessels were launched, resulting in multiday fishing in the late 1990s. Specialized and multipurpose fishing vessels, such as, trawler-cum-purse seiners, trawler-cum-gillnetters, trawler- cum-fish carriers, long-liners and trolling boats were also introduced (Sreekrishna and Shenoy 2001). A new phase emerged in the 2000s, characterized by stagnating or even declining fish catches, depleted fish stocks and increasing conflict over fish resources. As a result, the focus of the Indian government has shifted once again towards oceanic and deep-sea fisheries, to diversify the fishing operations, with a focus on increasing tuna catches for export. A new set of guidelines was issued by DAHD&F in 2002 for foreign fishing operations in EEZ.  Further, under the Tenth Five Year Plan, a scheme was introduced for the conversion of existing trawlers into resource-specific fishing, and the responsibility for its implementation was assigned to Fishery Survey of India (FSI) and CIFT (GOI 2002a; Rao 2009b). Thus, a pilot project was initiated in 2002 to equip the existing fleet of shrimp trawlers (23-27 m OAL) off the upper east coast for undertaking tuna longlining (Ganga and Pillai 2006). As an initial step, the MPEDA provided financing for converting two trawlers into use for tuna longlining, which failed. However, eventually, 30 shrimp trawlers were converted for tuna longlining, and then, in 33  December 2006, the DAHD&F passed a notification on joint ventures, stating that the operation of deep-sea fishing vessels would be permitted in Indian EEZ under joint ventures for only tuna longlining, squid jigging, pole and line fishing and purse seining (Rao 2009b, c). These ongoing efforts to encourage diversification and resource-specific effort expansion were reflected in the Eleventh Five Year Plan, covering 2007 to 2012 (GOI 2006). During this period, schemes were implemented for the conversion of fishing vessels (mainly trawlers), both below and above 20 meter length overall (LOA) by the DAHD&F and MPEDA. Over 1500 vessels (a majority of which are from the state of Tamil Nadu) below 20 meters LOA participated in the conversion programme. However, the purpose of vessel conversion (tuna fishing) was defeated, as most of these vessels engaged in shark fishing (Ganga and Pillai 2006; GOI 2006). In general, fisheries can be subdivided into small scale and large scale fisheries with further subtypes, i.e., recreational4, subsistence5, artisanal6 and industrial7 (Figure 1.2).        In the present study, the marine fishing sector of India is divided into artisanal and industrial sectors and then , based on the engine power, sectors are further subdivided into four                                                  4 Recreational fishery is a form of small scale fisheries, in which fishing is done for pleasure or sports.  5 Subsistence fishery is an another form of small scale fisheries where fish is caught mainly for human consumption or for bartering. 6 Artisanal fishery is a form of small scale fisheries in which the bulk of the catch is sold, i.e., not primarily obtained for the fishers? own consumption or their families. 7 Industrial fishery is a form of large scale fisheries in which the landings are sold. Figure 1.2 Types of fisheries, showing subtypes of both small and large scale fisheries   Small scale  Large scale  Fisheries  Recreational  Subsistence  Artisanal  Industrial  34  distinct groups, each of which uses a combination of several gears (e.g., trawl, bagnets, gillnets, seines and hooks and lines) (CMFRI 1981a; Sathiadas et al. 1995):  (1) Unmotorized (artisanal) sector using traditional vessels; (2) Motorized (artisanal) sector using traditional vessels with outboard motors (OBM) of less than 50 hp (usually 7-9 hp);  (3) Mechanized sector (industrial) using inboard motors (IBM) of 50 hp and above, e.g., small trawlers, pair trawlers, purse seiners, gillnetters and longliners;  (4) Deep-sea fishing (industrial) sector using engines of 120 hp and above, e.g., deep-sea trawler, deep-sea tuna longliner and deep-sea multipurpose vessels. Throughout this thesis, the Indian terminology is used, i.e., ?motorized? boats are boats fitted with outboard motors, while ?mechanized? boats have inboard engines. The term ?mechanization? is used for the introduction of inboard engines. The term ?motorization?, however, can mean the introduction of outboard motors or the introduction of boats with inboard engines when specific details are absent 1.8 Existing and emerging problems For a long time, Indian marine catches have increased steadily, but they are now reaching a plateau. Given that the marine fisheries of India were not controlled in their initial phases and insufficiently managed in the subsequent phases, they are currently facing challenges and problems in achieving the kind of sustainability that will assure long-term survival. In contrast to the view of the government, advocating the technological expansion (DAHD 2011; GOI 2006, 2011), which characterized Indian fisheries ?development?, will impede progress toward sustainability. Given the existing overcapitalization of the fishing fleets, any further increase of effort  in coastal waters will also increase the likelihood of collapse for many resource species 35  (Devaraj and Vivekanandan 1999). Catfish, for example, are classified as a ?collapsed? fish stock in the states of Kerala and Karnataka (Mohamed et al. 2010). This is something that India cannot afford given the acute shortage of animal protein (Raghavan 1998) and the millions of people relying solely on marine fisheries for their livelihood. This situation calls for an in-depth evaluation of the current state of affairs and immediate measures in order to avoid exacerbating the problem of depleted resources. Additional problems are besetting fisheries, including discarding, illegal fishing (including poaching), lack of infrastructure, poor socioeconomic conditions of fishers, habitat degradation, coastal pollution, bioaccumulation of persistent organic pollutants, and many more. Some of these are addressed briefly in the following section. 1.8.1 Ecosystem health: fishing down marine food web in Indian waters  The evolution of fishing equipment from hand-held gear to industrial vessels has affected the abundance and biodiversity of fish stocks. Fisheries are having an impact on  ecosystems as the fish that are removed were parts of food webs, both as consumers and as prey (Parsons 1996). Indian marine fisheries are found to be unsustainable at the ecosystem level as shown by two indicators of fisheries? sustainability: the Marine Trophic Index (MTI) and the ?Fishing in Balance? (FiB) index. The MTI, i.e., the mean trophic level of fisheries catches has been steadily declining in all 13 Indian maritime states and UTs at rates averaging 0.058 trophic level per decade (Bhathal 2005; Bhathal and Pauly 2008), which is about the same as in other parts of the world (Pauly et al. 1998b; Pauly and Palomares 2001; Pauly et al. 2009). A forward extrapolation of the current trend in India implies the disappearance of high-trophic level, larger and longer-lived fish from the ecosystem and the relative increase in low-TL organisms, perhaps even jellyfish as reported in some ecosystems, or worse, good fish being replaced by jellyfish, as for example, in the Benguela ecosystem where the ?Myxocene?, or age of slime, has already 36  begun (Lynam et al. 2006; Pauly 2010a). Unusually high rates of jellyfish landings are being reported from Indian waters (CMFRI 2007a), however, it is unknown if this is due to anthropogenic causes. The proposed explanation for this phenomenon, now widely known as ?fishing down marine food webs? is that the fishery catches are shifting from large, high TL species to the small, low TL species in response to their relative abundance in the ecosystem. Indian shelf fisheries have suffered from sequential depletions and have undergone a fourfold geographic expansion through time as quantified through a spatial expansion factor (Bhathal and Pauly 2008). The decline in mean trophic level is not due to the sequential addition of newly exploited low-TL species to the multispecies catch, as the MTI was computed after the exclusion of species with TL lower than 3.25 (e.g., Indian oil sardine and penaeid shrimps, the catch of which grew enormously in the 1980s).  1.8.2 Unreported catches: discards  In India, as elsewhere, fish are the major non-target species (bycatch) of shrimp trawlers, which leads to some of the bycatch being discarded. Various reasons have been presented by different authors worldwide to explain discarding (Clucas 1997), but saving space in order to retain a large amount of highly priced prawns appears to be the major one. In India, discards by industrial (mechanized and deep-sea) vessels were rarely reported (even landings go unreported for deep-sea vessels), so these had to be estimated.  Bhathal (2004) thus, assumed that all the bycatch was retained prior to 1970, as large industrial vessels (with engines of more than 120 hp) were only introduced in 1972 and even low-value species had a market (George et al. 1981), resulting in negligible discarding. However, once catches were estimated for large industrial vessels, discards were assumed to be 70% of total fish bycatch (more details in Section 2.2.2), a conservative estimate as compared to other 37  reports (Gordon 1991; Kungsuwan 1999; Salgrama 1999). Discarding bycatch, in India, is mainly associated with long-distance, multi-day trawlers (Gordon 1991; Zacharia et al. 2006a). In the case of other industrial vessels, i.e., with engines of less than 120 hp, discarding was assumed to be only 2% based on the study by Goerge et al. (1981); this was a conservative estimate as other reports suggested higher values (Gordon 1991; Kungsuwan 1999; Salgrama 1999, Chandrapal 2007). However, some reports indicate that discards have started to decrease as elsewhere (Zeller and Pauly 2005) in absolute terms since the 1990s, due to declining abundances of shrimps and prawns (Kungsuwan 1999; Salgrama 1999). Shrimp trawlers are now reported to be landing bulk of their bycatch in order to increase their revenue and thereby compensate for the increased fishing cost (Zacharia et al. 2006). Ganapathiraju (2012) estimated fishery extractions from India, including illegal (by Indian and foreign vessels) and unreported catches, figures for discards by industrial trawlers, subsistence fishing, generally missing from the catch statistics (Zeller and Pauly 2007; Pauly et al. 2012), and underreporting by the artisanal sector, such as bait fish, dry fish landings and mollusc collection. His findings suggested that approximately 1.5 million tonnes went unreported in the year 2008, which had highest amount of discards (approximately 1.2 million tonnes) from industrial trawlers and other vessels. This situation is aggravated by joint-venture vessels targeting tuna fisheries, which report 20% of their catch, and which obviously do not report on their discarding practices.   1.8.3 Overcapitalization Profitable fisheries coupled with open access to resources resulted in an accelerated growth of the fishery sector in India. The existence of caste system in India is somewhat beneficial for fisher communities, as it allows their entry into this sector in comparison to other castes. However, this could not limit the ownership to one specific caste or class, despite the 38  existence of traditional systems for management and allocation of resources (Tietze, 1985; Salagrama 2006; Bavnick 2001). Over time, with increasing economic benefits and modernisation of technology, traditional codes were ignored and ownership expanded from fishing castes and classes to other castes, leading to rapid growth of fisher populations (Salagrama 2006, Chalam 2007). New fishers and vessels recruited to the fisheries led to growing competition, and the area available per active fisher declined drastically over the years. The decline was from 956 to 170 hectares in inshore waters (0-50 m) and from 1320 to 327 hectares in offshore shelf areas for 1961-1990, excluding the Lakshadweep and Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Sathiadas et al. 1995). The number of boats continued to increase as the Indian government continued to encourage motorization and mechanization via its subsidies (e.g., for diesel engines, use of innovative gears and vessels; more details in Chapter 4) and loans to fishers and co-operative organizations (Bapat and Kurian 1981; Srivastava et al. 1991; Salagrama 2004; DAHD 2005; Aswathy and Salim 2012). The current catching capacity of the fishing fleets in Indian waters far exceeds that required for biologically sustainable catches from most commercial stocks at depth down to 100 m. ?Too many boats chasing too few fish? applies aptly to Indian fisheries, as the number of vessels of all sectors operating in Indian waters is estimated to be approximately three times the optimal number (Somvanshi 2003). Stagnating catches and declining catch per unit effort have drawn attention as seen in the Report of the Working Group on Fisheries for the Tenth Five Year Plan of India's Planning Commission (GOI 2002a). They reinforced the view of an earlier 1997 National-Level Review Committee on Fishing Fleets, which attempted to address overcapacity by aiming for zero growth in vessels between 8 and 15 m (Mathew 2003); however, no proposal or financial provisions were made for any fishery measure to reduce the existing overcapacity. Few states 39  have announced certain measures under their MFRAs (Table 1.4). For instance, Kerala has stopped the registration of new mechanized vessels and motorized boats since October 2008 and the state of Orissa has fixed the optimum number of mechanized vessels (James 1992; Muralidharan 2009); however, enforcement is reported to be weak or absent (Sampath 2005). Overexploitation of resources (see Section 1.8.5), which results from overcapacity, is evident in Indian waters. 1.8.4 Malthusian overfishing and sectoral conflicts The Reverend Malthus showed that a population, other things being equal, will tend to outstrip the food supply. This idea may appear controversial for agriculture, where increase in grain productivity seems to have disproven Malthus. However, Mathusian limits necessarily occur in fisheries, where the ?production? of fish is limited by natural process, and where catching fish is, hence, not equivalent to harvesting a crop (Pauly 1994a, 2006b). This leads to the notion of ?Malthusian overfishing? (Pauly 1990), which results from biological limits beyond which renewable natural resources such as fisheries, cease to be sustainable and cannot continue to absorb additional labour, and to meet increasing demand.  Thus, demand of excessive population growth cannot be solved by fisheries, and in fact, fisheries can be destroyed by excess fishing effort, with dire implications for food security.  As described by Pauly (1990), who used the example of Indian fisheries to develop and illustrate the concept of Malthusian overfishing, fisheries ?development? generally occurs in three phases: (1) Phase 1 occurred when the entire fishery consisted of the artisanal sector only, and operating unmotorized boats, a situation prevailing until the mid to late 1960s; see Figure 1.3); 40  (2) Phase 2 saw a transfer of catches from the artisanal (unmotorized) to the industrial sector as newly introduced vessels characterized by hefty subsidies began operating on the same fishing ground as the artisanal sector. (This transfer occurred in the 1970s and 1980s; see Figure 1.3); and (3) Phase 3, when the catches from a given area are mostly taken by the industrial sector, forcing the marginalized artisanal sector to seek outside intervention to deal with dwindling stocks and increasing conflicts. (These conditions were established by 1990s - see Figure 1.3 - and are still current).  Phase 3 is obviously the reason why several regulations, e.g., MFRAs exist which are meant to avoid conflicts and safeguard the interests of different sectors (Figure 1.3). Figure 1.3 supports the widespread perception, in India, that industrial fishing is responsible for the pauperization of the artisanal fishers.  As shown below, the catches of the artisanal unmotorized sector in the 1950s was nearly 0.6 million t per year, while it currently (in 2010) only 0.1 million t per year. Indian policymakers have always emphasized the expansion of demersal fisheries into deeper waters as a solution to overcapacity in inshore waters. However, the low oxygen levels in deeper water layers, especially on the West coast (Banse 1959; Gerson 2005), constrain such expansion, in addition to the fact that generally, deep tropical waters are less productive than deep temperate waters [see Section 1.3; (Longhurst and Pauly 1987)]. Therefore, the industrial sector (mainly trawlers) continues to compete with small-scale fishers operating close inshore. Competing for inshore resources is thus the major reason for the pronounced conflicts between small and large-scale fisheries in India. Mechanized vessels deploying sophisticated gears caught the bulk of the total catch, thus reducing the artisanal share (Pauly 1990, 1994a). 41  0.01.02.03.04.01950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t ? 106)YearMechanizedUnmotorizedTotal  Figure 1.3 Catch trends of marine fisheries for whole India, 1950 ? 2010, highlighting the increasing appropriation of catches by the mechanized8 (industrial) fishery, which did not (only) complement the catches of artisanal (unmotorized) fisheries, but competed against them in their inshore fishing grounds. Sources: CMFRI 1984-2010  This led to open and severe clashes between members of the two sectors, and the mechanized sector was blamed for the pauperization of traditional fishers (Thomas 2000). These resulting conflicts sometimes culminate into violence, killings and burning of boats, and have become a serious social and legal problem in many coastal fishing areas (Nair and Jayaprakash 1983; Balakrishnan and Algaraja 1984; Menon 1996).  However, the magnitude and nature of these problems may vary from region to region. Existing conflicts among different sectors can be categorized into two types: (1) Those involving different fisheries at the same location, e.g., fishers engaged in artisanal and mechanized fishing in a common fishing ground (Balakrishnan and Algaraja 1984; Devaraj and Vivekanandan 1999); and (2) Those involving different groups of operators of the same gear at the same location, e.g., the frequent conflicts occurring between trawlers from south Andhra Pradesh and Chennai over the fishing grounds off the southern coast of Andhra Pradesh (Balakrishnan and Algaraja 1984; Devaraj and Vivekanandan 1999).                                                   8 In Figure 1.3, in mechanized sector, motorized artisanal vessels were also included; however their contribution to the catches was miniscule. 42  1.8.5 Overexploitation  Overexploitation in Indian waters is the result of overcapitalization and intra- and inter-fleet competition (discussed above) within different fisheries sectors. Growth overfishing [i.e., fish are caught before they had a chance to grow (Pauly 1994b)] and recruitment overfishing [i.e., the entry of young fish into the exploited stock is impaired because reproducing adults left are few (Pauly 1994b)] are both reported in Indian waters, as can be expected in intensive, non-selective, fishing operations. Commercially exploitable quantities of prawns and shrimps (which fetch significantly higher prices than fish) occur in the same habitats as those of fish, especially juveniles. Fishers, in an attempt to maximize the catch, use smaller mesh sized nets, resulting in the catch of young fish and the destruction of eggs. In Karnataka, bull trawlers operating during the early post-monsoon fishing season target several commercially important fish and catch around 23% of juveniles (Rohit et al. 1993) in weight, which is extremely large in term of numbers of individuals. But this is unfortunately not an extreme value. In Gujarat, the trawlers catch up to 52% of juveniles (1988 to 1993) off the Veraval coast (Puthra et al. 1998), and in Vishakapatnam (Andhra Pradesh), the low-value component of the trawl fishery contained 67% to 94% juveniles (Sujatha 1996). The area swept by trawl nets for prawns in the coastal waters of western India yield approximately 16% prawns, while the rest of the catch consists of finfishes or benthic organisms, a considerable amount of which are juveniles (Menon and Pillai 1996). Along with trawls, other gear types, such as beach seines, boat seines and dol nets used in the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal also fish indiscriminately (Luther and Sastry 1993; Rohit et al. 1993; Bensam et al. 1994; Zacharia et al. 1995b; Menon 1996; Menon and Pillai 1996). 43  Mackerel fisheries of India, for example, are facing growth overfishing due to the non-selective operation of seines heavily exploiting early juveniles during July and September, when peak recruitment to the mackerel population occurs (Yohannan and Sivadas 2003). Even artisanal gears perform destructive fishing; for instance, in Vizhinjam, Andhra Pradesh, a seasonal (November to May) a ?nonnavu? fishery is performed which use a gear with a mesh size of 3-4 mm, and  is reported to yield a catch of 180 t of juvenile fishes in one day (Menon and Pillai 1996). Further, mouth-brooding marine catfishes (Family Ariidae) and sharks have suffered heavy declines (Pillai and Parakal 2000), due to their slow growth and low fecundity. The catfishes, according to a recent analysis, were classified as a ?collapsed? fish stock in the states of Kerala and Karnataka (Mohamed et al. 2010). Purse and ring seine catches from Karnataka have more than 50% of male catfishes with eggs in their mouth (Silas et al. 1980; Menon and Pillai 1996; Mohamed et al. 2010). Since the introduction of purse and ring seines in the late 1970s, the bulk removal of ripe-running oil sardines and Indian mackerel have also been reported along the west coast (Silas et al. 1980; Mohamed et al. 2010). Similarly, the gillnets of smaller mesh types such as Podivalai (70-100 mm) along the Tuticorin coast (Tamil Nadu) and the trawlers operating along both the coasts land exclusively small king seer, resulting in massive growth overfishing (Muthiah et al. 2003).  Further, the use small mesh sizes generate catch containing large amounts of non-target, low-value fish with low consumer preference. In the case of trawlers performing long trips, these low-value fish are not even landed; rather they are discarded because of limitations of space or ice (see Section 1.8.2).   44  1.8.6 Poor socio-economic condition of fishers Over time, several schemes were introduced in Five Year Plans to improve the socio-economic conditions of fishers. However, fishers are still facing poor housing, health and sanitation conditions, and are struggling with poverty, indebtedness and illiteracy (Korakandy 2008).  Overtime, the redistribution of resources among different sectors has resulted in substantially increasing the gap between wealthy boat owners and poor fishers, who also have ?middlemen? to contend with. As a result, poverty and indebtedness have become the major problems of traditional small-scale fisheries (Sehara et al. 1986; Sathiadas et al. 1994; Korakandy 2008).  Nutritional-deficiency diseases (e.g., xerosis due to vitamin A deficiency) are reported to be prominent among children of fishing communities in the state of Tamil Nadu, India and up to 70% of the children of such communities suffered from malnutrition (Natarajan 2010). Many other diseases are also prevalent in fishing villages due to poor sanitation (Bhavani 1988; Natarajan 2010). Nearly one-third of households do not have any sanitary facility (Korakandy 2008), and particularly during the monsoon seasons with poor drainage facilities, the houses become unliveable. Although motorization has improved the status of artisanal fishers since the mid-1980s (Srinath 1988), fishing is still largely done by poor people with over 40% illiteracy (Korakandy 2008). Given that the marine fisher population, about 4 million in 2005 [for all sectors; (CMFRI 2006a)], depends on natural resources, any further decline of resources will have serious social and economic implications, which will only further exacerbate the existing poor conditions. 45  1.9 Thesis goal and objectives  The ultimate goal of this study is to assess the state of marine fisheries in India at a regional (state) level by assembling scattered data into a coherent whole and make them readily available to interested parties. Transparency of this sort should eventually increase public understanding and participation in policy making. Specifically, the objectives of this study are to 1) reconstruct India?s marine fishing effort from 1950 to 2005 for 13 maritime regions (9 states and 4 UTs); 2) present and analyze time series of ?catch per effort?, an index of relative resource abundance obtained by dividing the catch data assembled in Bhathal (2005), and further refined here, by the effort in (1) ; (3) evaluate the existing situation of fisheries and estimate MSY and EMSY as reference points using surplus-production models (i.e., modified Schaefer model; Fox model); and (4) analyze the economic performance of Indian fisheries by constructing  bioeconomic models and estimate Maximum Economic Yield and fisheries ?rent? for India as a whole.   1.10 Thesis outline  In total, there are five chapters in this dissertation. Chapter 1 is an introductory chapter, providing a literature overview covering background information for understanding the rationale for the above-stated goal and objectives. It also provides a detailed outline for this dissertation.  In Chapter 2, objectives 1 and 2 are addressed. As an initial step in effort reconstruction, information on several variables [e.g., total number of vessels, total power (horsepower), fishing days spent at sea and crew size] were compiled for two vessel categories: those with engines and those without engines for all study areas from 1950?2005. ?Vessels with engines? are further subdivided into different categories based on gear types: trawlers, gillnetters, purse seiners, tuna long liners and others. The compiled effort data suffered from various inconsistencies, which were resolved using different methods and historical information. The final time-series of 46  nominal fishing effort from 1950 to 2005 for all of 13 study areas was expressed in units of ?horse power fishing days? for all vessel categories and then converted to kW?days. Next, the effort data were corrected for increase in catchability or ?technological creep? (Pauly et al. 2002; Pauly and Palomares 2010) to account for technological improvements over time and calculate effective fishing effort. Finally, reconstructed catches from Bhathal (2005) were refined and combined with effective effort to calculate catch per unit effort, which is a measure of relative abundance for all 13 study areas.  In Chapter 3, surplus production models (i.e., Fox and non-linear Schaefer models) were constructed for India and its east and west coast using the reconstructed catches of neritic species (i.e., billfishes and tunas were excluded) and effort from Chapter 2 (objective 3). Models were not made for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the Lakshadweep Islands as the fisheries in these two UTs are mainly for oceanic fish species, i.e., tunas and billfishes. MSY and EMSY were calculated as reference points to evaluate the current situation of fisheries in Indian waters at a finer spatial scale and for a better understanding of the underlying trends.  Chapter 4 details the economic performance of Indian fisheries (objective 4) by presenting bioeconomic models for India as a whole. To create these models, ex-vessel price data were compiled, weighted based on catches, and then deflated to obtain real prices and total revenue. Total fishing costs were estimated using two different approaches, i.e., based on (1) predicted revenue and (2) actual cost data i.e., cost per tonne in US$ for the different gear type combinations expressed as 2005 real values (= adjusted for inflation; Lam et al. 2011). Then, MEY, EMEY and economic rent were estimated. Subsidies were also included, to assess their role in aggravating the current situation of fisheries. Chapter 5 is a concluding chapter, presenting a synthesis of the main findings of this dissertation, along with an assessment of the strengths and limitations of this research. It also 47  details how these research findings could be used to improve on the current state of the marine fisheries of India.  48  Chapter 2 Effort and catch per effort reconstruction, 1950 to 2005  2.1 Introduction In recent years, the quantification of fishing effort has received much attention, as many marine fishery resources are exploited well beyond their biological limits (Gelchu and Pauly 2007; McCluskey and Lewison 2008; Watson et al. 2013). Overall, management of fisheries demands an overview of exploited resources and their status. The regulations concerning management directly influence fishing fleets, and thus knowledge about these fleets becomes as important as other aspects of fisheries science (Branch et al. 2006). Both catch and effort data provide important information about fisheries and are considered fundamental to fishery assessment and management (Rothschild 1977; Hoggarth et al. 2006a; Zeller and Pauly 2007).  Catches provide the data for first order assessment of fisheries, as they allow evaluation of how the species and populations (stocks) upon which the fisheries depend have changed over time (Grainger and Garcia 1996; Pauly and Zeller 2003; Watson et al. 2011). These fishery-dependent data are readily available because they are generated by monitoring commercial activities (Agger et al. 1974). In the absence of any other data, catches have been used to analyze the status of fisheries globally (Kleisner et al. 2012), although inferences drawn from such analyses have been criticised (Branch et al. 2011). However, catches do reflect abundance (Pauly et al. 2013) and recently, Froese et al. (2012, 2013) have illustrated that catch trends are consistent with the trends in biomass data of fully assessed stocks.  Although catch data provide important information, they are more informative when combined with fishing effort, which allows better interpretation of catches and a more thorough understanding of the fishery in question (Sparre and Venema 1998b).  Recently, the literature on fisheries management has started to give due consideration to data on fishing effort (Hilborn and 49  Walters 1992c; Gelchu and Pauly 2007). Modelling the spatial distribution of the operations of fishing fleets shows that fishing effort undergoes spatial and temporal changes in a predictable manner based on resource availability, management regulations and accordingly shifting fisher responses (Yew and Heaps 1996; Walters and Martell 2004). Historically, the main reason for developing the concept of fishing effort was to find an indicator of abundance of fish stocks (Hannesson 2002), i.e., catch per unit effort (CPUE), a relative measure of abundance. Trends in CPUE usually reflect the status of stock abundance, i.e., if abundance decreases so does CPUE.  However, the assumption that there is a linear relationship between the two has been criticized (Branch et al. 2006), notably because of the danger of ?hyper-stability? and ?hyper-depletion?. For example, ?hyper-stability? can occur, in which case CPUE declines more slowly than abundance. As a result, abundance is overestimated and fishing mortality is underestimated, which results in overfishing (Hilborn and Walters 1992b; Harley et al. 2001). Conversely, ?hyper-depletion? can occur, i.e., rapidly declining CPUEs can suggest a decline of actual abundance which is not occurring [(Hilborn and Walters 1992b; Walters 2003); see Section 3.1 for more details].  Also, several factors (e.g., vessel characteristics, fishing areas and seasons) limit the usefulness of CPUE time series even when a linear relationship between CPUE and resource abundance can be assumed, mainly because of changes in technology (Pauly and Palomares 2010). Many techniques have been suggested for CPUE standardization to mitigate such effects, e.g., General Linear Models (Padilla and Trinidad 1995; Hinton and Maunder 2004; Hoggarth et al. 2006b). Further, the spatial distribution of the stock and fishing effort can result in over or underestimation of the abundance, which can be, however, resolved with stratification of catch and effort by area (King 2007e). In this study, fishing effort and CPUE are analysed at state level 50  to better understand the underlying trends per area, i.e., instead of analysing composite data for India as a whole (see Section 2.2).  Although the most common use of effort data is deriving CPUE values, fishing effort is also used to estimate other variables, i.e., fishing mortality, fishing cost, catch estimations of non-target species, and, when available at fine spatial resolutions, for use in ecosystem models (Sparre and Venema 1998a; Dauk and Schwarz 2001; Watson et al. 2004b). Knowledge of effort distribution is also informative in designating the spatial extent of marine parks and reserves (Lynch 2006). Moreover, in the absence of any other data, as occurs in many developing countries (Johannes 1998), CPUE and effort data can be used to perform stock assessments through surplus production models (see Chapter 3).  For the purpose of this study, it is important to define the term ?fishing effort?, which is expressed in a variety of ways. Fishing effort represents the aggregate of all expended inputs to catch fish (the resultant output) and thus is defined as ?the means by which fishers achieve a catch during a given period? (Gelchu and Pauly 2007). Fishing effort can be categorized into (1) nominal effort, referring to sum total of all resources used for fishing in a given period, which may be measured in units of time, capital, labour, gear or others (Valle et al. 2003; McCluskey and Lewison 2008); and (2) effective effort, representing ?the fishing pressure exerted by fishers on fish stocks? (Pape and Vigneau 2001). In other words, effective effort is a standardized measure of effort, i.e., when several gears are used, nominal effort is adjusted to a standard type in order to account for changes and differences in fishing power and efficiency, and ensure direct proportionality with fishing mortality (FAO 1997; see also Palomares and Pauly 2010). The relationship between fishing mortality and fishing effort is: F = q ? f     (2.1) 51  where, ?F? is the fraction of the fish population that dies from fishing; ?f? is a measure of fishing effort, and ?q? is the catchability coefficient (Pauly and Palomares 2010).  Change in catchability does affect fishing mortality and so effort as well (both effective and nominal). It is, therefore, important to adjust for technological improvements and differences among various gear types. Pauly and Palomares (2010) conducted a meta-analysis and provided an empirical equation to estimate a factor (?technological creep?) which account for gradual technological improvements and the resulting increases in efficiency. They emphasized that whenever the time series of fishing effort exceeds a decade in temporal coverage, effort should be adjusted to account for the gradual increase in gear efficiency. The effort data were thus adjusted in this study (see below). The following section gives a detailed account of the methods employed for compilation, adjustment, and estimation of fisheries effort, catch, and CPUE data for the marine fisheries of India. 2.2 Materials and methods 2.2.1 Effort reconstruction Effort data were compiled from published sources, i.e., state reports, national reports, publications of research institutes, and several other sources (Appendix A). These publications and reports were collected during field trips to India in 2003, 2005, 2008, and 2009. During these field trips, different institutes, fishing harbours, local fish markets, fish processing factories, and libraries were also visited and discussions were conducted with local scientists and fishers (Appendix B). These meeting were primarily conducted to better understand the dynamics of fisheries at local level and clarify any fisheries or data related queries. As mentioned above, only published data were compiled for further analysis.  52  The national research institutes of India, such as, CMFRI have been collecting fishing effort data along with catches since the 1950s, but unlike catches, which are collected and reported annually, effort data were only published periodically; also access to the official database was restricted, and gray literature was often inaccessible. Also, whatever data were available were not standardized in terms of units; rather, they were reported as ?man-hours?, ?unit operations?, ?fishing hours?, ?hooks fished?, ?boat days?, etc., and were highly scattered. To compensate for this, all information was gathered and standardized (see below) from miscellaneous publications and encoded with the key variables for vessels with and without engines, i.e., total number of vessels; total power (in horsepower units); fishing days (days spent at sea); crew size; vessel length or tonnage. The category ?vessels with engines? was further subdivided based on engine type, i.e., with inboard engines (?mechanized? in the Indian literature) and with outboard engines (?motorized?), Deep sea vessels, also called ?industrial? vessels, were treated as a separate category. The mechanized vessels (with inboard engines) were further subcategorized based on main gear types (excluding the Union Territories, due to lack of detailed information), which varied with study areas based on the use of prominent gears. For example, trawlers and gillnetters were found in all study areas, but some gears were area specific, for example, ?dolnetters? (using dol net, a multi-fisheries gear similar to a bag net) mainly confined to the northwest coast of India but include West Bengal) from the northeast coast, and purse seiners and ring seiners to the states of Kerala and Karnataka. In many states there was a category, ?others?, which appears to include vessels using gears types other then the main ones (e.g., trawl net, gill net, purse seine, dol net and hooks and lines), but no information was given on specifics. 53  Finally, there was not enough data to further subcategorize (e.g., based on gear types) the vessels without engines. The data collected on all above-mentioned variables for all vessel categories and subcategories suffered from various inconsistencies and information gaps (outlined below). These were resolved using different methods and historical information available in the literature, presented below for vessels with and without engine. 2.2.1.1 Vessels without engines No information was available by state for the number of ?vessels without engines? for the early 1950s. However, data were found for the whole of India, excluding UTs, for the year 1951 (GOI 1951). In order to divide this among states, the ratio of the first year for which separate data were available (i.e., 1959; except for Gujarat and Goa, 1960) was used to split the data from 1950 to 1958. It was assumed that the state-specific contribution of this sector in fisheries remained unchanged between 1950 and 1958.  For 1958 onwards, the total effort for this category was calculated by multiplying the total number of vessels, crew size, fishing days in a year, and average daily energy output of a south Asian male, i.e., 0.18 hp (Karim 1985; Pauly et al. 1987).  Crew size varied by different vessel type, e.g., dugout canoes and plank built boats, so an average was calculated. However, the data on crew size were not available for the complete time series. As the vessels without engines have not changed much over time; it was assumed that average crew size had stayed the same over the years.  Similarly, in the case of missing data for fishing days, values were copied forward and backward as a flat value time series, making the assumption that these had not undergone much change over time. This assumption was supported in the literature as the focus of the Indian Government had always been to improve and encourage the use of vessels with engines, and 54  minimal work was done to improve the traditional vessels (see state specific examples in results section). Union Territories also had no information on vessels without engines for earlier years; Gupta et al. (1984e, f) confirms this absence of data. Although their contribution to the total effort was miniscule, different methods were used for estimations.  In the case of combined statistics, e.g., Daman and Diu, which was part of Goa until 1987 (Rubinoff 1992), and Puducherry, whose data for earlier years were added to Tamil Nadu, the ratio of the first year with separate data was used to split the values assuming that the area-specific contribution of this sector has remained unchanged during this time.  Also, demography and historical information were used to estimate effort. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands, for example, had no information on the number of vessels without engines before 1983. Menon (1977) mentioned that these islands had no tradition of fishing, but in a few islands, aborigines and Nicobari tribes used bows and arrows and spears for fishing (Pillai and Abdussamad 2008). Therefore, for the year 1950, it was assumed that the cumulative fishing effort was equivalent to one (1) motorized vessel operating in these waters. Further, based on historical information that three fisher families were brought to the Islands and settled in 1951 (Menon 1977), it was assumed that the number of vessels operating in 1951 was 3, with an average crew size of 3 per vessel from 1950-1954. Thereafter, an average crew size of 7 was used, based on two states, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, from which a majority of fisher families were brought under a re-settlement programs (Menon 1977).   Likewise, information was unavailable for the vessels without engines that operated in the Lakshadweep Islands prior to 1987. First, it was established that out of 10 inhabited islands, Minicoy Island was the only one where pole and line tuna fishing occurred (Jones and Kumaran 1959), while tuna fishing was not done around other islands (Varghese et al. 1993). There, 55  fishing activities consisted mainly of harpooning and cast netting, confined to lagoon and reef areas, and mainly for daily consumption (GOL 1976; Varghese 1991). The population of Minicoy Island for the years 1951 and 1961 were used for estimation purposes. The population data were also available for year 1971 but were not used, as immigration to other islands become prevalent in the 1960s (GOL 1976). It was reported that more than three-fourths of the population depended on the tuna fishing industry (Jones and Kumaran 1959), but no details were given on how many were involved actively in fishing. However, Jones (1958) gave details of the professional and part-time fishers of Minicoy Island for the year 1958, which accounted for approximately 24% of the total population. This ratio was used to estimate an active fisher population for the years 1951 and 1961 and missing values were filled with interpolation, with 1950 estimated by backward extrapolation from 1951. Fishing days were estimated from the main fishing season (September/October to April/May; approximately 8 months) along with the assumption that fishing was done for 6 days per week. Down time was calculated based on the information that in monsoon season, mas-odi vessels were beached for maintenance and sea fishing was suspended with occasional fishing in lagoons (Jones and Kumaran 1959). As well as, Muslim religious holidays falling in the main season (6 days) were deducted as the majority of inhabitants were Muslims (Jones and Kumaran 1959). This estimated value of fishing days was used as a flat value for the time series due to the absence of any other information. 2.2.1.2 Vessels with engines  Different agencies classify vessels differently, even within the same state, e.g., based on gear type, vessel length, vessel material, or engine type. In Gujarat, for example, the vessels with engines were categorized in different sources as FRP (fibre glass re-enforced plastic) or fibre glass and wooden or plank-built boats, inboard and outboard motor boats, trawlers and gillnetters, i.e., gear specific and general as ?others? with no gear specifications. Thus, wherever 56  possible, available information was used to allocate vessels into designated categories as discussed before. Ambiguity in reported statistics on different vessel types, e.g., vessels with engines were usually categorized as ?mechanized? or ?motorized? in published sources. However, sometimes number of motorized vessels were either included in the ?traditional? or in the ?mechanized? sector and sometimes both.  Also, a number of vessels were reported under other categories such as boats in operation and number of boats owned by fishers. Therefore, data were analyzed thoroughly, and if a source of error was found and, in absence of other knowledge, data were excluded; otherwise adjustments were made to avoid double counting. There were discrepancies in the level of detail reported from year to year. Fishing gear information, for example, was missing for some years, or reported as ?others?, or as general as ?trawl?, or specific as ?stern trawl?. In the case of as broad a category as ?others,? whenever enough information was available, it was allocated to gear specific categories. In absence of information, they were allocated the lowest horsepower, but kept as a separate category (see Appendix D). Data were not available for every state and year, and sometimes multiple values were given for a year in different sources. In case of several values, the mean was calculated, and for missing data, values were estimated by interpolation and extrapolation from the main categories (in Appendix D, these interpolated and extrapolated values are shown in bold). However, if the total was given for a number of vessels, it was kept unaltered, unless enough information was available to make the required change, e.g., one of the categories was not added in the total.  In case of gear-specific subcategories, data were limited especially for earlier years. Historical information in literature was used to find introductory year of each gear type and thus, create a timeline. In Karnataka, for example, details were available on the mechanization 57  program, which was started in 1957, but no information was given on gear type (Pattanayak 1988). As a timeline was created for all gear types, using the method of elimination trawlers were found to be the first to be introduced (also see Table 2.1).  In case of Gujarat, to allocate a starting year to gillnetters, two pieces of information were used: (1) Mathai et al. (2003) mentioned that in 1956 first vessels with inboard engines were introduced in this state, though no details were given on which type; and (2) based on Johnson (2002), in 1951, American Technical Cooperation Mission provided assistance to float a gillnet boat with an inboard engine; it was assumed after cross tallying with introduction of other gear types and catches, that gillnetters started operating in Gujarat in 1956. In the state of Maharashtra, data for the 1950s were unavailable; the data for other early years were rendered difficult to interpret by the fact that it was part of ?Bombay State? (including Gujarat) until 1960. Thus, in the absence of information, the historical account of Gujarat was considered to allocate starting years to specific gears (Table 2.1). Further, when no information was available, catches were used to identify the year of introduction of a particular gear type. In Goa, for example, the species composition of the gillnet fishery was analyzed using regional references (Alagaraja et al. 1992). In 1968, the catch of these gillnet fishery was only 27 tonnes and grew to 1,321 tonnes in 1969. As there was no increase in ?vessels without engines? for this year; therefore, it was assumed that the mechanized gillnetters were introduced in year 1969 (see Table 2.1 for rest of the states).  The data on number of vessels were readily available as compared to horsepower and fishing days. To complete the first set of estimates for these two variables (horsepower and fishing days), whenever data were absent, the information from the same zone or adjoining states was used. Further, fishing days were also calculated by deducting downtime and religious holidays in a year. In the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, for example, the majority of fishers, 58  85%, were Hindus (Bhargava et al. 2006), so all Hindu festivals (21 days) were considered, and it was assumed that they work 6 days per week.  Then accordingly, the number of days spent at fishing was calculated. Similar computations were performed for fishing days in the case of the Lakshadweep Islands, using their main fishing season and considering Muslim religious holidays as a majority of inhabitants were Muslims (Jones and Kumaran 1959). The effort exerted by deep sea vessels was estimated for two time periods. First, the trawlers, which operated from 1951 (Taiyo Maru No. 17) to 1963 in the waters of Maharashtra and Gujarat, then called Bombay and Saurashtra (Table 2.2). These trawlers operated under a joint venture agreement between the Japanese Taiyo Fishing Company9 and the Indian New India Fisheries Company. Although, Pusalkar and Mammen (1985) reported that operations continued until 1969, but no data were available after 1963, and this is the only publication to mention operations beyond 1963. Therefore, data were included only up to the year 1963. Reported effort was then divided between the state of Gujarat and Maharashtra based on the proportion of their effort values to total effort.  The second group were the deep sea vessels which operated from 1972 to 2005. These industrial vessels were mostly based at Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (Devaraj 1995) and did not report their landings regularly to the designated institutes. Even, CMFRI failed to obtain data from them (Srinath, CMFRI, pers. comm. April, 2004). While they operated on the entire east coast, many times their effort was reported under the state of Andhra Pradesh. Thus, the total effort, which was calculated by collecting the above mentioned variables, was divided among the states of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, West Bengal and Puducherry from 1972 to 2005.                                                  9 Initially, Taiyo Fishing Company was invited to India for a consultancy for a Bombay firm and to provide their technical opinion on vessels. The experimental trawling as suggested by them was considered successful. Then, Taiyo Fishing Company applied for and received a special license for a year trial with trawler named Taiyo Maru No. 17 in 1951 (Jayaram et al. 1959; Rao et al. 1966; Pusalkar and Mammen 1985).  59  Table 2.1 Details of information used to assign starting (introductory) year to gear-specific vessel categories, in absence of specific year being mentioned. The lines marked in inverted commas are verbatim from references, which are mentioned under 'sources'. This assigned starting year was useful in effort estimation per subcategory (also see Appendix D). Area Vessel category Year Information (verbatim from sources) with remarks Sources Gujarat Gillnetters 1956 "The mechanized boats with inboard engines were introduced in 1956 first at Veraval"; "In 1951 received assistance from American TCM-Technical Cooperation Mission to float a 33 foot gillnet boat powered with 25 hp inboard engine". (Johnson 2002; Mathai et al. 2003) Gujarat Dolnetters 1974 "In early 1970s many entrepreneurs started venturing into mechanized sector employing mechanized trawlers, gill netters and dol netters " (Mathai et al. 2003) Gujarat Others 1982 "Since 1982 boats or canoes are made of Fiber Glass Re-inforced Plastics (FRP) are also used". FRPs were added to category 'others'. Horsepower and fishing days were used from vessels with outboard engines (i.e., with lowest horsepower). (Shiyani 2003) Daman and Diu Trawlers 1961 Used same year as Goa. Goa, Daman and Diu were a union territory of India until 1987. (GOI 2004a) Daman and Diu Purse seiners 1964 Used same year as Goa. Goa, Daman and Diu were a union territory of India until 1987. (GOI 2004a) Daman and Diu Gillnetters 1969 Used same year as Goa. Goa, Daman and Diu were a union territory of India until 1987. (GOI 2004a) Goa Trawlers 1961 "In 1961, there were only four trawlers"- so 1961 is assumed as starting year. (D?Cruz and Raikar 2004) Goa Gillnetters 1969 Catch data were used (details in Section 2.2.1).   Goa Vessels with outboard engines 1980 Motorization of traditional vessels in India began as a program of the Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-1985; GOI 1985), so assigned 1980 as a starting year. (GOI 1980) Maharashtra Gillnetters 1956 Assumed same as Gujarat; the state of Maharashtra and Gujarat were part of the Bombay state until 1960. Pillai and Dharmaraja (1986) had reported that the level of mechanization in the two states was similar in case of gillnetters and trawlers. (Pillai and Dharmaraja 1986) Maharashtra Trawlers 1962 "Although trawling in Maharashtra started in early 1960". (Deshmukh et al. 2001) Maharashtra Dolnetters 1972 First, 1972 was the first year when number of dolnetters was reported. Second, used information for the state of Gujarat, i.e., ?In early 1970s many entrepreneurs started venturing into mechanized sector employing mechanized trawlers, gill netters and dol netters". (Mathai et al. 2003) Maharashtra Liners 1972 Used the first year for which number of liners was reported.   Maharashtra Purse seiners 1989 "Purse seiners introduced in late 1980s off Ratnagiri and Bombay coasts were of 11.5 to 13 m in length"  (Pillai et al. 2000) Karnataka Trawlers 1957 "Mechanization program were started by the state from 1957-58 only".  "Starting with 2 Pablo boats in 1958, the state had a tremendous growth in mechanized fishing". All other vessel types were assigned with starting years, so assumed this information to be for trawlers. (Jayaraj 1978; Pattanayak 1988) 60  Area Vessel category Year Information (verbatim from sources) with remarks Sources Karnataka Gillnetters 1980 "Exploitation of inshore columnar resources gained importance in eighties, since both inshore demersal and pelagic resources are already exploited. Hence, a large number of mechanized and motorized boats were introduced for gillnetting and long lining". (Shanbhogue 1989; Sudarsan 1993) Karnataka Liners 1980 "Exploitation of inshore columnar resources gained importance in eighties, since both inshore demersal and pelagic resources are already exploited. Hence, a large number of mechanized and motorized boats were introduced for gillnetting and long lining". (Shanbhogue 1989; Sudarsan 1993) Karnataka Vessels with outboard engines 1981 "Exploitation of inshore columnar resources gained importance in eighties, since both inshore demersal and pelagic resources are already exploited. Hence, a large number of mechanized and motorized boats were introduced for gillnetting and long lining". "In Karnataka the outboard motor type of mechanized crafts are rare". (Gupta et al. 1984b; Shanbhogue 1989; Sudarsan 1993) Kerala Trawlers 1956 "The design and performance of trawl system have progressed significantly since its introduction during 1950s"  "The mechanised boats were first introduced in this area (Sakthikulangara-Neendakara) in the mid fifties under the auspices of the Indo Norwegian Project".  (Devaraj and Smita 1988; Sathiadas and Venkataraman 1981) Kerala Gillnetters 1969 "The mechanized drift gillnet fishery commenced in the inshore waters of Cochin in 1969".  Indo Norwegian project was stationed at Cochin, Kerala. So, assumed that gillnetters, which were introduced in Cochin region represent Kerala. (Silas et al. 1984) Kerala Vessels with outboard engines 1981 "The mechanization of traditional crafts with outboard motors in the early eighties can be considered as one of the milestones in the development of artisanal fisheries of Kerala state. Even though this trend was initiated in central Kerala by 1981, it spread to northern and southern areas by about 1983 only".  (Gopakumar et al. 1995) Kerala Liners 1982 "The Colachal fisher started the operation of hooks and lines using mechanized boats with base at Cochin in 1982".  This information is region specific; however, liners were not reported in government statistics prior to 1982, so assumed this to be the starting year.  (Mathew and Venugopal 1990) Lakshadweep Islands Vessels with inboard engines 1959 "The first 9.14 metres long mechanized boats were introduced in the year 1959 at Kavaratti". "Before 1959 there was no mechanized fishing boat available in Lakshadweep". (Koya 2008; Varghese 1991) Lakshadweep Islands Vessels with outboard engines 1965 "The mechanized vessels were introduced on Islands other than Minicoy, e.g., Agatti, Suheli Par and Bitra in early sixties".  Based on above information and Varghese (1991), that  even in 1962  "other islands fishing continued to be the traditional harpooning for shark and bill fishes with practically no fishing for tuna" and "The small country crafts of other islands were supplied with outboard motors at subsidized cost".  It was assumed that vessels with outboard engines were introduced in 1965. (James et al. 1987; Varghese 1991) Tamil Nadu Gillnetters 1951 "In G.O. No. 419, Food and Agriculture (Food Production), dated 15th September 1951; the Government sanctioned the construction of another set of 5 boats. 4 of these have launched and the last one is nearing completion pending receipt of engine". Assumed these vessels to be Gillnetters. (GOM 1953) 61  Area Vessel category Year Information (verbatim from sources) with remarks Sources Tamil Nadu Trawlers 1955 "The history of fishing boat mechanization in Tamil Nadu dates back to 1954-55 when designing of a suitable mechanized fishing craft was undertaken in collaboration with FAO. Since then gradual progress has been achieved in the mechanized sector thereby increasing the number of trawlers".  (Pillai et al. 2000) Tamil Nadu Liners 1990 "Mechanized trawlers also operate hooks and lines along the coral reefs ". Based on year of this publication, year was assumed to be 1990. (Jayasankar 1990) Puducherry Vessels with inboard engines 1961 "Under the scheme mechanised fishing boats of 30' and 32' size with synthetic fish net twine was supplied to fishermen". Vessels with engines were reported to be 2 in year 1961. So assumed it as a starting year. (Gupta et al. 1984c; Xavier 1991) Puducherry Vessels with outboard engines 1991 "It has been observed that only a small number of outboard engine fitted units was introduced in Pondicherry recently". Based on year of publication, assumed it to be 1991. (Pillai et al. 1994a) Andhra Pradesh Trawlers 1954 "Mechanization of fishing crafts commenced in 1954-55 when the state government in collaboration with FAO introduced the first mechanized boat".  "Mechanized fishing was introduced slowly in 1960, to start with, by the Government of India fishing trawlers and then number of small mechanized boats came into operation".  (Pillai et al. 2000; Rao and Lakshmi 1988) Andhra Pradesh Vessels with outboard engines 1955 "A small boat building unit was established at Kakinada in 1955 and 5 marine diesel engines obtained under T.C.M aid was utilized for motorization of navas and they were put into operation in the same year".  (Rao 1986) Andhra Pradesh Gillnetters 1972 "By the end of March, 1972, a total of 178 Pablo boats were constructed at the Boat building yard suitable for gillnet operation and distributed to fishermen".  (Rao 1986) Orissa Gillnetters 1957 "Government of Orissa introduced Mechanized vessel for the first time in the Orissa coast during 1957-1958". "They were used for gill-netting in the open sea".  (Ali 1996) Orissa Liners 1990 "Operation of this gear from motorized crafts was started in 1990s in Orissa".  (Annam 1997) West Bengal Gillnetters 1958 "The mechanized boats were introduced during the Second Plan Period in the State".  As all other types were introduced in later years so assumed it to be gillnetters and as only 2 vessels were reported to be operating in 1958, so used it as a starting year. (GOI 1971g) West Bengal Trawlers 1990 "Trawling is never tried here by fishermen. It would be helpful if Government train up local fishermen in it and encourage trawling".  "In recent times, bottom trawling has been observed". (Dan 1985; Srinath et al. 2008) West Bengal Liners 1994 "The introduction of master-hooks for hook & line shark fishery employing mechanized craft with the inboard engine of 72 -120 Hp has been recently reported at Kakdweep" (Pillai et al. 2000) Andaman and Nicobar Islands Vessels with inboard engines 1968 Based on first available data on vessels with engines, which was the year 1968 (5 in number) assigned the starting year. (CMFRI 1969) Andaman and Nicobar Islands Vessels with outboard engines 1981 "Motorization of traditional vessels in India began as a program of the Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-1985)". No data were available for vessels with outboard engines for year 1980, so assigned 1981 as a starting year. (GOI 1980) 62  Some of these industrial vessels were reported fishing for lobster as far as Kerala (Sudarsan, 1992b). Deep sea lobster fishing started in 1988 due to declining shrimp catches in the upper Bay of Bengal (Sivaprakasam, 1992) so the states of Kerala and Karnataka were also included from 1987 to 2005. The estimated total effort was divided among all the states based on the proportion of their value in India?s total catches (see Table 2.3; Section 2.2.2).  As mentioned above, total fishing effort was estimated in this study as the product of the number of vessels, total engine power (or crew size for unmotorized vessels) and annual number of fishing days at sea for each category summed over for all vessel types. The final time-series of nominal fishing effort from 1950-2005 for all study areas, which was expressed in horsepower-days for all vessel categories, was converted into kilowatt-days using a conversion factor of 0.7457 (Gelchu and Pauly 2007;Anticamara et al. 2011). Inclusion of engine power in fishing effort calculations, other than being a standardized measure, has other advantages, i.e., it provide a means to compare different fisheries in terms of fuel consumption and the amount of energy consumed per kilogram of fish caught (Tyedmers et al., 2005; Gelchu and Pauly 2007 ).  Indian fisheries have gone through several waves of improvements regarding gear material and designs, introduction and improvement of vessels with engines and increase in information technology, use of electronic gadgets, such as fish detection devices and personnel (skipper) training (Pillai and Katiha 2004b). As discussed in the introduction section, Pauly and Palomares (2010) conducted a meta-analysis and estimated technological creep of around 2 to 4% per year.  However, to account for the slower rate of adaption of technological changes in India, a technological creep (factor) of only 1% was applied, which was a conservative annual increase in efficiency. This final time series of effective fishing effort was used in further analysis.  63  2.2.2 Catch reconstruction  CMFRI as well as the state fisheries departments monitor and estimate the annual fish catches in India. Other federal institutes, such as MPEDA10 also publish catches by state (MPEDA 2001). However, the sampling design and methods used for the collection of marine fish catch statistics differ among states, UTs and CMFRI (CMFRI, 1985). State and UT reports provide taxonomically highly aggregated landings statistics (e.g., only 26 groups in Gujarat state), with the bulk of landings grouped under the ?miscellaneous category?, i.e., little or no information on species caught. Moreover, no details are provided about the methodology used for arriving at these catch figures. On the contrary, CMFRI, which collected data for all coastal states, describe in their reports the multistage stratified random sampling design used to collect the information required for estimation of marine fish landings with a stratification that is both temporal (days) and spatial (zones)11 (Srinath, 2003). CMFRI statistics also have a ?miscellaneous? group, as in state reports, but its contribution is quite low. Catches are also divided better taxonomically, i.e., into 65 subcategories. The catches (weight in tonnes) were thus assembled for this study from 1994 to 2005 for the maritime States of India and its UTs using CMFRI as a main source. Unreported landings were updated and estimated from 1970 to 2005 using several sources (details below; See Appendix D showing catch data for all study areas).                                                   10 MPEDA: Marine Products Export Development Authority 11 Under this approach, all maritime states were divided into contiguous and compact ?fishery zones?, where each zone was comprised of 20 to 30 landing centers with similar landings levels (Silas, 1977; Algaraja, 1998). For example, the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat were divided into 8 and 6 zones, respectively, taking into consideration the topography and fishing intensity along the coasts (Kumari and Dharmaraja, 1981). In order to ensure homogeneity among landing centres, a further stratification was applied, if required, within a zone, to reduce sampling variance (Algaraja, 1998). Also, important landing centres such as major fisheries harbours were treated as a single zone. In total, samples were collected from 2251 fish landing centres and the frequency of observations were up to 18 days per month (Vivekanandan, 2003).  64  Table 2.2 Catch and effort of industrial trawlers, 1951-1963, which operated in the Bombay-Saurashtra waters (i.e., present day Maharashtra and Gujarat waters). Fishing effort was calculated as product of number of vessels, horsepower and fishing days. Effort and catch for each state was estimated based on proportion of their values in total effort and catch for 1951 to 1963. Values in bold represent interpolated and extrapolated data  (Jayaraman et al. 1959; Rao et al. 1966). Year Total catch (t) Number of trawlers Trawler type Vessel power (hp) Fishing days Total fishing effort (hp days) Catches: Maharashtra (t) Catches: Gujarat (t) Fishing effort: Maharashtra       (hp days) Fishing effort: Gujarat           (hp days) 1951 977 1 Otter trawler 550 219 120,450 664 313 58,804 61,646 1952 913 1 Otter trawler 550 230 126,500 641 271 66,808 59,692 1953 962 1 Otter trawler 550 251 138,050 679 284 77,133 60,917 1954 1,410 2  450 251 225,900 996 414 128,426 97,474 1955 1,857 3  350 251 263,550 1,310 547 155,148 108,402 1956 2,304 4 Bull trawler 250 251 251,000 1,581 723 166,641 84,359 1957 3,281 4 Bull trawler 250 251 251,000 2,105 1,175 173,610 77,390 1958 3,581 4 Bull trawler 250 251 251,000 2,415 1,166 177,198 73,802 1959 2,720 4 Bull trawler 250 251 251,000 1,894 826 180,827 70,173 1960 4,248 4 Bull trawler 250 251 251,000 2,199 2,049 177,599 73,401 1961 3,939 4 Bull trawler 250 251 251,000 2,238 1,701 163,671 87,329 1962 3,550 4 Bull trawler 250 251 251,000 2,039 1,510 167,567 83,433 1963 2,682 4 Bull trawler 250 251 251,000 1,496 1,186 154,650 96,350 65  Table 2.3 Estimated total effort (hp days) and catches (t) of deep sea vessels, 1972-2005. Total fishing effort was calculated as product of number of vessels, vessel power and fishing days. Total shrimp catch was calculated as average shrimp catch per vessel times number of vessels and total fish catch was calculated as shrimp catch times 9 (1:9 shrimp with head to fish ratio; see details in Section 2.2.2). Interpolated and extrapolated values are represented in bold (Rao 1988; Gordon 1991; Sudarsan 1992; Rao 1993; Devaraj 1995; Unnithan et al. 1995; Verghese 1996; Chennubhotla et al. 1999). Year Number of deep sea vessels Vessel power (hp) Fishing days Total fishing effort (hp days) Average shrimp catch per vessel (t) Total shrimp catch (t) Total fish catch (t) 1972 2 373 168 125,160 28 56 503 1973 8 373 168 490,210 28 219 1,970 1974 14 373 168 855,260 28 382 3,438 1975 20 373 168 1,220,310 28 545 4,905 1976 25 373 168 1,585,360 28 708 6,372 1977 31 373 168 1,950,410 28 871 7,840 1978 37 373 168 2,315,460 28 1,034 9,307 1979 50 373 160 2,970,688 28 1,397 12,577 1980 50 373 230 4,283,750 28 1,397 12,577 1981 56 373 206 4,307,393 28 1,565 14,086 1982 58 373 210 4,497,938 48 2,761 24,848 1983 58 381 147 3,256,759 32 1,890 17,010 1984 61 390 129 3,084,113 50 3,067 27,599 1985 75 398 137 4,101,788 30 2,231 20,079 1986 98 407 113 4,496,053 33 3,261 29,350 1987 117 415 89 4,284,025 11 1,223 11,009 1988 136 415 93 5,209,539 8 1,094 9,849 1989 152 417 93 5,875,915 20 3,045 27,405 1990 168 420 93 6,529,805 19 3,230 29,073 1991 168 422 93 6,565,178 18 3,095 27,857 1992 151 424 93 5,938,251 11 1,589 14,300 1993 134 426 93 5,304,225 11 1,412 12,705 1994 117 429 93 4,663,100 11 1,234 11,110 1995 101 431 93 4,014,877 11 1,057 9,515 1996 84 433 93 3,359,555 11 880 7,920 1997 67 435 93 2,697,134 11 703 6,326 1998 50 438 93 2,027,615 11 526 4,731 1999 51 440 93 2,072,112 11 534 4,809 2000 52 440 93 2,106,081 11 543 4,888 2001 53 440 93 2,140,050 11 552 4,967 2002 53 440 93 2,174,019 11 561 5,046 2003 54 440 93 2,207,988 11 569 5,125 2004 55 440 93 2,241,957 11 578 5,204 2005 55 440 93 2,241,957 11 578 5,204    66  Catches were updated for the early 1950s in the case of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Orissa, West Bengal, and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, using the reconstructed effort data and historical information from varied sources. Catches were aggregated into 28 broad taxonomic categories with further sub-divisions into subgroups at family, genus and species level. In total, 65 statistical categories were used in all analyses through a common template applied to all study areas, which roughly corresponds to CMFRI?s published format for landing statistics. Similar data were compiled earlier by Bhathal (2004) from 1994 to 2000; however, they were not used in this analysis because reported data were based on sampling methods different from those used by CMFRI and the recent data clearly deviated, in many cases, from the trends suggested by the earlier years.  The compiled data suffered from various imperfections, including: (1) different formats, e.g., data were sometimes reported using common names, broad taxonomic groups, or at species level; (2) missing values for some species or data from UTs which were more problematic than those from states; (3) catches reported in the non-informative ?miscellaneous? group; (4) absence of landing estimates for important fisheries, notably on catches of deep-sea fishing (industrial) vessels, i.e., > 120 hp; and (5) absence of information on discards by all sectors, illegal fishing and subsistence fisheries.  Thus, the available dataset was checked for inconsistencies and missing years were interpolated12 and occasionally extrapolated13, keeping the given total unaltered, using the miscellaneous group as a ?reservoir? (details below). Various other adjustments were also made based on information from the literature.                                                   12 Interpolation is a class of methods for estimating a value or values between two known data points.  13 Extrapolation is a class of methods for estimating a value or values beyond the available data, i.e., for extending the data.  67  The total catches for the year 2005 were by state with no information on species caught. Therefore, the 2005 taxonomic disaggregation is based on that for the year 2004. The ?miscellaneous group? was not excluded as it represented a considerable amount of landings. Rather, it was reduced to zero by following a two-step approach. In the first step, this group was treated as a ?reservoir? from which all interpolated and extrapolated catches were taken out, and to which the catches of a few erroneous taxa were added. In the second step, the remaining miscellaneous landings at state level were assigned to specific fish, crustacean, and mollusc taxa in proportion to their value in the total. This was done as George et al. (1981) reported that the miscellaneous group mainly contains so-called ?low value fish?, which are of smaller size and low consumer preference. Several reports confirmed that the catches of the trawl fishery contains considerable amount of juveniles and low-value fishes; see also see Section 1.8.5 in Chapter 1 (Sivasubramaniam 1990; Gordon 1991; Sujatha 1995; Menon and Pillai 1996; Sujatha 1996; Puthra et al. 1998).  Total catch was available for the industrial trawlers, which operated from 1951 to 1963 in the waters of Gujarat and Maharashtra. This catch was distributed between the two states based on their catch proportion in total catches (see Table 2.2). Then, based on details given in Rao (1966) about the fishes caught by these industrial trawlers, the catches were assigned to designated subcategories using their proportion in the total. In the case of industrial (deep-sea) vessels, mainly trawlers, introduced in 1972, the unreported fish catches (both landings and discards) were estimated for India as a whole using data on the number of vessels (also see Section 2.2.1), reported prawn catches (Rao 1988b; Sudarsan 1992; Devaraj 1995; Verghese 1996), and heads-on shrimp to fish ratio (i.e., the bycatch ratio) of 1:9 [see Table 2.3 and Section 1.8.2 for more details; (Gordon 1991)]. 68  Fishes are a major non-target group or bycatch of these shrimp trawlers. Bycatch, in this study, refers to landed bycatch plus discards (the latter being the bycatch which is thrown back to the sea). It was assumed that, from 1972 to 2005, only 30% of the fishes caught by trawlers were retained and 70% were discarded. Although discard estimates can vary among states, it has been found that, overall, one-third of all bycatch was discarded, and other sources suggest that the figure was closer to 20% (Chandrapal 2007). However, the estimate used in the current study was a conservative measure as compared to other reports (Gordon 1991; Kungsuwan 1999; Salgrama 1999; Ganapathiraju 2012).  Similar to the effort data as detailed in Section 2.2.1, the catches of the large vessels which generally operate on the east coast (Devaraj, 1995; Srinath, CMFRI, pers. comm. April, 2004) were divided among the states of Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, and West Bengal from 1972 to 2005. This division of catches for respective years was done using catch proportion of each state in India?s total landings. Deep sea lobster fishing was initiated around 1988 (Sivaprakasam, 1992), thus, from 1987 to 2005, the states of Kerala and Karnataka were also included, and likewise, catches were divided in proportion to their value in India?s total catch.  Further to distribute catches to species, it was assumed that the taxa, which were commercially valuable were landed ashore, while the remainder was thrown overboard as reported by Sivasubramaniam (1990). Then, the price data were used to rank the demersal groups from high- to low-value. Pomfrets, for example, were one of the highly valued groups, followed by cephalopods, eels, big-jawed jumper, elasmobranchs and mullets. The retained bycatch (30%) was assumed to consist of the highest priced species and were distributed among species on basis of their proportion in total landings of each state. Once the retained bycatch was distributed, the discards (70%) were distributed among the remaining demersal groups based on their proportion 69  in the total catch (also see Section 1.8.2). This procedure was performed independently for each year.  Unreported discards by rest of industrial fleet (i.e., vessels using inboard engines of above 50 hp) were quantified by assuming that 2% of India?s total marine landings were discarded from 1970 onwards; this was a conservative measure. The discard figure was based on the study by George et al. (1981) on bycatch of shrimp fisheries, in which he reported that in 1979 discards by mechanised vessels (excluding large trawlers) were very low (i.e., 2%) and most of the bycatch was utilised. These estimated discards were then assigned to all states and UTs based on their proportion in India?s total. The discards in each state were then, assigned proportionally among all taxonomic groups (except for the ?miscellaneous fish?).  Illegal fishing, here referred to foreign vessels poaching in India?s EEZ (including both mainland and Islands), is reported for trawlers, followed by tuna long liners. These vessels were reported to be from Taiwan, Thailand, Myanmar, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Korea, Japan, and Russia (Dan 1982; Rajan 2003; Ganapathiraju 2012). A recent study (Ganapathiraju 2012) has estimated and published illegal catches per decade (1970-1980, 1980-1990, 2000-2009) for India as a whole except the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. However, state-wise estimation was done for only domestic illegal catches, i.e., Indian trawlers infringing the reserved artisanal zone and violating regulations and did not consider unreported catches. Thus in absence of detailed statistics, these estimates were not further considered in the present study. Similarly information was missing on subsistence fisheries, which go unreported in government statistics. However, Ganapathiraju (2012) has estimated subsistence catches for major estuaries, backwaters, mangroves, and reefs for the year 2008. In the absence of any quantifiable information prior to 2008, statistics on subsistence fisheries could not be used in this present study.  70  Overall, the final assembled database for all study areas from 1970-2005 (1950-2005 for some states) included reported landings (refined and completed), unreported landings and discards, aggregated into 28 broad taxonomic categories with further subdivisions as discussed above. 2.2.3 Estimation of catch per unit effort Catch per unit effort, an index of relative abundance (also see the Introduction section) was estimated per study area using the final time-series of catches (t) and effective fishing effort (kilowatt days) from 1950-2005. Catches from 1950 to 1969 were used from Bhathal (2004), except Gujarat, Maharashtra, Orissa, West Bengal, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands as data for these states were updated with new available information, mainly based on effort data. Both catch and effort data for India were compiled for the component states and Union Territories to better understand the underlying trends at a finer spatial scale and then summed up to get a complete composite dataset for the country. Catch data were compiled at the species level and effort data to gear level, but catches could not be assigned per gear type due to the absence of information on gear-species associations.  2.3 Results and discussion The following sections present results, i.e., temporal and spatial trends of catch, effort and CPUE, along with interpretive comments starting with India and progressing geographically from the northwest to the northeast states and Union Territories. The percentage contribution per state and species were calculated as average for 56 years (1950-2005). The catch trends are discussed only from 1970 to 2005 except for Gujarat, Maharashtra, Orissa, West Bengal, and Andaman and Nicobar Islands where catches were revised from 1950s. In calculating and depicting trends of CPUE, catches without tuna and bill fishes were used. The reconstructed 71  effort (nominal) data in Appendix C includes an extra data point for year 2005, this value was not considered in the analysis as it seems to be an outlier in case of many states. 2.3.1 India Reconstructed Indian marine catches (Figure 2.1) indicate a gradual increase from 0.6 million t in 1950 to 1.8 million t in 1988. This was followed by a sharp increase in the 1980s and again in the 1990s, before a plateau was reached. For 1988, both oil sardine and Indian mackerel reported high catches, resulting in a visible surge from 1988 to 1989. Oil sardine, Indian mackerel, sciaenids, penaeid and non-penaeid prawns, and Bombay duck jointly contributed about half of the overall catch, on average, over the 56 years.  The time series of reconstructed effort illustrates a continuous increase from 1950 (16.80 x 106 kW days) to 2005 (1051.597 x 106 kW days). Effort accelerated from the 1990s onwards (Figure 2.2).  05001 015002000250030001950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch  (t ?103)Year Figure 2.1 Total catch of India for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005. Vessels without engines contributed on average 70% of the effort in the first two decades, which decreased as new vessels with engines were introduced, these new vessels accounted for 72  89% on average in last three decades. Out of all subcategories of vessels with engines, trawlers had the major contribution, followed by gillnetters and then vessels with outboard engines (using different gear types; Figure 2.2). On average all three jointly contribute about 86%.  0200400600800100012001950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Total effort (kW days ?106)YearOther vessels with enginesBagnettersLinersPurse seinersTrawlersGillnettersCommercial trawlersVessels with inboard enginesVessels with outboard enginesVessels withoutengines Figure 2.2 Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in India, 1950-2005.  Catch per unit effort displays a continuous decline from 1960 (28.99 kg/kW days) to 2005 (2.24 kg/kW days; Figure 2.3). The CPUE of India was calculated as the sum of the CPUE values across all states and UTs over 56 years.  The continuous increase in effort and thus catches could only occur due to technological improvements over time facilitating exploitation of resources. It was after India?s independence in 1947 that fisheries were seen as a potential sector for development, meeting growing food 73  demands, and accomplishing self-reliance. As a result, in 1952, a tripartite technical co-operation agreement was accorded between India, the USA, and the United Nations for fisheries development. That same year a tripartite agreement was signed by Norway, India, and the United Nations resulting in the Indo-Norwegian Project (INP), which was started in the state of Kerala. (Sandven 1959; Sathiarajan 1987; Johnson 2002).  0102030401950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch per unit effort (kg/kW days)Year  Figure 2.3 Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in India, 1950-2005. Another agreement was signed between the government of India and FAO regarding technical assistance in small craft mechanization/ motorization and technology (Pillai and Katiha 2004a). These projects and programmes started to concentrate on developing new designs and prototypes for mechanized boats. Vessels with engines using gillnets were introduced in early 1950s followed by experimental trawling. Commercial trawlers started to operate as early as 1951 in the waters of Gujarat and Maharashtra; however, they ceased their operation in 1963 (see Section 2.2.1 for more details). Various designs and sizes of mechanized fishing vessels were introduced over time under the guidance of these integrated programmes. The development of the shrimp industry and its export-oriented expansion in the mid-1960s led to an increase in trawlers countrywide (Mukundan and Radhalakshmy 1998). Other methods of fishing such as 74  tuna lining, dol netting and purse seining, were also attempted by the FAO and INP, leading to their addition in the existing fleet (Sadanandan et al. 1975; Verghese 1976; Dixitulu 2002). Boat material and gear design also went through consequent improvements in the fisheries sector, e.g., introduction of synthetic twine for making fish nets, addition of  Fibreglass-Reinforced Plastic (FRP) boats, and others (BOBP 1983; Sheshappa 1998; Thomas 2000). Several other major technological transformations were witnessed in the Indian fisheries, all resulting from successive Five Year Plans (see Table 1.1). In 1970s, open clashes between the traditional and mechanized sectors led to government intervention and the motorization of traditional vessels was seen as an important program of the Seventh Five Year Plan (GOI 1985a). This had support of financing schemes operated through the co-operative sector. However, efforts to motorize traditional vessels began earlier in some states. Deep sea fishing also received continuous support and encouragement through government programmes and industrial trawlers were introduced in year 1972. Over time, various advanced designs, high power and large size vessels with engines were launched, resulting in multiday fishing in majority of states after the1990s. Specialized and multipurpose fishing vessels, such as trawler cum purse seiners, trawler cum gillnetters, trawling cum fish carrying vessels, long-liners and trollers were also introduced (Sreekrishna and Shenoy 2001). However, a new phase of stagnating and even declining fish catches became visible after the year 2000 (Figure 2.1). 2.3.2 Gujarat The marine catches from Gujarat state constitute on average 14% of India?s total catch, and Gujarat ranks fourth among India?s maritime states in its contribution. The reconstructed marine catches (Figure 2.4), although fluctuating, show a gradual increase until the year 1985, 75  i.e., from 0.05 x 106 t in 1950 to 0.3 x 106 t in 1985. Thereafter, it shows a sharp increase until 2000, and then a decline (i.e., from 0.7 x 106 t in 2000 to 0.4 x 106 t in 2005). 01503004506007501950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch  (t ?103)Year  Figure 2.4 Total catch of Gujarat for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005. The reconstructed effort of Gujarat for all sectors combined shows an increasing trend from 0.5 x 106 kW days in 1950 to 232 x 106 kW days in 2005 (Figure 2.5). The effort contribution of vessels without engines increased gradually from 0.5 x 106 kW days in 1950 to 2.7 x 106 kW days in 2005. Their relative contribution in total, however, decreased from 100% in 1950 to a 1% in the last decade.  In the case of vessels with engines, effort increased from 0.05 x 106 kW days in 1951 to 39.94 x 106 kW days in 1985, then surged, reaching 229.51 x 106 kW days in 2003. Out of all subcategories trawlers have made the greatest contribution since their introduction (on average 53%), followed by gillnetters, 30% (Figure 2.5).  The time series of the CPUE (Figure 2.6) does not depict a clear trend in the initial years, but from 1956 onwards, relative abundance shows a continuous decline, i.e., 155.57 kg/kW days in 1956 to 1.81 in 2005 kg/kW days. This trend was also discussed in local publications. Fernandez (2004), for example, emphasized that uncontrolled increase in effort had led to reduction in CPUE, but did not provide any detailed analysis. However, Sehara (1998), who 76  demonstrated a declining CPUE of prawn trawler landings, found no increase in catches with escalating effort.  0501001502002501950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Total effort (kW days ?106)YearOther vessels with enginesBagnettersTrawlersGillnettersCommercial trawlersVessels with outboard enginesVessels withoutengines Figure 2.5 Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Gujarat, 1950-2005.  This continuous increase in catches until 2000 and effort until 2003 was due to the state government?s focus on promoting mechanization of fishing vessels,  supported by technical and financial assistance, e.g., in 1951, the Grow More Food scheme and the American Technical Cooperation Mission [United Nations Programme (GOG 1998)] and then, operation of industrial trawlers under the New India Fisheries Company, established with Japanese assistance (Jayaraman et al. 1959). This was followed by FAO assistance in mid 1950s (FAO 1958) and the 77  Columbo Plan in 1958 to develop the region?s gillnet and trawl fisheries (Johnson 2002). All the boats were added with financial assistance from the state government. 040801201601950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch per unit effort (kg/kW days)Year Figure 2.6 Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Gujarat, 1950-2005. To speed the adoption of trawling, in 1968, the state government of Gujarat established additional subsidies and loans for trawler boats to match those subsidies already in place (Johnson 2002). In the 1970s and early 1980s, World Bank funding was in place to upgrade the harbour facilities of several ports, including Veraval, Porbandar, and Mangrol in the state of Gujarat (Johnson 2001). As a result many fisher entrepreneurs started venturing into the mechanized sector, deploying mechanized trawlers, gill netters, and dol netters (Mathai et al. 2003). These changes led to promoted multiday fishing trips and a sharp increase in effort from the 1980s, as illustrated by Figure 2.5. Further, processing firms had rapid growth since the 1970s, which peaked in the early 1990s (Johnson 2001), and since the 1990s, state consumption has also increased (Fernandez 2004). The development of the shrimp industry over time and its export-oriented expansion, particularly in the late 1980s (Johnson 2002) due to high profits and market demand effort was spurred even further. 78  2.3.3 Daman and Diu Daman and Diu contributes only 0.4% in total marine catches of India. Overall, the catches increased steadily until 1990 (6.33 x 103 t), followed by a spike towards 2000 (16.12 x 103 t) and a flat trend thereafter, an artefact due to data extrapolation (Figure 2.7). A peak in catches for the year 1998 was due to high catches of catfish (12 fold increase), other clupeoids (4 fold increase) and silver pomfret. Similarly, seer fishes saw a 3 fold increase when the catch for year 1998 is compared to that of 1997. 05101520251950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch  (t ?103)Year  Figure 2.7 Total catch of Daman and Diu for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005. The time series of the reconstructed effort initially shows a very slow increase, i.e., during 1950 (0.05 x 106 kW days) to 1965 (0.30 x 106 kW days), followed by a gradual progress until 1977 (1.46 x 106 kW days); thereafter, effort increased considerably, reaching 7.76 x 106 kW days in 2005 (data for the last 5 years was extrapolated due to absence of information; Figure 2.8).  Vessels without engines formed the mainstay of the fishery until the mid-1960s. However, government programs to motorize the existing traditional vessels and introduce new mechanized ones resulted in shift of effort toward vessels with engines. As a result effort 79  contribution of these increased reaching more than 98% in 1980s and vessels with inboard engines contributed over 95% (Figure 2.8). 024681950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Total effort (kW days ?106)YearPurse seinersTrawlersGillnettersVessels with outboard enginesVessels withoutengines Figure 2.8 Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Daman and Diu, 1950-2005. Catch per unit effort i.e., (relative abundance) fluctuated in the initial years; however, after the 1960s, there is a continuous decline, from 57.63 in 1960 to 2.08 kg/kW days in 2005 (Figure 2.9). During the Portuguese period, fishing in Goa, Daman and Diu used traditional methods, operations were limited to coastal areas (Balan et al. 1987) and there was no focus on expansion (Verlekar 2008). The federal government promoted expansion of fisheries, including deep sea 80  fisheries through a rapid mechanization process supported with subsidies and loans. This resulted in increasing catches and rapid surge in effort (Figure 2.7 and 2.8). 01020304050601950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch per unit effort (kg/kW days)Year Figure 2.9 Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Daman and Diu, 1950-2005. A fisheries federation was established at Panaji (Goa) to encourage this process and thus, increase catches (Gupta et al. 1984a; IDBI 1974a, b). Vessels with outboard engines were introduced in the 1980s, which further increased the effort generated by the newly introduced vessels with inboard engines.   2.3.4 Maharashtra The state of Maharashtra ranks second among India?s maritime states and contributes 19% on average to the total marine fish catches of the country. The reconstructed catches (Figure 2.10) indicate a steady increase from 0.1 x 106 t in 1950 to 0.5 x 106 t and 2002, followed, however, by a decline to 0.3 x 106 t by 2005.  Reconstructed effort of Maharashtra shows a tremendous increase in effort from 0.57 x 106 kW days in 1950 to 23.42 x 106 kW days in 1970, and reaching 106.57 x 106 kW days in 1992. Then, it hits a plateau with 111.59 x 106 kW days in 2005 (Figure 2.11). As in Gujarat, 81  vessels without engines accounted for major share in effort in the early years, which shifted to vessels with engines contributing 97% to total effort in the last four decades. Out of all vessel types with engines, trawlers made the largest contribution, followed by gillnetters and dolnetters (Figure 2.11). 01002003004005001950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch  (t ?103)Year  Figure 2.10 Total catch of Maharashtra for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005. Catch per unit effort fluctuated during early 1950s, but then show  a continued decline over time, i.e., 208.24 kg/kW days in 1953 to 11.09 kg/kW days in 1965 and then  2.55 kg/kW days by 2005 (Figure 2.12). The increase in effort and catches resulted from government?s initiative to promote fisheries, which started as early as 1951, when the state government introduced a scheme to mechanize/motorize fishing vessels. In order to lure attention and popularise the scheme, the government provided subsidies and loans, which took care of almost 100% capital cost. A interesting aspect of the mechanization programme initiated in Maharashtra was that traditional vessels were modified for use with engines (Rao 1982). As a result, vessels with outboard engines started operating as early as 1951 and industrial trawlers belonging to the ?New India Fisheries Company? were added to the existing fleet the same year (Jayaraman et al. 1959).  82  0204060801001201950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Total effort (kW days ?106)YearBagnettersLinersPurse seinersTrawlersGillnettersCommercial trawlersVessels with outboard enginesVessels withoutengines  Figure 2.11 Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Maharashtra, 1950-2005. The introduction of vessels with inboard engines, i.e., gillnetters in 1956, trawlers in 1962 and longliners and dolnetters 1972 led to a considerable increase in effort (Figure 2.11) and catches (Figure 2.10). This rapid increase of effort was  due to government subsides, e.g., the 50% subsidy and 50% loan for the cost of an engine in the mid-1960s (GOMH 1964). If for the motorization/mechanization of vessels locally manufactured engines were used, then the subsidy amount given was much higher, and loan repayments were extended from 7 to 15  years (GOMH 1964).  In the late 1980s, purse seiners were introduced off the Ratnagiri and Bombay coasts of Maharashtra (Pillai et al. 2000), adding further to the existing effort. However, catches did not 83  increase as expected given the state of the resource base, which was reported to be over-exploited, with decreasing abundance and even extirpation of some species. Sand lobster (Thenus orientalis), for example, was reported to be depleted in waters of Maharashtra within less than two decades of exploitation, from 1978 to 1994 (Deshmukh 2001). 0501001502002501950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch per unit effort (kg/kW days)Year Figure 2.12 Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Maharashtra from 1950-2005. However, the state government then formulated a scheme to add larger vessels to the fleet, which could undertake fishing trips 15 to 20 days (rather than currently 4 to 10 days) and fish at the depth of 70 fathoms, but this scheme has not received much funding from the central government (Shah 2007). 2.3.5 Goa Goa contributes 2% in total marine catches of India. Reconstructed catches (Figure 2.13) show a steady increase until mid-1980s, followed by a sharp increase. However, after 1993, a decline in catches was observed from 0.12 x 106 t in 1993 to 0.08 x 106 t in 2005. The catches exhibit strong fluctuations, due to the highly variable Indian mackerel, oil sardine, and other clupeoids catches which contribute significantly to total catches (Longhurst and Pauly 1987). 84  03060901201501950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch  (t ?103)Year  Figure 2.13 Total catch of Goa for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005. Reconstructed fishing effort in Goa increased slowly from 0.3 x 106 kW days in 1950 to 0.6 x 106 kW days in 1968; it then increased at a faster rate in the late 1970s and reached 14.40 x 106 kW days in 1997. Thereafter, it levelled off and reached 15.14 x 106 kW days in 2005 (Figure 2.14). The effort by vessels without engines did not increase much over time; instead their contribution to total declined to 3% in the last decade. Vessels with engines make a major contribution to the total effort, with trawlers at about 71% on average, followed by purse seiners at about 22% on average (Figure 2.14).   Catch per unit effort fluctuated for the first 25 years, but overall shows a declining trend (Figure 2.15).  Goa became part of India in 1961. Subsequent to incorporation into India, Goa received incentives to mechanize its vessels. During the Portuguese period, the fisheries in Goa were left in the hands of traditional fishers, except that some trawlers were introduced in 1960. The Portuguese administration in Goa also attempted purse seining in 1957, but was unsuccessful (Verghese 1976). 85  04812161950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Total effort (kW days ?106)YearPurse seinersTrawlersGillnettersVessels with outboard enginesVessels withoutengines Figure 2.14 Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Goa, 1950-2005.  The department of fisheries of the government of Goa was established in 1963 (D?Cruz and Raikar 2004) and introduced several schemes to develop the infrastructure, construct new boats, and provide financial assistance to motorize existing traditional vessels, especially for the ramponkars, a traditional fishing community using very large beach seines, called ?rampons? (D?Cruz and Raikar 2004). In 1964, purse seining was successfully introduced (Panikkar et al. 1994), which was followed by the introduction of gillnetters in 1969. These development phases were reflected in slowly increasing catches and effort until the late 1960s. Introduction of new vessels with outboard engines in the 1980s and the motorization of existing traditional vessels further added to existing effort (Figure 2.14). The addition of vessels reduced its pace by the 86  mid-1990s due to declining catches (Figure 2.13). There was then a huge concern over declining catches, and in response to pressure from environmental and traditional fishing groups, in 1999, the Goa government imposed a ?monsoon ban? (Sonak et al. 2006).  01020304050601950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch per unit effort (kg/kW days)Year Figure 2.15 Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Goa from 1950-2005. Goa was always perceived as a good location for the deep sea fishing industry (IDBI 1974b), and thus, in the regional plan for Goa, 2001, further development of deep sea fishing with medium-sized mechanized vessels was still suggested (D?Cruz and Raikar 2004). However, hypoxic conditions develop in the deep waters off the Goa coast, and generally along the west coast of India, which have an adverse effect on the demersal fisheries resources (Banse 1968; Ansari et al. 2006). Thus, the addition of vessels did not increase catches, as shown in Figure 2.13. 2.3.6 Karnataka Karnataka contributes 8% on average to India?s total catch. The reconstructed catches show huge fluctuations, mainly due to Oil sardine and Indian mackerel, which form the bulk of the catches. Overall, catches doubled from 0.1 x 106 t in 1970 to 0.2 x 106 t in 2005 (Figure 2.16). 87  0501001502002503001950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch  (t ?103)Year  Figure 2.16 Total catch of Karnataka for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005. Reconstructed effort shows a gradual increase in effort until 1965, i.e., from 1.68 x 106 kW days in 1950 to 3.67 x 106 kW days in 1965, followed by two waves of rapid increase. Figure 2.17 shows that vessels without engines made a considerable contribution to total effort until 1965, but were then supplanted by vessels with engines. Out of all subcategories, trawlers accounted for the majority of the effort in this state, followed by gillnetters and purse seiners (Figure 2.17). The catch per unit effort time series fluctuates sharply for first two decades and then declines from 1970, i.e., 11.94 kg/kW days to 2.65 kg/k W days in 2005 (Figure 2.18).   The continuous increase in effort and catches, as shown in Figures 2.16 and 2.17 over time could occur due to support made available through government programmes and schemes, financial institutions, and the interest of private parties. Mechanization programmes were initiated soon after the state was reorganized in 1956 (GOI 1971c), and trawlers were introduced in 1957 in the Dakshinda Kannada district of Karnataka (Sudarsan 1993). The same year saw the first demonstration of mechanized fishing by FAO Expert Mr. Illugason (Gupta et al. 1984b).  88  Vessels with engines were introduced to fishers on a loan-cum-subsidy basis (Dhulkhed and Bhatt 1985).  0204060801001950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Total effort (kW days ?106)YearOther vessels with enginesLinersPurse seinersTrawlersGillnettersCommercial trawlersVessels with outboard enginesVessels withoutengines Figure 2.17 Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Karnataka, 1950-2005. Then, in the 1960s, with foreign collaboration, two new projects promoting mechanization were implemented in the state, i.e., extension of the Indo-Norwegian Project to Karwar in 1963 and the setting up of a marine products processing centre with Japanese assistance at Mangalore in 1967 (GOI 1971c). To further enhance these efforts, a scheme for the construction and distribution of trawlers was introduced in 1966 through the Dakshina Kannada District Cooperative Fish Marketing Federation of Karnataka (Bhatta et al. 2003).  89  01530451950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch per unit effort (kg/kW days)Year Figure 2.18 Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Karnataka from 1950-2005. More subsidies were introduced in the mid-1970s but restricted to boats of 32 feet and above. Then, in 1975, purse seiners were introduced ? again with government support ? to target pelagic fish resources, mainly mackerel and oil sardine (Jayaraj 1978). Attracted by the returns accruing to these purse seiners, private vessels also joined the fleet (Dhulkhed and Bhatt 1985).  However, with the introduction of purse seiners, the traditional sector using rampani (shore seine) saw their catch declining rapidly (Jacob et al. 1979; Muthiah 1982). Although the area of operation was different for these two gears, one operating offshore and the other being shore-based, but they exploited the same resources, and thus the purse seiners had an impact on the traditional sector (Jacob et al. 1979). As a result of the growing conflict between the two sectors, the government of Karnataka in the late 1970s provided rampani groups with more subsidies, and a lower interest rate to obtain loans to purchase purse seiners. Even financial agencies were instructed to be preferential towards rampani operating fishers (Jacob et al. 1979). Overall, the increase in catches and effort during the late 1970s was mainly due to enlarged fleet strength of trawlers and to the introduction of purse seiners.  90  In the 1980s unexploited mid-water resources, as opposed demersal or near-surface pelagic resources were seen as another avenue for expansion. As a result, vessels with outboard engines were introduced along with gillnetters and long liners (Sudarsan 1993) in 1980 and 1981, which further added to the existing effort in total.  A change occurred in trawling patterns in the early 1980s, when trawling acquired greater significance due to the increasing demand for prawns in the export industry. A multiday trawl fishery was introduced, which expanded the trawling grounds farther offshore and into deep waters, which resulted in increased catches of highly-priced large prawns (mainly Metapenaeus monoceros, Penaeus indicus, and P. monodon), squids, and finfishes (Zacharia et al. 1996). These multiday trawlers become popular from mid-1990s (Zacharia et al. 1996). 2.3.7 Kerala Kerala occupies the foremost position in India?s total marine catches by contributing 28% on average over the span of 55 years. Reconstructed catches show fluctuations corresponding to erratic catches of Indian mackerel and oil sardine (Longhurst and Pauly 1987) as in the state of Karnataka. Overall, there is a gradual increase in catches from 0.4 x 106 t in 1970 to 0.7 x 106 t in 1990; thereafter, catches reach a plateau staying at 0.5 to 0.6 x 106 t (Figure 2.19). Indian oil sardine and Indian mackerel alone contributed 39% to the total catches, as estimated based on an average of 56 years. Note the rapid catch increase in the late 1980s, which happens to correspond with the introduction of ring seine (discussed below), which mainly target these two species in Kerala (Balan and Sathianandan 2007).  Reconstructed effort increased steadily from  year 1950 (2.71 x 106 kW days) to 1990 (77.45 x 106 kW days), thereafter, sharply increased and reached at an effort of 236.48 x 106 kW days in 2000 and stayed stable for rest of the years with effort increase of 3% in 2005 (243.45 x 106 kW days; Figure 2.20). Vessels without engines made a major contribution to the effort in 91  the early-1960s. This changed thereafter to the extent that effort exerted by vessels with engines, mainly trawlers, accounted for over 90% on average for the last two decades (Figure 2.20). 02004006008001950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch  (t ?103)Year  Figure 2.19 Total catch of Kerala for all species, excluding tuna and billfish, 1950-2005. Catch per unit effort fluctuated during the first 15 years, but declined steadily from about 48.71 kg/kW days in the 1961 to 2.20 kg/kW days in 2005 (Figure 2.21).  As in the case of other states, vessels with engines using different gear types were introduced over time, resulting in high cumulative effort. Under the patronage of the Indo-Norwegian Project (INP), a mechanization programme was initiated in 1954 (GOI 1971d), and commercial trawling was first introduced at Sakthikulangara-Neendakara in the Quilon Coast of the state in 1956 (Sathiadas and Venkataraman 1981; Silas et al. 1984). This was followed by the start of an inshore drift gill net fishery in 1969 (Silas et al. 1984). As commercial trawling gained momentum and new vessel types joined the fleet, the need for improved harbor facilities became acute. Thus, in 1978 through a Grant-in-Aid Project of Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the Cochin Port Trust (CoPT) constructed the Cochin Fisheries Harbour (Silas et al. 1984). This development was considered a boon for mechanization programme and individual entrepreneurs started to invest in fishing, mainly 92  trawling for prawns in coastal areas (Jacob et al. 1987). New technological developments enabled the offshore expansion of trawlers.  0501001502002503001950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Total effort (kW days ?106)YearOther vessels with enginesLinersPurse seinersTrawlersGillnettersCommercial trawlersVessels with outboard enginesVessels withoutengines Figure 2.20 Cumulative effective fishing effort by vessels of various types in Kerala, 1950-2005. In 1979 commercial purse seining was initiated in the inshore waters followed by the upgrading of traditional boats by adding outboard engines (Jacob et al. 1982; James et al. 1991). The INP had tried to motorize traditional vessels in 1953 using outboard motors, but it failed. In 1969 the Indo-Belgian project tried the kerosene outboard motors with no success. Another attempt was made in 1975 by the Marianad Community Development Project in the Trivandrum district of Kerala with no success (Vivekanandan 1993). However, the motorization programme picked up in 1980s, and it largely resulted in replacing the vessels without engines (Jacob et al. 93  1982; Gopakumar et al. 1995). As in the 1970s, this came throughout the 1980s at the cost of severe conflicts between the operators of vessels with and without engines.  0204060801001950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch per unit effort (kg/kW days)Year Figure 2.21 Trend of catch-per-unit-effort in Kerala from 1950-2005. Vessels with engines also started fishing using hooks and lines in 1982 (Mathew and Venugopal 1990) and the mini-purse seine, called the ring seine, was introduced in 1986. This gear become very popular among the traditional fishers using vessels with outboard engines (Edwin and Hridayanathan 1997; Ammini 1999). To increase their catches, fishers modified or purchased mechanized boats by using or borrowing money from different agencies, which included government subsidies, cooperative societies, banks, private money lenders, and loans advanced from the Agricultural Refinance Development Corporation [ARDC; (Panikkar and Alagaraja 1981)]. Fisheries export-orientated focus and steady government support and encouragement led to rapid addition of improved vessels with engines and gear types over time and thus, effort increased rapidly from late 1980s (Figure 2.20).  2.3.8 Lakshadweep Islands The Lakshadweep Islands contribute only 0.2% on average to India?s total marine catch. Their reconstructed catches in general indicate an increase from 1970 to 2000, with the flat trend 94  thereafter being an artifact due to data extrapolation (Figure 2.22). The peak in catches for the year 1998 was due to high catches of tunas and billfishes, which are the major target groups, contributing on average 73% over the period of 56 years.  012341950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Catch  (t ?103)Year Figure 2.22 Total catch of Lakshadweep Islands for all species, excludes tuna & billfish, 1950-2005. The time series of reconstructed effort shows a continuous increase from 0.02 x 106 kW days in 1950 to 0.33 x 106 kW days in 1970 reaching 2.92 x 106 kW days in 2005 (Figure 2.23). A shift in major effort contribution from vessels without engines to vessels with engines is evident. Vessels with inboard engines had a major share (73% since their introduction) of vessels with engines (Figure 2.23). Catch per unit effort increased until the 1970s, as fishers learned to deploy the new technology available to them. Then, predictably, it shows a slow decline, from 1.95 kg/kW days in 1970 to 1.02 kg/kW days in 2005 (Figure 2.24). The Lakshadweep Islands were declared a UT in 1956. This declaration was followed by establishment of fisheries department in 1959 at Kavaratti and an appointment of fisheries officer from the state of Kerala (Jones 1958; GOL 1976;). Until the 1960s, fishing was done from 95  traditional boats, mainly for sharks and seer fish. Pole and line tuna fishing was unknown in many islands, except Minicoy, where row boats known as ?mas odies? were used by  the tuna pole and line fishery (Raghavan and Shanmughnam 1993).  0.00.51.01.52.02.53.01950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Total effort (kW days ?106)YearVessels with inboard enginesVessels with outboard enginesVessels withoutengines Figure 2.23