UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Historical reconstruction of Indian marine fisheries catches, 1950-2000, as basis for testing the ’marine… Bhathal, Brajgeet 2004

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2005-0008.pdf [ 10.52MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0074888.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0074888-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0074888-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0074888-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0074888-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0074888-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0074888-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0074888-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0074888.ris

Full Text

Historical reconstruction of Indian marine fisheries catches, 1950-2000, as basis for testing the 'Marine Trophic Index'. by BRAJGEET BHATHAL B . S c , The Punjab University, India, 1998 A THESIS S U B M I T T E D IN P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T OF T H E R E Q U I R E M E N T S F O R T H E D E G R E E OF M A S T E R OF S C I E N C E in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES Department of Zoology (Fisheries Centre) T H E U N I V E R S I T Y OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A December 2004 © Brajgeet Bhathal, 2004 ABSTRACT Presently, fisheries are in deep crisis worldwide due to overfishing. Increasing intensity of fishing throughout the world has had impacts on the target species and their supporting marine ecosystems. Globally, the total catches are declining by some about Vi million t per year since 1988. As well mean trophic level of landings are declining at rate of 0.1 per decade. This threatens the world's food security specifically, its animal protein supply, especially, in developing countries. In order to evaluate the status of marine fisheries in India, the catches were reconstructed over the period of 1950 to 2000. This reconstruction show marine fish catches increased gradually from 0.6 in 1950 to 3.3 million t in 2000. To determine if the Indian marine fisheries trends are ecologically sustainable or not, the mean trophic level of landings were analysed over the five decades. It is found that the fishing down marine food web phenomenon is happening all over India, i.e., in each state and union territory, similar to rest of the world. This trend, however, was generally not visible when the catches of small pelagics fishes were included, i.e., their variability masked the fishing down phenomenon when this was based on the mean trophic level of all shelf species. On the other hand, application of the cut off trophic level of 3.25 (i.e., excluding small pelagics and most invertebrates) made the fishing down effect visible for all states and union territories. This analysis thus confirms the potential usefulness of the MTI (Marine Trophic Index), recently adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity as one of the 8 indicators of biodiversity. It also confirms that the use of MTI, jointly with a TL cutoff 3 25 point (i.e., MTI) better reveals underlying trend than overall mean TL. The time series of Fishing in Balance (FiB) index show an overall increase for all Indian states and union territories, suggesting a geographic expansion of the fisheries. However, in recent years, a stagnation or decline of FiB index is visible in almost all areas. This indicates a serious problem, presumably the end of the expansion phase in Indian fisheries. Overall, this historical review clearly indicates that India has suffered from sequential depletions of coastal stocks. n T A B L E OF CONTENTS Abstract i i Table of Contents i i i List of Tables v i i i Lis t of Figures v i i i Lis t of Acronyms x Acknowledgements x i Chapter 1: Development of India's fisheries 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Study objectives 3 1.3 Study area 4 1.3.1 India 4 1.3.1.1 West coast of India 4 1.3.1.2 East coast of India 6 1.4 Background information 7 1.4.1 History 7 1.4.2 Historical studies on fish fauna 8 1.4.3 Development of marine fisheries 9 1.4.3.1 Before Independence (1947) 9 1.4.3.2 After Independence (1947) 10 1.4.4 Development of fisheries research institutions 12 1.4.4.1 Before Independence (1947) 12 1.4.4.2 After Independence (1947) 13 1.4.5 Regulatory bodies 15 1.4.6 Legal instruments 16 1.4.6.1 International 16 1.4.6.2 National 17 1.4.6.3 State 19 1.4.7 Different sectors of fisheries 22 iii 1.4.7.1 Non-mechanized sector 23 1.4.7.2 Mechanized units with outboard engines 23 1.4.7.3 Mechanized units (small) with inboard engines 24 1.4.7.4 Deep sea fishing sector 24 1.4.8 Progress of different sectors through time 24 1.4.9 Present situation: problems and challenges 27 1.4.9.1 Overcapitalization 27 1.4.9.2 Sectoral conflicts 28 1.4.9.3 Overexploitation 29 1.4.9.4 Mismatching statistics 31 1.4.9.5 Condition of fishers 32 Chapter 2: Description of taxa caught 34 2.1 Introduction 34 2.2 Functional Groups 34 2.2.1 Elasmobranchs 35 2.2.1.1 Sharks 35 2.2.1.2 Skates 36 2.2.1.3 Rays 36 2.2.2 Eels 36 2.2.3 Catfishes 37 2.2.4 Clupeoids 38 2.2.4.1 Wolf herring 38 2.2.4.2 Indian oil sardine 38 2.2.4.3 Other sardines 38 2.2.4.4 Shads 39 2.2.4.5 Anchovies 39 2.2.4.6 Other clupeoids 40 2.2.5 Bombay duck 40 2.2.6 Lizardfishes 40 2.2.7 Halfbeaks and Fullbeaks 41 2.2.8 Flyingfishes 41 iv 2.2.9 Perches 41 2.2.9.1 Groupers 42 2.2.9.2 Snappers 42 2.2.9.3 Pig face breams 42 2.2.9.4 Threadfin breams 43 2.2.9.5 Other perches 43 2.2.10 Goatfishes 43 2.2.11 Threadfins 43 2.2.12 Sciaenids 44 2.2.13 Ribbonfishes 45 2.2.14 Jacks and their relatives 45 2.2.15 Silverbellies 46 2.2.16 Big jawed jumper 47 2.2.17 Pomfrets 47 2.2.18 Mackerels 48 2.2.19 Seerfishes 48 2.2.20 Tunnies 49 2.2.21 Billfishes 50 2.2.22 Barracudas 50 2.2.23 Mullets 50 2.2.24 Unicorn cod 51 2.2.25 Flatfishes 51 2.2.25.1 Halibut 51 2.2.25.2 Flounders 51 2.2.25.3 Soles 51 2.2.26 Crustaceans 52 2.2.26.1 Penaeid prawns 52 2.2.26.2 Non-penaeid prawns : 53 2.2.26.3 Lobsters 53 2.2.26.4 Crabs 53 2.2.26.5 Stomatopods 54 v 2.2.27 Molluscs excluding cephalopods 54 2.2.28 Cephalopods 55 2.2.29 Miscellaneous 56 Chapter 3: Historical reconstruction of Indian catch: 1950-2000 57 3.1 Introduction 57 3.2 Materials and methods 58 3.2.1 Compilation and encoding 58 3.2.1.1 Compilation 58 3.2.1.2 Encoding 60 3.2.2 Reported landings 60 3.2.2.1 Ratio divisions of trawler catches 60 3.2.2.2 Ratio divisions at species level 61 3.2.2.3 Ratio divisions at state level 61 3.2.2.4 Estimation of missing values 61 3.2.2.4.1 First inter and extrapolations: total landings 62 3.2.2.4.2 Second inter and extrapolations: group landings.63 3.2.2.5 Miscellaneous 63 3.2.3 Unreported catches 64 3.2.3.1 Industrial catches 64 3.2.3.1.1 Industrial landings 64 3.2.3.1.2 Industrial discards 65 3.2.3.2 Division of catch among states 65 3.2.3.3 Species composition of catches 66 3.2.3.4 Other discards 66 Chapter 4: Measuring the impacts of fishing 68 4.1 Introduction 68 4.2 Materials and methods 70 4.2.1 Catch statistics 70 4.2.2 Trophic levels (TLs) 70 4.2.3 Mean Trophic Index (MTI) 71 4.2.4 Fishing in Balance (FiB) index 72 vi Chapter 5: Results 74 5.1 Results 74 5.1.1 India 74 5.1.2 Gujarat 75 5.1.3 Daman and Diu 78 5.1.4 Goa 78 5.1.5 Maharashtra 81 5.1.6 Karnataka 81 5.1.7 Kerala 84 5.1.8 Lakshadweep 84 5.1.9 Tamil Nadu 86 5.1.10 Pondicherry 86 5.1.11 Andhra Pradesh 89 5.1.12 Orissa 92 5.1.13 West Bengal 92 5.1.14 Andaman and Nice-bar Islands 92 Chapter 6: Summary and conclusions 98 6.1 Summary and conclusions 98 REFERENCES 1 ° 2 vii List of Exhibits List of Tables T A B L E 1.1. Five Year Plans (1950 to present) 11 T A B L E 1.2. Marine Fishing Regulation Acts 21 T A B L E 1.1. Continental shelf area of the Indian states and union territory and area per fisher and boat 28 T A B L E 3.1. List of sources used in compilation of data 59 T A B L E 6.1. Comparison of mean TL decline of India with other parts of the world .... 99 List of Figures FIGURE 1.1. Map of India 5 FIGURE 1.2. Organization chart of Indian fisheries research institutes 15 FIGURE 1.3. Federal regulatory body 16 FIGURE 1.4. Recruitment overfishing 31 FIGURE 1.5. Discrepancies in datasets 32 FIGURE 5.1. Trend of catches in India, 1950-2000 76 FIGURE 5.2. Trends of MTI in India, 1950-2000 76 FIGURE 5.3. Trend of FiB index in India, 1950-2000 76 FIGURE 5.4. Trend of catches in Gujarat, 1950-2000 77 FIGURE 5.5. Trends of MTI in Gujarat, 1950-2000 77 FIGURE 5.6. Trend of FiB index in Gujarat, 1950-2000 77 FIGURE 5.7. The plot of marine trophic levels of landings vs. catch for Gujarat 77 FIGURE 5.8. Trend of catches in Daman and Diu, 1950-2000 79 FIGURE 5.9. Trends of MTI in Daman and Diu, 1950-2000 79 FIGURE 5.10. Trend of FiB index in Daman and Diu, 1950-2000 79 FIGURE 5.11. Trend of catches in Goa, 1950-2000 80 FIGURE 5.12. Trends of MTI in Goa, 1950-2000 80 FIGURE 5.13. Trend of FiB index in Goa, 1950-2000 80 viii FIGURE 5.14. Trend of catches in Maharashtra, 1950-2000 82 FIGURE 5.15. Trends of MTI in Maharashtra, 1950-2000 82 FIGURE 5.16. Trend of FiB index in Maharashtra, 1950-2000 82 FIGURE 5.17. Trend of catches in Karnataka, 1950-2000 83 FIGURE 5.18. Trends of MTI in Karnataka, 1950-2000 83 FIGURE 5.19. Trend of FiB index in Karnataka, 1950-2000 83 FIGURE 5.20. Trend of catches in Kerala, 1950-2000 85 FIGURE 5.21. Trends of MTI in Kerala, 1950-2000 85 FIGURE 5.22. Trend of FiB index in Kerala, 1950-2000 85 FIGURE 5.23. Trend of catches in Lakshadweep, 1950-2000 87 FIGURE 5.24. Trends of MTI in Lakshadweep, 1950-2000 87 FIGURE 5.25. Trend of FiB index in Lakshadweep, 1950-2000 87 FIGURE 5.26. Trend of catches in Tamil Nadu, 1950-2000 88 FIGURE 5.27. Trends of MTI in Tamil Nadu, 1950-2000 88 FIGURE 5.28. Trend of FiB index in Tamil Nadu, 1950-2000 88 FIGURE 5.29. Trend of catches in Pondicherry, 1950-2000 90 FIGURE 5.30. Trends of MTI in Pondicherry, 1950-2000 90 FIGURE 5.31. Trend of FiB index in Pondicherry, 1950-2000 90 FIGURE 5.32. Trend of catches in Andhra Pradesh, 1950-2000 91 FIGURE 5.33. Trends of MTI in Andhra Pradesh, 1950-2000 91 FIGURE 5.34. Trend of FiB index in Andhra Pradesh, 1950-2000 91 FIGURE 5.35. Trend of catches in Orissa, 1950-2000 93 FIGURE 5.36. Trends of MTI in Orissa, 1950-2000 93 FIGURE 5.37. Trend of FiB index in Orissa, 1950-2000 93 FIGURE 5.38. Trend of catches in West Bengal, 1950-2000 94 FIGURE 5.39. Trends of MTI in West Bengal, 1950-2000 94 FIGURE 5.40. Trend of FiB index in West Bengal, 1950-2000 94 FIGURE 5.41. Trend of catches in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 1950-2000 96 FIGURE 5.42. Trends of MTI in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 1950-2000 96 FIGURE 5.43. Trend of FiB index in Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 1950-2000 96 FIGURE 6.1. Malthusian overfishing 98 ix List of frequently used Acronyms CMFRI Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi D A H D Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, New Delhi DSFP Deep Sea Fishing Policy EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FiB Fishing in Balance Index ICAR Indian Council of Agriculture Research, New Delhi M F R A s Marine Fisheries Regulation Acts M P E D A Marine Products Export Development Authority, Kochi MTI Marine Trophic Index 3 2 5 M T I Marine Trophic Index with cutoff point at T L = 3.25 SOFT Start Of the Fishing down Trend TL Trophic Level ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I would like to thank my guru and supervisor Dr. Daniel Pauly who persistently guided me throughout this study, via his innovative ideas, incessant encouragement and patience. I am indebted to him for dragging me out from a 'no (wo)men's land' to the Fisheries Centre, and giving an opportunity to do this research. I am equally thankful to my other committee members: Dr. Amanda Vincent, Dr. Jackie Alder, and Dr. Rashid Sumaila for their invaluable inputs and great help. My thanks to Dr. Mohan Joseph Modayil and Dr. M. Srinath of the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, for responding to my data related queries. I am also grateful to Dr. Derek Johnson for providing Gujarat data and information. I also thanks Mr. Edwin Joseph of the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Dr. E. Venkataraman, Dr. Rema Devi and Mr. M. Nithyanandan of the Zoological Survey of India, Mr. Naveen Rajashekhar, Mr. Rajeev Raghavan and many others for their assistance in locating and making accessible the required statistics. I extend my thanks to the staff and students at the UBC Fisheries Centre and the UBC Department of Zoology for their great support and valuable ideas. I am also thankful for the financial support made available by the Sea Around Us project during my research. I express my gratitude to Dr. Bikkar Singh Lalli, Senator of UBC, for helping in realization of my dreams. I am greatly appreciative of Dr. Mukti Gill of Khalsa College for Women, Ludhiana, India for her enormous help. I am deeply thankful to my loving parents, darling brother Aseem Malhi, relatives and friends for their support, love and encouragement. Finally, I am beholden to my lovable husband, Harjeet Bhathal, who was always beside me through his indescribable support, help, patience and never-ending love. Without him, I could have never made it. xi Chapter 1: Development of India's fisheries 1.1 Introduction Fishing has been for humans an important occupation at least since the Palaeolithic period, some 90,000 years (Yellen et al, 1995) and fishing methods have gradually improved and diversified over the millennia. The impacts of fishing did not receive attention until John Cleghorn's 1854 term, 'overfishing' became an issue in the scientific community (Smith, 2002). Two leading zoologists of the time, Thomas Huxley and Ray Lankester had contradictory perspectives on this. Thomas Huxley, in 1884, stated that "probably all the great fisheries are inexhaustible", i.e., the fishes have too high fecundity for their biomass to be influenced by fishing (Hart and Reynolds, 2002; Smith, 2002). Contrarywise, Ray Lankester emphasised that the high fecundity of fishes does not imply that fishing will have no effect on them. He suggested instead, that "there is a definite place of living beings with complex interactions within their area" (Smith, 2002). This argument was partially resolved by Mcintosh (1900) through a paper titled, 'The Impoverishment of the Sea', in which he presented the results of his analysis of Scottish data, which supported Lankester's argument about complex interactions, and agreed that fishing does reduce the abundance of fishes (Smith, 2002). Soon there was a growing scientific consensus that research was needed to identify the effects of fishing and through time fisheries science1 had its major breakthroughs, not detailed here. For many years, fisheries scientists have tried to provide advice that could be used to prevent the overexploitation or collapse of fished stocks. However, the increasing intensity of fishing throughout the world has had impacts on the target species and their supporting marine ecosystems (Jennings et al, 2001; Pauly et al, 2002; Reynolds et al, 2002). The erroneous belief in the inexhaustibility of the sea has largely ended, except perhaps in some industry circles. Several factors have brought global fisheries to the present plight; they range from uncertainties in stock assessments, overcapitalization, open access and common pool fisheries, shifting baselines, deterioration of coastal habitats, rapid expansion of 1 F i s h e r i e s s c i e n c e h a s b e e n r e c o g n i z e d as a s c i e n t i f i c d i s c i p l i n e s i n c e the la te 1 8 5 0 s , w h e n the N o r w e g i a n g o v e r n m e n t h i r e d s c i e n t i s t s to f i n d o u t w h y the c a t c h e s o f A t l a n t i c c o d f l u c t u a t e d f r o m y e a r to y e a r ( J e n n i n g s el al., 2 0 0 1 , S m i t h , 1 9 9 4 ) . 1 unsustainable aquaculture enterprises to increasing consumption rates (Pauly, 1995; Burger et al, 2001; Watson and Pauly, 2001; Pauly et al., 2002). According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which has been compiling catch data worldwide since 1950, there was a steady increase of fish catches until the mid-1990s, i.e., a 6% increase per year from 1950-1970, and 2% from 1970-1990 (FAO, 2000), when the catch began to level off. However, Watson and Pauly (2001) has shown that, when more realistic series of Chinese catches are substituted into the FAO fisheries statistics, they clearly indicate decline by about Vi million tonnes per year since 1988. The apparent continued increase until the mid-1990s was due to inflated catch statistics reported by China2. These new results, which confirm previous claims of global overfishing, clearly indicate that the fisheries sector is in deep crisis and that such a situation threatens the world's food security and its protein needs (Watson and Pauly, 2001), especially, in developing countries. The problems created by open access system for fisheries are further exacerbated by increases in human population growth (Hardin, 1968). For example, in India, where the population has reached over 1 billion, making the required protein available to the existing population is a challenge on its own. With an increasing population and an increasing number of fishers (10 million in 1998), the effort exerted to catch more fish is also increasing. Furthermore, the bulk of fish catches (62%) comes from coastal capture fisheries (Vivekananadan et al, 2003). Given these constraints, it becomes essential to look at the impacts of fishing on the marine environment of India. Moreover, more than 50% of global marine fisheries catches are made in developing countries, with a very large and increasing fraction of these catches entering the world market increasingly at the loss of exporting countries (Pauly and Zeller, 2003). Therefore, fisheries related issues in the developing world ought to be addressed and always included when discussing global fisheries issues. As stated earlier, FAO compiles, based on member country reports, worldwide fisheries statistics. However, the datasets in question are assembled by large, arbitrary statistical areas (rather then by ecosystems), and not verified against local data sets (Pauly and Zeller, 2003). On the other hand, there is a growing need for catch data sets with fine spatial resolution for use in ecosystem models (Watson et al, 2004). Such an approach has already been initiated by the Sea Around Us Project (www.seaaroundus.org), which has 1 T h e r e a s o n f o r o v e r r e p o r t i n g b y C h i n e s e o f f i c i a l s is a n a l y s e d in s o m e d e t a i l b y P a n g a n d P a u l y (2001), a n d a t t r i b u t e d to the i n c e n t i v e s ( p r o m o t i o n s ) a s s o c i a t e d w i t h o p t i m i s t i c r e p o r t s . 2 started assembling databases of the global distribution of all commercial marine species and assigning these to XA degree latitude and longitude cells, which can then be grouped into larger areas (Watson et al., 2004). Local data sets and better local knowledge are preconditions to better policy in the field of marine resource management (Watson et al., 2004). This chapter sets the general background for this study, notably by presenting key definitions and a brief history of Indian fisheries. 1.2 Study Objective In India, fish and fisheries have always played an important role in nutrition and livelihood. However, concerted efforts at development of Indian fisheries began only after the Independence of India (Bensam, 1999a). Then, over the span of 50 years, marine fish catches increased considerably from 0.6 to 3.3 million t3. Presently, there are too many fishing vessels, generating an excess fishing effort in various areas, especially where valuable species occur (Somvanshi, 2001a). This situation reflects the lack of appropriate fisheries management policies. It is believed that there is not much scope for further catch increase from inshore waters. Hence, the impetus in the last 20 years has been to diversify the fishing activities and exploit deeper water areas (Pillai and Pillai, 2000). It is thus appropriate, at this point, to collate the available data, in order to assess Indian marine landing trends and to evaluate the feasibility of Indian Government's push for growth in this sector. Specifically, the objectives of this study are to: (1) reconstruct India's marine catches from 1950 to 2000; (2) identify changes in catch composition in space (i.e., by state and union territory) and time; (3) study the ecosystem impact of fisheries via a test of the occurrence of the "fishing down effect" by examining trends of mean trophic level of catches (Pauly et al., 1998) and; (4) use the FiB (Fishing in Balance) index to test if Indian marine fisheries are sustainable (Pauly et al., 2000). The ultimate goal of this study is to assemble scattered data into a coherent whole and make it readily available to interested parties. Transparency of this sort should eventually increase public understanding and participation in making policy. The database on Indian 3 ' t ' is u s e d h e r e f o r t o n n e , o r m e t r i c t o n , c o r r e s p o n d i n g to 1000 k g . 3 fisheries developed in the process will allow a first order assessment of the fisheries over time, and an evaluation of the status of the species and populations (stocks) upon which the fisheries depend (Caddy and Gulland, 1983; Grainger and Garcia, 1996; Pauly and Zeller, 2003). For clarity, we must also define here the key term of this thesis. Catch refers to "the fish (or other aquatic organisms) of a given stock killed during a certain period by the operation of fishing gear(s)" (Pauly and Froese, 2001). This definition implies that fish not landed, that is, discarded at sea, or killed by lost gear (ghost fishing), should be counted as a part of the catch of a fishery. It is widely recognized that catch statistics are crucial to fisheries management, as they provide the most important information about a fishery over time (Pauly and Zeller, 2003). 1.3 Study Area 1.3.1 India India is located between latitudes 8° 4' and 37° 6' N and longitudes 68° 7' and 97° 25' E (Figure 1.1) with 28 states (9 maritime) and 7 union territories4 (4 maritime) covering 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 2.02 million km2, i.e., 0.86 million km2 on the west coast; including the Lakshadweep Islands and 1.16 million km2 on the east coast, including the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Nair, 1998). The continental shelf cover half a million km2 (Vivekananadan et al., 2003). The country tapers off near the Tropic of Cancer into the Indian Ocean, between the Arabian Sea on the west and the Bay of Bengal on the east. These two seas are very different from each other. 1.3.1.1 West coast of India The following states and union territories border the west coast of the country: 1. Mari t ime States • Gujarat; • Maharashtra; 4 The union territories are under direct control of the India's federal government. 4 F I G U R E 1.1. Map of India, showing all maritime states and union territories with the Arabian Sea on the west and the Bay of Bengal in the east. • Goa; • Karnataka; • Kerala. 2. Union Territories • Daman and Diu; • Lakshadweep. 5 The west coast, also known as 'Malabar coast', has a broader continental shelf (Table 1.3) (DAHD, 1993, 1994), with pronounced upwelling that results in high primary productivity and thus, high fish catches. The northwest monsoon has a strong influence on the dynamics of the Arabian Sea; the seasonal cycles of the waters of the Arabian Sea are well mixed and nutrients such as nitrates and phosphates are more abundant, leading to higher plankton production (Pannikar and Jayaram, 1966; Jhingran, 1975c). The joint effect of these factors is a richer fish fauna, both in terms of diversity and in abundance. Over 75% of India's total fish landings originate from the west coast. 1.3.1.2 E a s t coast o f I n d i a The following states and union territories border the east coast of the country: 1. M a r i t i m e States • Tamil Nadu; • Andhra Pradesh; • Orissa; • West Bengal. 2. U n i o n T e r r i t o r i e s • Pondicherry; • Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The eastern coast, also known as 'Coromandel coast', has a narrow continental shelf (Table 1.3) (Chandy, 1970a; DAHD, 1993, 1994). The northeast monsoon winds, which sweep over the Bay of Bengal are moderate and have short duration. Primary production in the Bay of Bengal is relatively low and the open oceanic waters are oligotrophic (Dwivedi, 1993; Chauhan et al, 2001). Overall, this region accounts for only 25% of total Indian marine landings. 1.4 B a c k g r o u n d I n f o r m a t i o n 1.4.1 H i s t o r y Fish and fisheries occupy an important place in Indian mythology, history and tradition. It is believed that formal knowledge on fish in India dates back to 3000 B.C. (Jhingran, 1975b). This is supported by relics such as fish remains with cut marks (indicative of their use as food), fish drawings on potteries and fish figurines from ancient sites of 6 human civilization, such as Mohenjodaro and Harappa which thrived in the Indus valley from 2500 to 1500 B.C. 5 (Prashad, 1936; Chandy, 1970b; Pushkarna, 1998). Kautilya's Arthasastra (circa 300 B.C.) also has a reference to the utility of fish as food. Historically, many references to fish, their trade and fisher communities are found in the great epics, stone carvings, paintings, and even in the songs of the Sangam Age, from 1st to 4th century A.D. (Silas, 1977). Traditionally, fishing has been the principal source of livelihood for many people living in the coastal region, and on the banks of rivers, lakes and canals. According to Hindu mythology, one of the incarnations of God was in the form of a fish, "Matsyavathara" (Silas, 1977). Several other findings also support the significance of fish and fisheries in ancient times. For example, the second pillar edict of Ashoka forbade use of fish during the certain phases of the moon (Panikkar, 1957) which has been interpreted by Hora (1950) as reflecting existing principles of fisheries conservation; a coin from the Uttama Chola Dynasty (973 -985 A.D.) has a seated tiger facing right, roaring at two fishes with a bow and torch behind (Mitchiner, 1979); and records in the form of traveler's diaries (for example, Pliny) to India and the guide for merchant traders known as 'Periplus of the Erythraean Sea', dating back to 2000 years, made several references to fish and their trade (Silas, 1977; McPherson, 1993; Johnson, 2002). Sport fishing was also popular in India among the elite. King Somesvara, the son of King Vikramditya VI, composed a book titled "Mansoltara" in 1127 A.D., to record the common sport fish of India, grouping them into marine and freshwater forms (Jhingran, 1975a). 1.4.2 Historical studies on fish fauna Efforts to collect the fishes of India and to describe them in the scientific literature were initiated in the 18th century, at the time of foreign domination in India. Several significant contributions were made on the systematics, distribution and bionomics of the freshwater and marine fishes. Research work done on fisheries in the 18th and 19th century, in ' T h e I n d u s V a l l e y , o r H a r r a p a n , c i v i l i z a t i o n w a s d i s c o v e r e d in 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 2 1 w h e n e n g r a v e d s e a l s w e r e u n e a r t h e d n e a r p r e s e n t - d a y S a h i w a l in P a k i s t a n i P u n j a b , at a p l a c e c a l l e d H a r a p p a . E x c a v a t i o n s at M o h e n j o d a r o , i n S i n d , l e d to the b u r i e d r e m a i n s o f a n o t h e r c i v i l i z a t i o n , w h i c h u s e d a p i c t o g r a p h i c s c r i p t . T h i s c i v i l i z a t i o n e x t e n d e d to the Y a m u n a a l o n g the b e d o f the r i v e r G h a g g a r i n R a j a s t h a n , G u j a r a t a n d u p t o the m o u t h s o f the r i v e r s N a r b a d a a n d T a p a t i . T h e m a j o r s i t es o f th i s c i v i l i z a t i o n are i n p r e s e n t - d a y P a k i s t a n . 7 general, was confined to observations recorded by some officers of the erstwhile East India Company. Some of the important achievements for Indian ichthyology based on Day (1873); Jhingran (1975b); Bensam (1999c) and Pauly (2004) are the following: 1785: Marcus Eliezer Bloch publishes "Auslandische Fische" and "Icthyologia"; 1801: Joseph Gottlob Schneider extends Bloch's work on the " Icthyologia"; 1798 -1803: Bernard Germain Etienne de Lacepede publishes his "Histoire des Naturelle Poissons"; 1803: D. Russel describes 200 fish species from 'Vizagapatnam' (now Vishakapatnam); 1822: Francis Hamilton presents his pioneer work, "An account of the fishes in the river Ganges and its Branches"; 1828-1849: Georges Cuvier and Achille Valenciennes published their masterpiece, "Histoire Naturelle des Poissons"; 1839-1860: John McClelland, Pieter Bleeker, Edward Blyth, Albert Gunther and others add to the knowledge of Indian fishes; 1876-1878: Francis Day, then Inspector-General6 of fisheries in India completes his monumental work on the "Fishes of India", still a major reference in the Indian region. During the closing of the 19th century and starting of 20th century, officials of the Marine Survey of India and the Zoological Survey of India undertook numerous studies on fishes and other aquatic fauna (BOBP, 1982). A report by the Industrial Commission of 1916-1918 stipulated that the central government should promote studies on fisheries. In the 1930s, Dr. Stanley Kemp, Director of the Marine Biological Laboratory, Plymouth, U.K. and the former Director of the Zoological Survey of India, also emphasized the need to improve knowledge on Indian fishes (Bensam, 1999b). In the twentieth century, a biologist, S. L. Hora (1920-1956) also made considerable contributions to fish systematics (Bensam, 1999a). FishBase (www.fishbase.org) may be consulted for a comprehensive bibliography on Indian ichthyology. * F r a n c i s D a y j o i n e d as a v e t e r i n a r y s u r g e o n i n the B r i t i s h A r m y a n d w a s i n i t i a l l y s t a t i o n e d i n s o u t h e r n I n d i a . H e d e v e l o p e d a n i n t e n s e in te res t i n I n d i a n f i s h e s a n d f i s h e r i e s a n d s o o n b e c o m e I n s p e c t o r G e n e r a l o f f i s h e r i e s i n I n d i a a n d M y a n m a r ( B e n s a m , 1 9 9 9 b ) . 8 1.4.3 Development of marine fisheries 1.4.3.1 Before Independence (1947) The first formal step toward the development and management of marine fisheries was an enactment of the Indian Fisheries Act of 1897, delegating various erstwhile provinces with the responsibility of fisheries administration and management (BOBP, 1982; Chidambram, 1982; Bensam, 1999a, b). However, in pre-Independence times, regulations regarding the fisheries were essentially revenue-oriented, and expressed little interest in the development of the fisheries. The first fisheries department explicitly aimed at developing the fisheries was the Madras Presidency, organized in 1907 by Sir F. Nicholson, also called the "Father of Indian Fisheries Development" (Devanesen and Chidambaram, 1953; Bensam, 1999c). Overall, however, Indian marine fisheries were neglected until the 1940s. The Second World War (1939-1945) changed this. During the war, India provided bases for American and other allied army personnel and this brought the problem of supplying adequate amounts of good quality fish. This scarcity of food led to interest in expansion of marine fisheries. As a result, Dr. Beni Prasad, then the director of the Zoological Survey of India, was asked to inquire and write a report on Indian fisheries (Bensam, 1999a) (see 1.4.4.1). Before 1947, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Travancore (now in Kerala) were the only states which had a separate department of fisheries (Samuel, 1968). 1.4.3.2 After Independence (1947) After Independence (1947), concerted efforts were undertaken to develop Indian fisheries, as expressed through a succession of National Five Year Plans. The First Plan was initiated under Prime Minister Nehru in 1951 as a part of an effort to strengthen the country's economic and social structure, and to stimulate overall growth of the country (industrial, economic, scientific and technical). It was felt in the 1950s that the development of fisheries would be one of the most promising means of improving the Indian diet. Fisheries planning in India was then officially guided by the same goals as agriculture, i.e., increasing production and equitable distribution. However, 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). The major thrust in marine fisheries throughout 9 that time was to increase mechanization and foster to transition from inshore towards offshore, i.e., to encourage deep sea fisheries (Table 1.1). During the first five of the Five Year Plans and intervening three annual plan years (1951-1979), special emphasis was given to the introduction of mechanized fishing boats and remove the 'middlemen' involved in fish marketing through 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 (GOI, 1951, 1956, 1961, 1969, 1974; BOBP, 1982; Johnson, 2002). In the 1980s, the top priority of planning in India was fast economic growth and self-sufficiency in food through the agriculture sector. The Sixth and Seventh Five Year Plan (GOI, 1980, 1985) explicitly addressed the severity of the balance of payments deficit that India faced from the mid 1970s on. In 1991, India nearly defaulted on a loan of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and its only escape was to agree to a liberalization strategy drawn up by the IMF. This included the phased reduction of import duties, the promise to shrink government and to reduce reliance on subsidies (Byers, 1998; Johnson, 2002). At this point, India tried various means to increase its foreign exchange earnings; one of these was to promote the marine fisheries sector. However, by the end of 1991, it was realized that the marine fisheries were reaching near maximum levels of production in the inshore areas (and overexploited at various locations) and that no substantial increase in production could be expected. Therefore, the emphasis of fisheries development shifted towards expansion of the inland sector and aquaculture, and towards the offshore and deep sea fisheries (ICAR, 1998; Johnson, 2002). This led to the announcement of a Deep Sea Fishing Policy in 1991 (see 1.4.6.1). One of the crucial elements of all these Five Year Plans was the intention to strengthen the network of research and educational institutions meant to support fisheries. The history of some of these research institutions is given in the section below. 10 TABLE 1.1. Major developments and objectives of successive Five Year Plans. Sources: GOI, 1951, 1956, 1961, 1969, 1974; Silas, 1977; GOI, 1980, 1985, 1992, 1997; Bensam, 1999c; Johnson, 2002 and Vivekanandan, Srinath et al, 2003. Plan period Duration Main objectives and developments I 1951-1956 • Increase fish catch by introduction of mechanized boats; • Improve ground facilities and supplies to fishers; • Improve fisheries statistics and training facilities; • Initiate the charting for deep sea fishing grounds and develop newly located ones. II 1956-1961 • Further expansion of existing activities related to mechanization and introduction of new vessels and gear materials; • Further improvement of infrastructure for training, preservation, processing, storage and transportation; • Improve statistical information regarding production, supply and marketing of fish; • Organizing multipurpose co-operative societies to encourage development of fishers. III 1961-1966 • Designing of improved mechanized fishing vessels and gear materials; • Adequate equipments and facilities for preserving fish and their marketing; • Impetus towards development of fisheries education, research institutes, improves condition of fishers and export trade. Annual Plans 1966-1968 • Encourage export trade. IV 1969-1974 • Expansion of export trade; • Initiation of deep sea fishing by import of trawlers and indigenous construction of deep sea trawlers; • Construction of fishing harbours at major and minor ports; • Intensification of exploratory fishery surveys. V 1974-1979 • Motorization of artisanal craft and introduction of purse seines in 1977; • Development of fishing harbours; • Declaration of EEZ (1977). Annual Plans 1979-80 • Development of diversified fishery products. VI 1980-1985 • Motorisation of artisanal crafts; • Exploratory surveys in offshore grounds; • Promulgation of Maritime Zone of India Act, 1981; • Encouragement to deep sea fishing through licensing, chartering and joint venture vessels. VII 1985-89 • New chartering policy (1989); • Development of post-harvest technologies. Annual Plan 1990 • Development of deep sea fishing. Annual Plan 1991 • Substantial growth in motorized artisanal fleet of ring seiners. VIII 1992-1996 • Deep sea fishing by joint venture; • 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 fisheries production (aquaculture and offshore fisheries); • Further diversify and modernize fisheries and fishery products; • Intensify research activities. 11 1.4.4 Development of fisheries research institutions 1.4.4.1 Before Independence (1947) Many reports were published after the First World War by committees and specialists, aiming to encourage the expansion of fisheries. During this post-war development phase, Dr. Beni Prasad was asked to review the fisheries of the country and to recommend necessary measures for their development. In his historical memorandum "Post-war development of Indian fisheries" submitted in 1941, a definite programme to develop a research department for fisheries was proposed for the first time (Prasad, 1944; Bensam, 1999a). Then, in the 'Kharegat Memorandum' (1944), the advisory board of the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) laid down the essential elements of fisheries development to be achieved in the country. Among these were: (1) establishment of a Central Fish committee and of a fisheries research station; (2) starting a pilot project for mechanization of catching, and for storing catches; (3) development of pond culture practices; and (4) improvement of fish transport (Panikkar, 1957). Another important document 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, with Dr. Prasad, fishery development adviser to the Government of India (GOI, 1945b; Samuel, 1968; BOBP, 1982). Reports of the 'Bengal Famine Commission' (GOI, 1945a) and on the 'Scientific Research in India' (Hill, 1945), also emphasized fisheries as an essential aid to increase the country's food supply (Panikkar, 1957). As result, a Deep Sea Fishing Station was set up at Mumbai in 1946, whose main functions were mapping of fishing grounds and the training of deep sea fishing personnel (CMFRI, 1987a; Bensam, 1999d). In 1946, Lt. Col. Dr. Seymour Sewell also submitted a memorandum on the proposed fisheries research institute. He recommended the creation of a marine fisheries research station in Karachi (present-day Pakistan) for the west coast, and another in Mandapam (Tamil Nadu) for the east coast (Bensam, 1999a). Sewell's recommendations covered pre-Independence India as a whole, but the Partition, resulted in numerous changes. 12 1.4.4.2 After Independence (1947) On 3rd February 1947, just after Independence, the Government of India, through its ministry of Food and Agriculture, established the Central Marine Fisheries Research Station (renamed Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) in 1962) in Mandapam, with a mandate of conducting biological research on fisheries. In October 1967, the management and administrative control of the Institute was transferred from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to the Indian Council of Agriculture Research, and its headquarters were also shifted from Mandapam, Tamil Nadu to Kochi, Kerala (James, 1987; ICAR, 1998). After Independence, two more stations were established: the Offshore Fishing Station (OFS) at Tuticorin (Tamil Nadu) and Vishakapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) and the Exploratory Fisheries Project (EFP) at Kochi (Kerala). In 1983, these various entities, along with the Deep Sea Fishing Station, were merged into the Fisheries Survey of India (FSI), with headquarters in Mumbai (Sudarsan, 1987; Bensam, 1999d). The FSI's main objective was to conduct surveys of the fishery resources and charting of fishing grounds in the Indian EEZ. In 1952, the Indian Government drew international assistance through the Indo-Norwegian Project, the product of a tripartite agreement between the governments of India, Norway 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). In 1972, the agreement with the Government of Norway was terminated and the project's administration was taken over by the Government of India, as 'Integrated Fisheries Project' (IFP), with three substations managed by the respective state fisheries division (Sathiarajan, 1987; Bensam, 1999c). In 1954, the Government of India appointed a committee to consider steps toward the development of the fishing industry. Following the recommendations of this committee, a Central Fisheries Technological Research Station (re-designated Central Institute of Fisheries Technology (CIFT) in 1962) was established in Kochi in 1957. The activities of the institute are oriented towards designing craft and gear appropriate for Indian waters (Nair, 1987; Bensam, 1999d). The Central Institute of Fisheries Education (CIFE) was founded in 1961 in Mumbai to improve fisheries education. It has its ancillary institutions in Barrackpore (West Bengal), 13 Agra (Uttar Pradesh), and Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh) (Sreekrishna, 1987). In the same year, the Marine Products Export Promotion Council was set up (MPEDA, 1987; Johnson, 2002). This statutory body was renamed Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) in 1972, and put under the Ministry of Commerce. It is vested with the responsibility for developing the Indian seafood industry with special reference to exports (MPEDA, 1987). In 1963, the Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical and Engineering Training (CIFNET) was founded at Kochi in 1963 to provide technical training for crew of ocean going fishing vessels. CIFNET also provides technical consultancy services and conduct studies on fishing craft, gear and equipments to accelerate development in fishery technology (Swaminath, 1987). The Central Institute of Coastal Engineering for Fishery (CICEF) was established in 1968 at Bangalore (Karnataka) in collaboration with the FAO and the United Nation Development Program (UNDP). The main objective of this institute is to conduct techno-economic feasibility studies regarding development of fishing harbours and brackish water fish farms (DAHD, 2004; NIO, 2004). A new maritime regime emerged in the early 1980s, with the United Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). India, in order to explore and exploit the vast ocean bathing its shores responded by creating a new Department of Ocean Development (DOD). This is responsible for all matters relating to the ocean not specifically assigned to any other department or ministry. It has played a key role in policy formulation, co-ordination, regulatory measures and developments related to the ocean (CMFRI, 1987b). All fisheries research institutes listed above fall under the Ministry of Agriculture, except MPEDA, which falls under the Ministry of Commerce (Figure 1.2). The majority of these institutes operate under the ICAR, and have regional offices spread all along the Indian coast. 1.4.5 Regulatory bodies Fisheries in India are regulated by both the Central and the State Governments, responsible for the EEZ outside of territorial waters and for the territorial waters respectively (GOI, 2004). 14 Government of India Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Commerce Department of Agriculture and Co-operation Marine Products Export Development Authority Department of Agricultural Research and Education Fisheries division Indian Council of Agricultural Research 1. Fishery Survey of India 2. Central Institute of Fisheries 3. Nautical Engineering and Training 4. Integrated Fisheries Project 5. Central Institute of Coastal Engineering for Fishery 1. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute 2. Central Inland Capture Fisheries Research Institute 3. Central Institute of Freshwater Aquaculture 4. Central Institute of Fisheries Technology 5. Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture 6. Central Institute of fisheries Education 7. National Bureau of Fish Genetic Resources 8. National Research Centre on Cold Water Fisheries State Agricultural Universities Fisheries Colleges F I G U R E 1.2. Organization chart given above clearly shows that fisheries research institutes in India are under control of the Ministry of Agriculture except M P E D A , with two main departments: Department of Agriculture and Co-operation and Department of Agricultural Research and Education. Role of federal government is explicitly stated in the Constitution of India, Part XII, Chapter 3, article 2977: Things of value within territorial waters or continental shelf and resources of the exclusive economic zone to vest in the Union: 1. All lands, minerals and other things of value underlying the ocean within the territorial waters, or the continental shelf, or the exclusive economic zone, of India shall vest in the Union and be held for the purposes of the Union. 7 T h e A r t i c l e 2 9 7 w a s a m e n d e d i n 1 9 6 3 , a c c o r d i n g to w h i c h the l i m i t s o f t e r r i t o r i a l w a t e r s w e r e e x t e n d e d f r o m 3 to 12 n a u t i c a l m i l e s . T h e A c t o f the M a r i t i m e Z o n e s d e f i n e s the e x t e n s i o n o f the t e r r i t o r i a l w a t e r s to 12 n a u t i c a l m i l e s ( N a w a z , M K , 1 9 8 1 ) . 15 2. All other resources of the exclusive economic zone of India shall also vest in the Union and be held for the purposes of the Union. 3. The limits of the territorial waters, the continental shelf, the exclusive economic zone, and other maritime zones, of India shall be such as may be specified, from time to time, by or under any law made by the Government of India. Schedule VII, Article 246, Entry 21 of List II specifies fisheries as the responsibility of the states (Yadav, 2001; Somvanshi, 2001a). Hence, both the governments play a vital role in management, conservation, development and monitoring of India's fisheries . Since, there is no separate Fisheries Department at the national level, therefore, the administration of fisheries lies within the Ministry of Agriculture (Figure 1.3). Department of Agricultural Research and Education Animal husbandry Government of India Ministry of Agriculture Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying Fisheries Department of Agriculture and Co-operation Dairy Development F I G U R E 1.3. Position of fisheries within the Government of India. 1.4.6 Legal instruments 1.4.6.1 International Some of the important global, legal, voluntary and advisory instruments regarding marine habitat in which, India is participating are the following (Chaudhary, 2000; Mathews, 2001; Yadav, 2001; Somvanshi, 2001a; Froese and Pauly, 2002) : 1. International Whaling Commission (ICW), 1946; 2. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), 1973; 3. Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), 1980; 16 4. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982 (entered into force in 1994); 5. Agenda 21 of Rio Earth Summit, 1992; 6. Convention on Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and Straddling Fish Stocks, 1995; 7. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, 1995; 8. Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, 1964 (entered into force in 1982); 9. Asia Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC), 1948; 10. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992 (entered into force in 1993); 11. Convention on the International Maritime Organization (IMO Convention), 1948 (entered into force in 1958); 12. Indian Ocean Fishery Commission (IOFC), 1967; 13. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), 1993 (entered into force in 1996); 14. Indo-Pacific Fishery Commission (IPFC), 1960. For more information on international treaties and conventions signed by India, see FishBase (www.fishbase.org) and Sea Around Us (seaaroundus.org). 1.4.6.2 National The British Government 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 also empowered the provincial governments to frame rules under it (BOBP, 1982; Srivastava et al., 1991; Bensam, 1999c). It is still in force and various states and union territories have introduced fishery legislations under its enabling provision. Following Independence, various Acts, regulations and guidelines were promulgated. Details of main ones are listed chronologically below (Nawaz, 1981; Choudhury, 1987): 1. The Marine Products Export Development Authority Act, 1972; 2. The Territorial Waters (12 nautical miles), the Contiguous Zone (24 nautical miles), the Continental Shelf (200 nautical miles), the EEZ and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976; 3. The Indian Coast Guard Act, 1977; 17 4. The Declaration of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in May 1976 (but which, came into force in 1977); 5. The Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by foreign vessels) Act came in place in 1981 to regulate fishing by foreign fishing vessels in India's EEZ. Although chartering of foreign fishing vessels was permitted as early as 1976, the detailed rules in Act were framed in 1982, to forbid fishing by foreign vessels in coastal areas. Subsequently, the rules were modified for chartered vessels requiring that they shall fish: i. Beyond 24 nautical miles from the shore on the west coast as a general rule (with some exceptions8); ii. Beyond 12 nautical miles from the shore on the east coast (with some exceptions9^ 6. In 1991, the Deep Sea Fishing Policy (DSFP) was announced which allowed leasing of foreign fishing vessels for operation in Indian waters beyond 12 nautical miles and joint ventures between Indian and foreign company in deep sea fishing, processing and marketing (Atookaren, 1991; Das, 1993). However, because of protests from local fishers, this policy was rescinded in 1997 (Vijayakumaran and Haridas, 1998). Thereafter, no new licenses were granted to joint venture companies to operate in the EEZ (MOEF, 2002). There is an interest in strengthening the deep sea fishing policy in order to encourage the exploitation of deep water resources. However, opinions on this are very diverse, many supporting and others opposing the involvement of foreign companies on supporting traditional fishers (Bhandarkar, 1999; Dehadrai, 1999; Dixitulu, 1999; Kocherry, 1999; Sathiadhas, 1999; Vijyakumaran, 1999). 7. In 2002, new set of guidelines came with an order issued by union Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD) for fishing operations in EEZ. These guidelines are similar to the 1991 provision of DSFP, but its main focus is registration status of the foreign fishing vessels and the promotion of deep sea fishing in the 8 O f f the M a h a r a s h t r a - G u j a r a t c o a s t l i n e , f i s h i n g is n o t a l l o w e d b y f o r e i g n v e s s e l s b e t w e e n the c o a s t l i n e a n d the l i n e j o i n i n g the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s : 2 2 " 5 4 ' N - 6 7 " 3 3 ' E , 2 1 " 3 3 ' N - 6 8 " 5 6 ' E , 1 9 " 0 2 ' N - 7 2 " E , 18" 3 3 ' N - 7 2 " E , 1 8 " N - 7 2 ° 31 ' E . S i m i l a r l y o f f the K e r a l a - T a m i l n a d u c o a s t l i n e f i s h i n g is n o t p e r m i t t e d to f o r e i g n v e s s e l s i n the a reas d e f i n e d b y the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s : 7 " 4 5 ' N - 7 7 " E , 7 " 4 5 ' N - 7 8 " E , 7 " 3 0 ' N - 7 8 " E , 7" 3 0 ' N - 7 7 " E ( S o m v a n s h i , 2 0 0 1 ) . 9 F i s h i n g is a l l o w e d o n l y b e y o n d 2 4 n a u t i c a l m i l e s b e t w e e n the N i z a m p a t a n a m ( A n d h r a P r a d e s h ) a n d P a r a d e e p P o r t ( O r i s s a ) a n d is n o t a l l o w e d b e t w e e n the a reas c o v e r e d b y c o a s t l i n e a n d the l i n e j o i n i n g the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s i n the n o r t h o f C h i l k a ( O r i s s a ) a n d u p to B a n g l a d e s h b o u n d a r y : 1 9 " 2 2 ' N - 8 5 " 3 0 ' E , 2 0 ° N - 8 6 ° 5 6 ' E , 2 0 ° 4 2 ' N - 8 8 " E , 2 1 ° 0 8 ' N - 8 9 " 0 7 ' E , 2 1 " 1 6 ' N - 8 9 " 1 4 ' E ( S o m v a n s h i , 2 0 0 1 ) . 18 Indian EEZ (Anonymous, 2002). These guidelines have been criticized as favouring foreign deep sea fishing vessel operators registered as Indian companies (Mathew, 2003) given its two major provisions: (1) deep sea fishing vessel above 20 m can take a mid transfer of fish and can leave the Indian EEZ for foreign port, (2) there is no obligation for the vessels to return to the base port in India within a stipulated period. The provision of transfer of catch at high sea was even included in DSFP of 1991 because of requests by purse seine owners (mainly targeting tuna) to grant a waiver from the requirement to report back to base ports before export. They argued that it would involve avoidable fuel expenditures and makes the project unviable. As a result, to encourage tuna purses seining operation in India, the transfer/export of catch in high seas was permitted, but only after issuance of certificate by reputed surveyors (Das, 1993). There are no regulations regarding the operations of Indian vessels beyond her territorial waters (Anonymous, 2002), but various Marine Fisheries Regulation Acts (MFRAs) were enacted by the maritime States, under a model bill circulated by the Government of India in 1979 (Yadav, 2001). 1.4.6.3 State A review of Indian fishery laws and regulations reveals that their primary intent is to prevent and minimize the disputes and conflicts among different sectors of the industry (James, 1992b). However, most of these rules and regulations do not seem to have included adequate provisions regarding the undertaking of responsible fishing activities, such as imposing mandatory input and/or output controls. The list of major regulations concerning marine fisheries for all coastal states and union territories is as follows (Davidar, 1968; Nawaz, 1981; Atookaren, 1991; James, 1992b; Rajguru, 1994; Arora and Grover, 1996a, b, c, e; JICA, 1999; Yadav, 2001; Somvanshi, 2001a; MOEF, 2002; Vivekanandan, 2003): Gujarat • The Indian Fisheries Act as adopted and applied by the State of Saurashtra10, 1897. " ' T h e p e n i n s u l a r l a n d m a s s o f G u j a r a t s ta te h a s b e e n k n o w n as ' S a u r a s h t r a ' s i n c e a n c i e n t t i m e s ( R a j g u r u , 1 9 9 4 ) . 19 Maharashtra • The Maharashtra Fisheries Act, 1961; • The Maharashtra Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1981. Goa • Indian Fisheries (Goa, Daman, Diu Amendment Act), 1968; • The Goa 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 of 1914, Government of Travancore (modified in 1921); • Cochin Fisheries Act 3 of 1917 (modified in 1921), Government of Cochin; • The United Provinces Fisheries Act 45 of 1948; • Government of Travancore-Cochin Fisheries Act 34, 19501'; • The Kerala Marine Fishing Regulation Act and Rules, 1980 (Act 10 of 1981). Daman and Diu • Indian Fisheries (Goa, Daman, Diu Amendment Act), 1968. Lakshadweep • The Lakshadweep Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 2000. Tamil Nadu • Nilgiris Game and Fish Preservation Act II of 1879, Government of Madras ('Madras' was renamed as Tamil Nadu in 1969); • Government of Bengal and Madras Amendment Act 1929 (Act 11 of 1929); • The Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 1983. Andhra Pradesh • Executive Order 1983 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh; • Indian fisheries (Andhra Pradesh Extension and Amendment Act), 1961. " In J u l y 1 9 4 9 , the s ta tes o f T r a v a n c o r e a n d C o c h i n w e r e u n i t e d a n d are n a m e d the u n i t e d S t a t e o f T r a v a n c o r e a n d C o c h i n . 20 Orissa • The Orissa Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1981 (Orissa Act 10 of 1982); • 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 of 1889; • Government of Bengal and Madras Amendment Act 11 of 1929; • Fisheries (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965. Pondicherry • The Indian Fisheries (Pondicherry Amendment), Act 18, 1965. Andaman and Nicobar • Andaman and Nicobar Islands Fisheries Regulation 1 of 1938. The states with no Marine Fishing Regulation Acts (MFRAs) are following ad hoc decisions to prevent or tackle conflicts between the artisanal and mechanized sector (James, 1992b). The demarcation of zones between non-mechanized and mechanized fishing vessels12 under MFRAs for selected states are given in Table 1.2. It is noteworthy that 'traditional' vessels can fish anywhere in the sea, while limits exists for other categories of vessels. All these laws (MFRAs) are enacted in response to local issues, and lack uniformity. Based on complaints in demarcating the areas based on distance from shore and not on depth, several provisions related to depth were also added to existing regulations. For example, in MFRA of Kerala the coastline is divided into two parts, south and north. In the south Kerala, 16 m depth have been reserved exclusively for the artisanal craft, 16 m - 20 m depth zone only for the motorized crafts and, 40 m - 70 m depth zone for the small mechanized vessels (< 25 GRT) (Vivekananadan et al, 2003; Vivekanandan, 2003). The states on the west coast, i.e., Gujarat, Kerala and Karnataka have been implementing closures of fishing operations by mechanized vessels during the monsoon season for the past decade or two. The decision on seasonal closure is taken on a year-to-year basis, normally prior or during the onset of southwest monsoon. 1 2 M e c h a n i z e d v e s s e l s a re c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to s i z e a n d t h e i r a r e a / d e p t h o f o p e r a t i o n is d e l i n e a t e d a c c o r d i n g l y ( S r i n a t h , 2 0 0 3 ) . 21 TABLE 1.2. Marine Fishing Regulation Act of selected states, which have demarcated fishing areas for mechanized and non-mechanized vessels (Somavanshi, 2001; Devaraj, 1999). O A L : overall length, G R T : gross tonnage. States Marine Fishing Regulation Act Reserved for traditional vessels Available to mechanized vessels Goa M F R A 1980 Up to 5 km Beyond 5 km Maharashtra M F R A 1981 Up to 5-10 fathoms depth Beyond 10 fathoms depth Karnataka M F R A 1980 Up to 6 km < 15m OAL: 6-20 km; > 15m OAL: beyond 20 km Kerala M F R A 1980 Up tolO km < 25 GRT: 10-22 km; >25 GRT: beyond 23 km Tamil Nadu MFRA 1983 Up to 3.4 nautical miles Beyond 3.4 nautical miles Orissa MFRA 1984 Up to 5 km < 15m OAL: 5-10 km; >15m OAL: beyond 20 km Andhra Pradesh MFRA 1985 Up to 10 km < 20m OAL: 10-23 km; >20m OAL: beyond 23 km In 1996-1997, meetings were held among state fisheries authorities and union ministry of agriculture, where it was decided that there will be uniform closed seasons for fishing from the 10th of June to the 15th of August (65 days) along the west coast and from the 15th of April to the 31st of May on the east coast. However, the respective state governments have not implemented this decision strictly. In 1999, Andhra Pradesh observed 40 days closure, from April to May. The states of Kerala and Goa have also specified legal mesh sizes for the trawl cod ends i.e., 35 mm and 20 mm, respectively (James, 1992b; Somvanshi, 2001a). 1.4.7 Different sectors of fisheries Marine fisheries in India are characterized by a great diversity of marine resources (fishes, crustaceans, molluscs etc.), exploited by various types of fishing vessels and gears. The marine fishing sector of India can be subdivided into four distinct groups (CMFRI, 1980; Sathiadas etal., 1995): 1. Non-mechanized (artisanal) sector using country craft with traditional gears; 2. Mechanized sector using traditional craft with outboard motors (OBM) of less than 50 hp, most with 7-9 hp (commonly referred as motorized sector); 3. Mechanized sector using inboard motors (IBM) of 50-120 hp (32' to 51' OAL); 22 4. Deep sea fishing sector (boats 25 m and above or over 70' OAL) using engines of 120 hp and above. Gears of traditional design and non-mechanized vessels are concentrated in the shallow inshore coastal waters in depth range up to 50 m. Mechanized and deep sea vessels also exploit the resources of deeper off shore waters (Chandy, 1970a; Jhingran, 1991). 1.4.7.1 N o n - m e c h a n i z e d a r t i s a n a l sector Owing to different sea conditions, different types of boats evolved on the two coasts of India, with plethora of different names applying to them. In this section, the most widely used traditional crafts on the east and the west coast are mentioned, with their categorization based on type of construction only (BOBP, 1982, 1983, 1983b, 1984; Mohapatra, 1986; BOBP, 1990; Sathiadas et al, 1995): 1. Catamarans; 2. Canoes; 3. Plank built boats. The major gears deployed by artisanal vessels without any sort of mechanical device are the following: 1. Hooks and lines; 2. Gillnets; 3. Seines (from boat and shore); 4. Bag nets; 5. Traps. 1.4.7.2 M e c h a n i z e d units w i t h o u t b o a r d engines Most traditional crafts mentioned above, operating from different maritime states were modified to accept outboard engines of 5 to 9 hp, in order to increase their catching efficiency. The first set of outboards motors introduced were of 3 hp only and subsequently larger OBM's were introduced (Srivastava et al, 1991; Pillai et al, 2000). 1.4.7.3 M e c h a n i z e d units ( smal l ) w i t h i n b o a r d engines The majority of the units enumerated below exploit inshore waters, down to 50 m (Sathiadas et al, 1995; Somvanshi, 2001a): 1. Small trawlers (all maritime states); 2. Pair trawlers (Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay regions of Tamil Nadu); 23 3. Purses seiners (south west i.e., Kerala, Karnataka, Goa & southern Maharashtra); 4. Gillnetters (all maritime states). Each of these categories (mechanized, motorized and non mechanized) has several subdivisions and numerous local names, specific to the respective states (Chandy, 1970c; BOBP, 1982, 1983b, 1984; CMFRI, 1988; BOBP, 1990; Thirumilu et al, 1994; Chennubhotla et al, 1999; Pillai et al, 2000). 1.4.7.4 Deep sea fishing sector The major types of fishing vessels used for deep sea fishing are (Sathiadas et al, 1995): 1. Deep sea trawler (25 m OAL and used for catching prawns); 2. Deep sea tuna long liner (34 m OAL and used for catching tuna); 3. Deep sea multi purpose vessels (26 m OAL and used for catching both prawns and fishes with more emphasis given to prawns because of high value return). 1.4.8 Progress of different sectors through time Initially, the non-mechanized sector was the only sector in existence. Indian fishers used the age old craft and gear evolved centuries ago. However, with the advent of new technologies, a gradual shift occurred towards the mechanized sector. No doubt, intensive efforts to develop the fisheries started after 1947 (see 1.4.3.). However, the Government of Bombay (now called Mumbai) made a first attempt to introduce trawling in 1900 by using a steam trawler. Subsequently, several similar experimental and exploratory surveys were conducted until Independence (Mukundan and Radhalakshmy, 1998; Somvanshi, 2001a; Somvanshi, 2001b). Then, in the mid and late 1950s, a few state governments, notably Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh commenced mechanization with the collaboration and assistance of FAO and the Indo-Norwegian project. Similar efforts were thereafter deployed by other states. (BOBP, 1983, 1984; Kochary et al, 1996; Pillai et al, 2000; Thomas, 2000; Vivekanandan, 2003). Soon, experimental trawling mutated into a commercial venture at Kochi (Kerala) in early 1960s and then spread to other parts of the country (Mukundan and Radhalakshmy, 1998). Since then, trawling has become widespread all along the Indian coast and the number and size of trawlers has increased substantially. Trawling has emerged as the most important method for exploiting demersal fisheries resources (especially prawns and shrimps) 24 (Vivekanandan, 2003). Trawlers have become the main stay of the fishing sector and 50% of the total Indian catch comes from trawlers (Devaraj et al., 1997; Devaraj and Vivekanandan, 1999). The consequent increase in the fisheries sector lead in the late 1950s to the introduction of gillnetters and use of synthetic twine, which by the 1980s, almost totally replaced cotton twine for making fish nets (BOBP, 1983; Thomas, 2000). Fibreglass reinforced plastic (FRP) boats were introduced in India in early 1970s, but did not become very popular due to high cost, lack of maintenance facilities and other problems (Sheshappa, 1998). However, during the late 1970s and 1980s, FRP canoes become very popular and largely replaced the traditional wooden canoes. Several other major technological transformations were witnessed in the Indian fisheries before the 1980s, all resulting from successive Five Year Plans (see section 1.3.3.). One of these transformations was the introduction of purse seines in the late 1970s on the west coast (This introduction occurred earlier in Goa, in 1957, but commercial operations commenced only in 1964, with just 2 purse seiners13). These sophisticated gears were deployed by mechanized vessels and soon caught the bulk of the total catch, reducing the share of traditional fishers (Subramani, 1998). For example, in Kerala about two third of marine fish landings were accounted for the artisanal sector until the late 1970s, even though mechanization started as early as mid 1960s (Balan et al, 1989). However, the artisanal share started falling with further increase in mechanization. This lead 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). Efforts to motorize traditional crafts began as early as 1953 in Jaleshwar village, Gujarat (Srivastava et al, 1991) but it did not make much headway in other parts of India (Kuriyan, 1982). However, 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 craft with outboard engines (Chandy, 1970c). Motorization began in 1980s, as a program of the Seventh Five Year Plan, 1 1 T h e p u r s e s e i n e f i s h e r y is r e s t r i c t e d to the c o a s t b e t w e e n R a t n a g i r i i n the s o u t h e r n M a h a r a s h t r a a n d K o c h i i n c e n t r a l K e r a l a , w h e r e s h o a l i n g p e l a g i c f i s h e s ( c l u p e o i d s , c a r a n g i d s a n d I n d i a n m a c k e r e l ) a re a b u n d a n t . 25 and the support of a financing schemes operated through the co-operative sector (GOI, 1985; Balan et al, 1989; BOBP, 1990; Subramani, 1998). Simultaneously, India initiated deep sea fishing in 1972 with the import of two Gulf of Mexico trawlers from the USA. By the early 1980s, over 100 chartered vessels and joint venture deep sea fishing vessels were operating, mostly in the inshore grounds up to 50 m and rarely up to 100 m (Devaraj, 1995). This represented a serious challenge to the traditional sector. In 1983, because of widespread unrest, the minimum depth limitation (80 m) was enforced for offshore fishing operations and various regulations were also enacted by the states (see section 1.4.6.). As a result, almost all chartered vessels left the country (Devaraj, 1995). The issue of large trawlers came to the limelight once again when a DSFP was announced in March 1991, stating that India would enter into joint venture agreements with foreign vessels to catch fish in "deep areas" (beyond 12 nautical miles from the coast). The Indian fisher's organizations protested this vociferously, claiming that Indian boats could reach those areas themselves and there were no guarantees that the joint ventures boats would not poach fish further inshore (Kocherry, 1999; Johnson, 2002). These protests were so strong that the Central Government shelved the issue of licenses to foreign fishing vessels (most of which were cancelled in 1997) and launched a commission of inquiry in 1994 to review this joint venture. In a nutshell, the historical overview presented above indicates that, in the past, the expansion of fisheries to new areas (i.e., deep sea and offshore) was realised through accelerated mechanization, mainly in the 1980s. Introduction of outboard motors brought about a revolution in traditional fishing. Motorization effectively reduced search time, increased time at sea and made accessible previously untapped areas of high fish concentration (Sathiadas et al, 1995; Devaraj and Vivekanandan, 1999). However, there have been unsuccessful efforts since 1959 to increase fish catches from deep waters under the aegis of the Union Government, with marginal success to date (Mathew, 2003). One of the reasons is the protest by other sectors (see section 1.4.6.2 and 1.4.9.2). However, the major cause is the lack of economic viability. Deep sea vessels require huge investments and the rate of return are less compared to those of fishing units (both mechanized and artisanal) operating in inshore waters. Even tuna long liners fetch better rates of return than other deep sea vessels, which mainly concentrate on prawns. Presently, many of the exiting deep sea 26 vessels (Gulf of Mexico trawlers) based in Vishakapatnam harbour are believed to operate rarely, because they find very difficult the break even14. Now the priority is shifting to sustain deep sea fishing by diversification of fishing effort to other resources and reduction of fishing pressure on the penaeid shrimp (Sathiadas et al, 1995). 1.4.9 Present situation: problems and challenges Today's Indian marine fisheries face challenges and problems in achieving the kind of sustainability that will assure its long term survival. Devaraj and Vivekanandan (1999) have categorized Indian fisheries into three phases (based on the classification by Csirke (1984), namely; pre-development phase (1947-1962), growth phase (1963-1988), and full exploitation phase (1989-1997), all applying only to coastal areas. The marine fisheries of India were not controlled in their initial phase, and insufficiently managed in the subsequent phases. Given this, the transition from the current, fully exploited to the overexploited phase will occur rapidly, where it has not already occurred, and lead to collapses (Devaraj and Vivekanandan, 1999). This is something that a country like India, with an acute shortage of animal protein, (Raghavan, 1998), cannot afford. The existing situation calls for an in-depth evaluation of the current state of affairs and take immediate measures, in order to avoid further depletion of the resources. There are additional problems besetting fisheries ranging from habitat degradation, water pollution and bioaccumulation of persistent organic pollutants, illegal fishing, including poaching, lack of infrastructure, poor socio economic conditions of fishers and many more. Some of these are addressed briefly in the following section. 1.4.9.1 Over capitalization The increase in the demand for seafood and the commensurate rise in prices have contributed to the recruitment of many new fishers into the industry, and the introduction of many more vessels. As a result 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 (Devaraj and Vivekanandan, 1999). Moreover, the Indian government encouraged mechanization via its various subsidies programmes (e.g., for diesel 1 4 D u r i n g t h e 1 9 8 0 s a f i s h i n g v o y a g e o f 13 d a y s w a s s u f f i c i e n t t o c a t c h a b o u t 2 t o f s h r i m p s a n d 18 t o f g o o d q u a l i t y f i s h . N o w a v o y a g e o f 3 0 - 9 0 d a y s is r e q u i r e d to b r e a k e v e n , w i t h a c a t c h o f 1-2 t o f s h r i m p a n d 1 5 - 1 8 t o f g o o d q u a l i t y f i s h e s a n d 3 0 - 4 0 t o f o t h e r f i s h e s u s u a l l y d r i e d o n d e c k to c o v e r u p the o p e r a t i n g c o s t o f R s . 7 - 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 , c o r r e s p o n d i n g to 1 5 , 2 9 7 - 1 7 , 4 8 3 U S $ , b a s e d o n the c o n v e r s i o n rate o f R s . 4 5 . 7 6 = 1 U S $ i n N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 4 ( S a t h i a d a s el al, 1 9 9 5 ) . 27 engines, use of innovative gears and vessels etc.) and loans to fishers and their co-operative organizations (Bapat and Kurian, 1981; Srivastava et al, 1991). As a result the number of boats kept increasing, while the area per fisher decreased (Vivekananadan et al, 2003) (Table 1.3). It is therefore of grave concern that there is an ongoing policy to still expand the fisheries sector. Although the expansion plans are for deep sea sector (i.e., waters beyond 50 m) and sustainability is emphasized (GOI, 1997, 2002), but no firm steps were purposed by the government to reduce the existing overcapacity. It is important to mention here that only the state of Orissa has determined the optimum number of mechanized vessels of various categories for the different fishing ports (James, 1992b). T A B L E 1.3. Continental shelf area of India's maritime states and union territories and, available area (in hectares) per fisher (top value) and per boat (mechanized and non-mechanized; bottom value) in inshore and offshore regions. Shaded boxes represent absence of data (Sources: D A H D , 1993; 1994; Sathiadas etal, 1995). 28 1.4.9.2 Sectoral conflicts Primarily conflicts arise in India and elsewhere because of the incompatibility of the technology used by different sectors, and violations of the national jurisdictions in pursuit of higher catches. The sharing of common resource has intensified the existing problems. Sometimes the resulting conflicts culminates into violence, killings and burning of boats (Nair and Jayaprakash, 1983; Balakrishnan and Algaraja, 1984; Shiva, 1991; Menon, 1996). Thus, these conflicts have become a serious social, law and order problem in many coastal fishing areas. However, the magnitude and nature of the problem and losses varies from region to region. Existing conflicts among different sectors can be categorized into two types: (1) those involved in different fisheries in the same locality, for example, fishers engaged in artisanal and mechanized fishing in a common fishing ground (Balakrishnan and Algaraja, 1984; Devaraj and Vivekanandan, 1999) and; (2) those involved in same fishery at the same localities (Balakrishnan and Algaraja, 1984). For example, frequent conflicts occur between the trawlers of south Andhra Pradesh and Chennai over sharing the productive fishing grounds off the southern coast of Andhra Pradesh (Balakrishnan and Algaraja, 1984; Devaraj and Vivekanandan, 1999). In order to avoid such clashes MFRA's (see section 1.4.6.2) were put in place to safeguard the interests of different sectors. Along with this, some other approaches were suggested and followed on regional basis. For example, in some districts of Tamil Nadu, a Peace Council was formed with the local Regional District Officer (commonly referred as 'RDO') as chairman and representatives from state fisheries department, mechanized and traditional craft owners that allocated fishing nights (4 for non-mechanized and 3 for mechanized). Tokens were issued after collecting nominal fee from mechanized boats and this money was added up to the associations (of mechanized boat owners) general fund. This was then used to pay compensation towards damage of any traditional gears during the nights kept exclusively for traditional crafts or for social purposes. However, nothing was purposed to regulate conflicts for daytime fishing (Balakrishnan and Algaraja, 1984). Interestingly, fishers from all sectors honoured this system of regulated fishing. 29 1.4.9.3 Overexploitation Existing intra and inter fleet competition have driven the resources to over exploitation. The following manifestations of overfishing are discussed with examples in this section: (1) growth overfishing, (2) recruitment overfishing and, (3) economic overfishing. Different sectors of fisheries in order to maximize their catches use smaller meshes. Thus, small fishes dominate catches and lots of juveniles and eggs are destroyed. Such growth overfishing, i.e., fish are caught before they had a chance to grow (Sparre et al., 1989; Pauly, 1994c) is done by both sectors. For example, in Maharashtra, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh large quantities of juvenile fishes and prawn postlarvae are landed by vessels deploying seines (boat, ring, shore), trawls and dol nets (Luther and Sastry, 1993; Rohit et al, 1993; Bensam et al, 1994; Zacharia et al, 1995; Menon, 1996; Menon and Pillai, 1996). In Vizhinjam, in Andhra Pradesh state, a seasonal ( November to May) 'Nonnavu fishery', is performed using an artisanal gear with mesh size of 3-4 mm. (Menon and Pillai, 1996). It is estimated that 180 t of juvenile fishes are caught in one day (Menon and Pillai, 1996). One of the reasons for juvenile exploitation is that commercially exploitable quantities of prawns/shrimps occur in habitats that are also utilized by large number of fish juveniles. For example, the area swept by trawl nets for prawns in coastal waters of western India usually yield only = 16% of prawns, while the rest of catch consist of finfishes or benthic organisms, with considerable amounts of juveniles and eggs (Menon, 1996). Furthermore, there is a significant price difference between finfishes and shrimps, also called 'pink gold', which fetch far more profit than other resources. This maintains a strong fishing pressure on the overall stocks. So, in order to retain as much as possible, mesh sizes are further reduced. This form of fishing destabilizes multi-species resources and causes massive changes in species composition (Beddington and May, 1982; Pauly, 1994a). Moreover, smaller mesh sizes catch larger numbers of small sized fishes. During long voyages, these fishes are often discarded because of shortage of space or ice, which are preferably devoted to shrimps (see Chapter 3). Similarly, recruitment overfishing (recruitment to a fishery is impaired because very few adults are left) (Sparre et al, 1989; Pauly, 1994c) has been also observed in many fisheries of India (Sathiadas et al, 1995). Such overfishing occurs when the aggregate fecundity of exploited stocks is low. For example, catfishes and sharks (Pillai and Parakal, 30 2000) have suffered heavy losses due to indiscriminate fishing. Purse seine catches from Karnataka are reported to have more than 50% of male catfishes with eggs in their mouth (Menon and Pillai, 1996). Figure 1.4 shows decline in catfish catches in the State of Karnataka attributed to excess fishing pressure. Likewise, bulk removal of ripe running Oil sardine and Indian mackerel is also reported from states along the west coast since the late 1970s, i.e., since the introduction of purse and ring seines (Silas et al., 1980). 120 r 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 1.4. Catfish catches (thousand tonnes) for the Karnataka state, 1950-2000, showing decline in catch after 1988. This decline is attributed to the overfishing of incubating male catfish resulting in poor recruitment (Source: Menon and Pillai, 1996). Economic overfishing, occurs when fishing effort exceeds than needed to maximize the economic rent from the fishery (Clark, 1990; Pauly, 1994c, b) has also been reported from the coastal fisheries of India (James, 1992a; GOI, 2002). 1.4.9.4 Mismatching statistics A multiplicity of organizations and agencies with overlapping jurisdiction, controlled by the central and state governments, compound the existing problems of Indian fisheries. For data collection systems created by different institutes to gather fishery statistics documents shows wide discrepancies. The catch data for the same species, year and state do not match in the documents published by DAHD, CMFRI and MPEDA (Figure 1.5; only shows comparison of CMFRI and DAHD). 31 This uncertainty is an impediment to understanding the real status of the fisheries. Moreover, duplication of work by different institutes results in wastage of valuable resources (money, personnel, time). Attempts to overcome such problems are becoming increasingly apparent. For example, an independent Ministry for Fisheries has been proposed to ensure sustainable development in the fisheries sector (Chaudhary, 2000; Kumar, 2003) and to evolve a unified system of conducting sample survey by the maritime states, to improve and revise the existing collection and estimation methodologies (GOI, 1980, 2002). 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 1.5. Marine fisheries catch (million tonnes) trends for the whole of India, 1950-1999, showing differences between the datasets assembled by the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) and the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying ( D A H D ) . 1.4.9.5 Condition of fishers In India, the development in fisheries is paralleled by the spatial changes of fleets using a large technological input compared to those using almost none. In this transition, the gap between wealthy boat owners and poor fishers has increased substantially. Furthermore, the 'middlemen' are also blamed for appropriating the bulk of the benefits from small scale fishing (Sehara et al, 1986; Sathiadas et al, 1994). It is very unfortunate that most of the fishers in India live in poverty with poor housing conditions, and illiteracy rates of up to 70% (Kochary et al, 1996). With a strength of 1 million (in 1998) full time fishers (Srinath, 32 2003), it is important to consider the social implications when making management decisions impacting on Indian fishers. The subsequent Chapters, i.e., 2, 3 and 4 documents the general methodology used in this study. Chapter 2 describes the groups of taxa caught that are used in further analyses, as detailed in Chapter 3 and 4. Chapter 3 discusses the data collection and estimation methods, while Chapter 4 presents the ecological indicators that are used to evaluate the status of Indian fisheries. 33 Chapter 2: Description of taxa caught 2.1 Introduction The waters along the Indian coast, and offshore to the limits of the Indian EEZ are home to a rich ichthyofauna. Overall, FishBase reports 1702 species of marine fmfishes from Indian waters (FishBase, 2004) but all of these species are not equally important to fisheries. About 500 commercially important fish species, 250 pelagic and 250 demersal support the multi-species multi-sector fisheries (Pillai and Pillai, 2000). Along with this, there are species-specific fisheries notably on Oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps), Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurtd) and Bombay duck (Harpadon nehereus). Some pelagic species enjoy wide geographical distribution, while others, such as shads and Bombay duck, have restricted distributions. The diversity of the pelagic resources is much higher off the west coast than off the east coast and vice versa for the demersal resources. Demersal fishes inhabit all kinds of bottom habitat ranging from sandy, muddy to rocky and coral grounds, and range from shallow coastal waters to the deep continental slope (Bensam, 2000). Crustaceans and molluscs also support important commercial fisheries. Overall, the prawns (penaeid and non-penaeid) fisheries are most important, surpassing all other marine resources in terms of its economic gains they generate. All these marine resources have numerous local names. The following section lists only widely used English common names. More local names in various regional languages are available at FishBase (www.fishbase.org; Bhathal, 2003) for fishes. 2.2 Functional Groups The catch data in Chapter 3 are presented by groups of species, here called 'functional groups'. The species composition of each group is defined based on the lists of commercial species given in FishBase, CephBase and miscellaneous Indian and other sources, which are cited in the text where appropriate. The trophic level (TL) of each functional group (median of the estimates where several exist for a given species) as adopted 34 here is provided in parentheses after the name of each group. The estimates were obtained from FishBase for fishes. For invertebrates; the estimates were based largely on Sea Around Us (www.seaaroundus.org) database, and the 'ISCCAAP Table' of Fishbase 2000 (Froese and Pauly, 2000). 2.2.1 Elasmobranchs ( T L = 3.7 - 4.2) This group consists mainly of shark, skates and rays belonging to the Families Carcharhinidae, Hemiscylliidae, Rhincodontidae, Sphyrnidae, Stegostomatidae, Hemigaleidae, Ginglymostomatidae, Triakidae, Rhinobatidae, Pristidae, Myliobatidae, Dasyatidae and Gymnuridae (FishBase, 2004). The maximum size in sharks ranges from 70 cm (Rhizoprionodon oligolinx) to 2000 cm (Rhincodon typus), in skates from 270 cm (Rhina ancylostoma) to 656 cm (Pristis microdon) and in rays from 70 cm [Dasyatis kuhlii) to 204 cm (D. zugei) (FishBase, 2004). Elasmobranchs are carnivores and predaceous in nature, with the exception of Rhincodon typus (Whale Shark), which is mainly a zooplankton (filter) feeder. Sharks mainly feed on pelagic teleosts, such as sardine, mackerel, Bombay-duck etc. and cephalopods (squid, octopus, cuttlefish) (Devadoss et al., 2000; Raje and Joshi, 2003). Skates and rays mostly feed on benthic organisms viz. crustaceans, molluscs, polychaetes, amphipods and teleosts (Apogon spp., Nemipterus spp., sciaenids) (Raje and Joshi, 2003). Elasmobranchs have gained commercial importance in India only recently because of increasing demand for shark's fins in the SouthEast Asian countries (Anon., 1992). Sharks are caught in all the maritime states of India, mainly by shrimp trawlers (42%), followed by gill net (26%), hooks and lines (16%) and other gears (14%) (Raje and Joshi, 2003). These are high valued species as the products obtained from them are valued in international markets. The dominant and commercially important species of elasmobranchs, which support fisheries, are listed below. 2.2.1.1 Sharks ( T L = 4.2) The important commercial species of sharks in Indian waters are Scoliodon laticaudus (Spadenose shark),'Rhizoprionodon acutus (Milk shark), Carcharhinus sorrah (Spottail shark), C. sealei (Bull shark), C. leucas (Bignose shark), C. macloti (Hardnose 35 shark), C. melanopterus (Blackfin reef shark), C. hemiodon (Pondicherry shark), Rhincodon typus (Whale Shark), Galeocerdo cuvieri (Tiger shark), Eusphyra blochii (Winghead shark), Sphyrna lewini, Chiloscyllium plagiosum (Whitespotted bambooshark), C. punctatum (Brownbanded bambooshark), Rhizoprionodon oligolinx (Grey sharpnose shark), Chaenogaleus macrostoma (Hooktooth shark), Hemipristis elongata (Snaggletooth shark), Loxodon macrorhinus (Sliteye shark), Nebrius ferrugineu (Tawny nurse shark), Negaprion acutidens (Sicklefin lemon shark), Mustelus mosis (Arabian smooth-hound) and Triaenodon obesus (Whitetip reef shark) (Devadoss et al, 2000; Raje and Joshi, 2003; FishBase, 2004). 2.2.1.2 Skates ( T L = 3.9) This group includes Rhynchobatus djiddensis (White spotted shovelnose ray), Anoxypristis cuspidate (Pointed sawfish), Pristis pectinata (Smalltooth sawfish), P. microdon (Smalltooth sawfish), Rhina ancylostoma (Bowmouth angelfish), and Rhinobatus granulatus (Granulated shovelnose ray) (Devadoss et al, 2000; Raje and Joshi, 2003; FishBase, 2004). 2.2.1.3 Rays ( T L = 3.7) This group represents several species, including Aetobatus narinari (Spotted eagle ray), A. flagellum (Longheaded eagle ray), Aetomylaeus nichofii (Nieuhofs eagle ray), Rhinoptera javanica (Javanese cow-ray), Himantura uarnak (Marbled stingray), H. bleekeri (Whiptail stingray), H. fluviatilis (Ganges stingray), H. Jenkins ii (Pointednose stingray), H. marginatus (Blackedge whipray), H. bleekeri (Bleeker's whipray), Dasyatis zugei (Pale edged stingray), D. imbricatus (Schneider's scaly sting ray), D. kuhlii (Blue spotted stingray), Pastinachus sephen (Drab stingray), Gymnura poecilura (Longtail butterfly ray), G. micrura (Shorttail butterfly ray), Mobula mobular (Devil ray), and Aetomylaeus maculatus (Bat ray) (Devadoss et al, 2000; Raje and Joshi, 2003; FishBase, 2004). 2.2.2 Eels ( T L = 4.1) Eels in this group belong to the Families Muraenesocidae, Muraenidae, Anguillidae and Congridae. Their maximum size ranges from 80 cm (Gymnothorax pseudothyrsoideus) to 250 cm (Congresox talabonoides) (FishBase, 2004). Eels mainly feed on nektons, zoobenthos, small fishes and crustaceans (Menon et al, 1998; FishBase, 2004). This group mainly consists of Congresox talabonoides (Warn), Gymnothorax pseudothyrsoidea (Black eel), Muraenosox bagio (Golden eel), M. cinereus (Daggertooth 36 pike conger), Conger cinereus (Indian conger eel) and Anguilla bengalensis (Indian mottled eel) (Menon et al., 1998; FishBase, 2004; GOG, 2004). Initially, eels were considered as a poor people's food in India, but nowadays, demand of live eels for export and other fish products is increasing rapidly, and so is their price. These high value species are mainly caught on the conventional fishing grounds of the northwest and the northeast coasts largely as a bycatch of trawl nets (70%), and non-mechanized gears (13%) (Menon et al., 1998; GOG, 2004). 2.2.3 Catfishes ( T L = 3.9) The catfishes (Families Ariidae and Plotosidae) with size range of 25 cm (Batrachocephalus mino) to 185 cm (Arius thalassinus), mainly feeds on invertebrates and small fishes (FishBase, 2004). This group includes, Batrachocephalus mino (Frogheaded catfish), Arius sona (Dusky catfish), A. jella (Smalleye catfish), A. dussumieri (Marine catfish), A. tenuispinis (Thinspine sea catfish), A. caelatus (Engraved catfish), A. thalassinus (Giant seacatfish), A. sagor (Sagor catfish), A. subrostratus (Sona sea catfish), A. sumatranus (Shovelnose sea catfish), A. crossocheilos (Roughback sea catfish), Osteogeneiosus militaris (Soldier catfish), Plotosus canius (Gray eel catfish) and P. lineatus (Striped eel catfish) (Menon et al, 2000; Menon, 2003; FishBase, 2004). Compared to many other demersal fishes, catfishes are within the affordable range of poor and middle class fish eaters. For example, in 1996, the retail price for catfishes was Rs. 36 or US$' 0.78 per kg as compared to Pomfrets at Rs. 96 or US$ 2.09 per kg (Sathiadas and Kanagam, 2000). Catfishes are utilised fresh, frozen and in processed form, in the domestic and export markets. Presently, this resource is chiefly exploited by trawlers (37%), followed by motorized gillnetters (24%), mechanized gillnetters (26%), and other gears (6%) (Menon, 2003). 2.2.4 Clupeoids ( T L = 2.0 - 4.5) This group consists mainly of herrings, sardines, shads and anchovies, and forms one of the major pelagic fishery resources of the country. All these shoaling species show 1 I n d i a n R u p e e s are c o n v e r t e d i n t o U S d o l l a r s b a s e d o n the c o n v e r s i o n ra te o f R s . 4 5 . 7 6 e q u i v a l e n t to 1 U S $ i n N o v e m b e r , 2 0 0 4 . 37 remarkably wide annual and seasonal fluctuations, one time bringing prosperity and at other times major economic setbacks to the fishers. 2.2.4.1 Wol f herring ( T L = 4.5) Chirocentrus dorab, commonly known as Wolf herring (Family Chirocentridae) with a maximum size of 122 cm, feeds on small schooling fishes, e.g., herrings and anchovies, and perhaps sometimes on crustaceans (FishBase, 2004). C. dorab are more abundant on the east coast, especially in Tamil Nadu (Luther, 1973; Srivastava, 1999). 2.2.4.2 Indian oil sardine ( T L = 2.5) Sardinella longiceps or Indian oil sardine (Family Clupeidae) is a small fish with a maximum size of 28 cm (FishBase, 2004). S. longiceps is a planktivore, with diatoms, dinoflagellates and copepods as favourite food items. An abundance of diatom Fragilaria oceanica is said to indicate abundance of oil sardine in coastal waters (Pillai et al., 2003). Oil sardine contribute about 15% of total marine fish catches in India. This is highly nutritive and affordable table fish, and available throughout most of the year. However, their abundance shows wide fluctuations on seasonal, annual and decadal scales. As well, small Oil sardine serves as a source for by-products, such as sardine oil used in several industries, and 'guano', used as fertilizer and fishmeal for cattle and poultry feed production (Jayaprakash, 2000; Pillai et al, 2003). 2.2.4.3 Other sardines ( T L = 2.7) All sardines (Family Clupeidae) other than the Oil sardine were placed in this group. Their maximum size ranges from 15 cm (Sardinella jussieui) to 29 cm (Amblygaster sirm) (FishBase, 2004). Like the Indian oil sardine, other sardines feed mainly on variety of plankton (Pillai and Rohit, 2003). This group includes Sardinella gibbosa (Goldstripe sardinella), S. jussieui (Mauritian sardinella), S. fimbriata (Fringescale sardinella), S. albella (White sardinella), 5. sindensis (Sind sardinella), S. melanura (Blacktip sardinella), S. brachysoma (Deepbody sardinella), Amblygaster sirm (Spotted sardinella), and A. clupeoides (Bleeker smoothbelly sardinella) (Rohit and Bennet, 2000; Pillai and Rohit, 2003). Other sardines form a yearround fishery in different regions of the country, but the fishing seasons and catch rates vary among the regions. All these species form a cheap source of animal protein and are relished in fresh, frozen and dried forms. 38 2.2.4.4 Shads ( T L = 2.0 - 3.0) Shads (Families Clupeidae and Pristigasteridae) have a maximum size of 21 cm (Anodontostoma chacundd) to 73 cm (Tenualosa Uishd). They feed chiefly on plankton, mainly diatoms and dinoflagellates, but also on copepods, molluscan and crustacean larvae, prawns, amphipods and polychaetes. Ilisha elongate along with planktons also feeds on Chelon macrolepis (Largescale mullet) (FishBase, 2004). Tenualosa ilisha (Indian or Hilsa shad) support a lucrative fishery, especially along the Digha coast in the West Bengal. Other shads are also contributing to the fishery, such as Tenualosa toll (Toli shad), Anodontostoma chacunda (Chacunda gizzard shad), Nematalosa nasus (Bloch's gizzard shad), Ilisha elongate (Elongate ilisha), /. megaloptera (Bigeye ilisha) and Hilsa kelee (Kelee shad) (Jhingran, 1991; FishBase, 2004). The trophic level used for Hilsa shad and other shads are 2.0 and 3.0, respectively. 2.2.4.5 Anchovies ( T L = 3.3 - 3.6) Anchovies (Family Engraulidae) range from 8 cm (Stolephorus baganensis) to 32 cm (Setipinna brevifilis) (FishBase, 2004). Their food is mainly comprised of copepods, crustaceans (Acetes spp.), ostracods, amphipods, and young fishes and larvae (Khan, 2000b; Jayaprakash, 2003). This group includes Coilia dussumieri (Golden anchovy), C. ramcarati (Ramcarat grenadier anchovy), C. reynaldi (Reynald's grenadier anchovy), Setipinna brevifilis (Shorthead hairfin anchovy), S. tenuifdis (Common hairfin anchovy), Stolephorus waitei (Spotted anchovy), 5. commersonii (Commerson's anchovy), S. indicus (Indian anchovy), S. baganensis (Estuarine anchovy), Encrasicholina devisi (Devil's anchovy), E. punctifer (Buccaneer anchovy), Thryssa mystax (Mustached thyrssa), T. malabarica (Malabar thryssa), T. gautamiensis (Gautama thryssa) and T. purava (Oblique-jaw thryssa) (Gopakumar and Pillai, 2000; Khan, 2000b; Jayaprakash, 2003; Khan, 2003; FishBase, 2004). The trophic level used for Anchoviella (Coilia, Setipinna, Encrasicholina and Stolephorus spp.) and Thrissocles (Thryssa spp.) are 3.3 and 3.6, respectively. Consumer preferences for various species differ from place to place. For example, Encrasicholina devisi and E. punctifer are not preferred at Kochi, but are in great demand in the southern and interior parts of Kerala state (Jayaprakash, 2003). 39 2.2.4.6 Other clupeoids ( T L = 3.1) All clupeoids (Families Clupeidae and Pristigasteridae) not identified previously were placed into this group. Their size ranges from 6 cm (Ehirava fluviatilis) to 25 cm (Opisthopterus tardoore) and feeds mainly on zooplanktons (copepods, larvae of bivalves, fish eggs, etc.), phytoplanktons and small crustaceans and fishes (FishBase, 2004). This group includes Escualosa thoracata (White sardine), Ehirava fluviatilis (Malabar sprat), Opisthopterus tardoore (Long finned herring) and Pellona ditchela (Indian pellona) (Karbhari, 1982). 2.2.5 Bombay duck ( T L = 4.3) Harpadon nehereus (Family Synodontidae), popularly known as Bombay duck, which attains a maximum size of 40 cm, is a piscivorous fish that feeds on various fish species, notably Coilia dussumieri, and crustaceans (Nematopalaemon tenuipes and Acetes spp.) (Kurian, 2000). Harpadon nehereus is an important and abundant species along the northwest coast of India, especially in the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra with about 90% of the Indian landings originating from this region (Kurian, 2000, 2003). Bombay duck support one of the few single-species fisheries in India. 2.2.6 Lizardfishes ( T L = 4.4) Lizardfishes belong to the Family Synodontidae, with size ranges from 25 cm {Saurida longimanus) to 67 cm (S. tumbil). They chiefly feed on teleost fishes, cephalopods and crustaceans (FishBase, 2004). This group consists of Saurida tumbil (Greater lizardfish), 5. undosquamis (Brush toothed lizardfish), S. longimanus (Longfin lizardfish), S. micropectoralis (Shortfin lizardfish), Trachinocephalus myops (Blunt nose lizardfish) and Synodus englemani (Engleman's lizardfish), which forms an important component of demersal fish resources of India (Sivakami et al, 2003; FishBase, 2004). Lizardfishes are reported as an important bycatch of shrimp trawlers. This group has gained significance as it is used for food both in fresh and dried form (Nair et al, 1992; Sivakami et al, 2003). 40 2.2.7 Halfbeaks and Fullbeaks ( T L = 3.4) Halfbeaks and fullbeaks (Families Hemiramphidae and Belonidae) attain a maximum size of 35 cm (Rhynchorhamphus malabaricus) and 49 cm (Strongylura strongylura), respectively. Their food is comprised mainly of sea grass (Cymodocea spp.) and green algae, but may also include diatoms and polychaetes. However, Strongylura strongylura, with a trophic level of 4.5 is carnivorous and feed on small fishes, especially clupeoids (FishBase, 2004). Commercially important marine halfbeaks and fullbeaks are Rhynchorhamphus georgii (Halfbeak garfish), R. malabaricus (Malabar halfbeak), Zenarchopterus dispar (Feathered river garfish), and Strongylura strongylura (Fullbeak garfish). They are usually caught along with other fishes (Samuel, 1968a; FishBase, 2004). 2.2.8 Flyingfishes ( T L = 3.8) Flyingfishes (Family Exocoetidae) feed mostly on small crustaceans and other planktonic animals. Their maximum size ranges from 22 cm (Hirundichthys oxycephalus) to 30 cm (Exocoetus volitans) (FishBase, 2004). The main flyingfish species included in this group are Cypselurus comatus (Clearwing flyingfish), Exocoetus volitans (Two-winged flyingfish), Hirundichthys coromandelensis (Coromandel flyingfish) and H. oxycephalus (Bony flyingfish) (Jhingran, 1991; FishBase, 2004). Flyingfishes are popular for their delicate flavour and nutritious value. Almost the entire Indian catch of flyingfishes is salted and sun dried (Samuel, 1968a). 2.2.9 Perches ( T L =3.4 - 4.1) This group is mainly comprised of groupers, snappers, pigface breams, threadfin breams and other perches, which mostly inhabit coral reef areas and rocky grounds. The maximum size of fishes within this group ranges from 18 cm (Nemipterus mesoprion) to 221 cm (Epinephelus lanceolatus). Perches are predatory fishes, feeding on other fishes (Therapon spp., Ambassis spp., etc.) and invertebrates (crabs, prawns, stomatopods etc.). Cephalopods are also found in the diet of some perches, for example Pristipomoides typus (Mathew, 2003; FishBase, 2004). 41 All species mentioned below are excellent food fishes and in great demand in the export market, both in live and frozen form. They are also gaining importance for commercial mariculture in India. Many are caught as a bycatch in shrimp trawls (Mathew et al., 2000; Mathew, 2003). 2.2.9.1 Groupers ( T L = 4.0) The main species in this group (Family Serranidae) are Epinephelus tauvina (Greasy grouper), E. malabaricus (Speckled grouper), E. bleekeri (Dusky tail grouper), E. areolatus (Areolate grouper), E. diacanthus (Six banded reef cod), E. epistictus (Broken line grouper), E.fasciatus (Red banded grouper), E. jlavocaeruleus (Blue and yellow reef cod), E. morrhua (Banded cheek reef cod), E. undulosus (Brown lined reef cod), E. merra (Wire netting reef cod), E. fuscoguttatus (Brown marbled grouper), E. chlorostigma (Brown spotted grouper), E. longispinis (Spotted grouper), E. lanceolatus (Giant grouper), Cephalopholis sonnerati (Red coral cod) and Cephalopholis boenack (Blue lined seabass) (James et al., 1996; Mathew et al, 2000; Mathew, 2003). 2.2.9.2 Snappers ( T L = 4.1) This group (Family Lutjanidae) includes Lutjanus johni (John's snapper), L. argentimaculatus (Red snapper), L. gibbus (Hunced snapper), L. bohar (Two spot snapper), L. rivulatus (Blue-lined snapper), L. bengalensis (Bengal snapper), L. lutjanus (Bigeye snapper), L. firfviflammus (Black snapper), L. kasmira (Blue and yellow snapper), L. sebae (Emperor snapper), L. sanguineus (Red snapper), L. russelli (Russel's snapper), L. malabaricus (Malabar snapper) and Pristipomoides typus (Sharp tooth snapper) (Samuel, 1968b; James et al, 1996; Mathew, 2003). 2.2.9.3 Pigface breams ( T L = 3.4) This group (Family Lethrinidae) includes Lethrinus nebulosus (Starry emperor bream), L. obsoletus (Yellow banded emperor bream), L. microdon (Long face pigface bream), L. miniatus (Long nosed emperor bream), L. nebulosus (Bridle pig-face-bream), L. mahsena (Sky emperor), Lethrinus ornatus (Ornate emperor), L. semicinctus (Black blotch emperor) and L. variegatus (Slender emperor) (Mathew, 2003; FishBase, 2004). 42 2.2.9.4 Threadfin breams ( T L = 3.8) The only commercially important species of threadfin breams (Family Nemipteridae) are Nemipterus japonicits (Japanese threadfin bream) and N. mesoprion (Red filament threadfin bream) (Samuel, 1968b; Murty et al., 1992; Murty et al., 2003b). 2.2.9.5 Other perches ( T L = 3.7) This group (Families Sparidae, Drepaneidae, Ephippidae, Centropomidae, Lobotidae, Haemulidae and Scatophagidae) represents all perches not previously mentioned. This includes: Argyrops spinifer (Long spined redbream), Acanthopagrus latus (Yellowfin seabream), A. berda (Black seabream), Crenidens crenidens (Karenteen seabream), Drepane punctata (Moon fish), Ephippus orbis (Spade fish), Lates calcarifer (Giant Sea perch), Lobotes surinamensis (Triple tail), Pomadasys maculatus (Spotted grunter), P. hasta (Lined silver grunter), and Scatophagus argus (Spotted butter fish), (Mathew et al., 2000; Mathew, 2003; FishBase, 2004). 2.2.10 Goatfishes ( T L = 3.5) The Goatfishes, also called red mullets (Family Mullidae) are small sized fishes, with a maximum size of 33 cm (Upeneus taeniopterus). They feed mostly on crustaceans, especially, penaeid shrimps and crabs, and small fishes (Vivekanandan et al, 2003a; FishBase, 2004). The main species of fisheries interest are Upeneus sulphureus (Yellow goat fish), U. sundaicus (Ochre-banded goatfish), U. vittatus (Yellowstriped goatfish), U. tragula (Freckled goatfish), U. moluccensis (Goldband goatfish), U. taeniopterus (Finstripe goatfish) and U. bensasi (Bensasi goatfish) (Bensam et al, 2000; Vivekanandan et al., 2003a). Due to their small size, goatfishes fetch low price (e.g. Rs. 20 or US$ 0.43 per kg in 1996) and contribute mainly to the diet of poor people. They are also used as live baits for tuna fishing. Goatfishes are usually caught by bottom trawlers and form one of the dominant components in their bycatch (Vivekanandan et al, 2003a). 2.2.11 Threadfins ( T L = 4.1) Threadfins (Family Polynemidae) attain a maximum size of 142 cm (Eleutheronema tetradactylum) to 200 cm (Leptomelanosoma indicum). They feed on benthic crustaceans, 43 especially prawns and crabs, and fishes, e.g. members of Families Mugilidae, Engraulidae, and Sciaenidae in the food of E. tetradactylum with the occasional polychaetes (FishBase, 2004). Besides, Indian salmon (E. tetradactylum), this group includes Leptomelanosoma indicum (Giant threadfin) as commercially important species. Threadfins occur along the east and the west coast of India, both in inshore and offshore waters, but form a very important fishery in the offshore fishing grounds off Gujarat and Maharashtra. Stake bag nets, locally known as 'dol' nets, bottom set gillnets and bottom drift gillnets are the major gears used for their exploitation in these states (Jhingran, 1975; Jhingran, 1991). 2.2.12 Sciaenids ( T L = 4.0) Sciaenids (Family Sciaenidae), commonly called croakers and grunters have a wide range of sizes. For example, Johnius coitor attains a maximum size of 20 cm and Otolithoides biauritus up to 195 cm. Their major food items are teleost fishes (Stolephorus spp., Saurida spp., etc.) and crustaceans (mainly Acetes spp.) (Mohanraj et al., 2003; FishBase, 2004). The important commercial species of croakers occurring in Indian waters are Johnieops dussumieri (Sharptooth hammer croaker), Johnius macrorhynus (Big-snout croaker), J. amblycephalus (Bearded croaker), J. glaucus (Pale spotfin croaker), J. coitor (Coitor croaker), J. belangrii (Belanger's croaker), J. carutta (Karut croaker), J. borneensis (Sharpnose hammer croaker), Pseudotolithus elongatus (Bobo croaker), Otolithes cuvieri (Lesser tiger toothed croaker), Otolithoides biauritus (Bronze croaker), O. pama (Pama croaker), Protonibea diacanthus (Spotted croaker), Nibea maculata (Blotched croaker), Kathala axillaris (Kathala croaker), Pennahia anea (Greyfin croaker), Daysciaena albida (Bengal corvine) and Dendrophysa russelii (Goatee croaker) (Apparao et al, 1992; Mohanraj et al, 2003; FishBase, 2004). Two of these species, Otolithoides biauritus (Bronze croaker) and Protonibea diacanthus (Spotted croaker) contribute substantially to the sciaenid fishery in the northwest region. These fisheries are very popular by the name of 'Koth' and 'Ghol' in Marathi (Maharashtra state) and 'Goyani' and 'Ghol' in Gujarati (Gujarat state). These larger 44 sciaenids are filleted and processed for local and export market, whereas, smaller sciaenids are sold in fresh conditions at local markets only. Very small juveniles are used for making fish meal (Mohanraj et al, 2003). 2.2.13 Ribbonfishes (TL = 4.3) Ribbonfishes (Family Trichiuridae), also known as hairtail and cutlass, are voracious feeders, feeding both during day and night. The most favoured food items include a variety of small and medium size fishes, prawns and shrimps. Their maximum size ranges from 50 cm (Trichiurus gangeticus) to 234 cm (T. lepturus) (Nair and Prakasan, 2003; FishBase, 2004). This group is comprised of Trichiurus lepturus (Grey ribbonfish), T. russelli (Short-tailed hairtail), T. gangeticus (Ganges hairtail), Euplurogrammus muticus (Smallhead hairtail), E. glossodon (Longtooth hairtail), Lepturacanthus savala (Silver ribbonfish) and L. pantului (Coromandel hairtail) (CMFRI, 1986; Lazarus et al, 1992; Nair and Prakasan, 2003; FishBase, 2004). Out of these, Trichiurus lepturus is the dominant species, forming approximately 95% of the total ribbonfish landings of India (Lazarus et al., 1992). Three decades ago, ribbonfishes were low priced fishes, preferred by poor people but at present they are significantly important in the export market. For example, in 2001, ribbonfishes contributed up to 30% to the total marine product export of India (Nair and Prakasan, 2003). The under-sized fish are utilized in fishmeal production. 2.2.14 Jacks and their relatives (TL = 3.6 - 4.5) This group (Families Carangidae, Rachycentridae and Coryphaenidae) is comprised of Horse mackerel (TL = 4.4), roundscads (TL = 3.6), queenfishes (TL = 4.5), trevallies, pompanos and other carangids (TL = 4.0). Their sizes range from 18 cm (Alepes para) to 210 cm (Coryphaena hippurus). They are piscivorous fishes preying on anchovies, sardines, silverbellies, Thrissocles spp., Apogon spp., etc., but also on cephalopods (squids and cuttlefishes) and crustaceans (prawns and crabs) (Kasim, 2003; FishBase, 2004). For the compilation of fisheries statistics in India, this group is broadly grouped under four categories: Horse mackerel; scads; leather-jackets; and other carangids. The commercial 45 fishery is supported mainly by 36 species: Caranx sexfasciatus (Six banded trevally), C. hippos (Black tailed trevally), C. ignobilis (Yellowfin trevally), C. melampygus (Bluefin trevally), Megalaspis cordyla (Horse mackerel), Alepes kleinii (Golden scad), A. djedaba (Shrimp scad), Decapterus ruselli (Roundscad), D. kurroides (Redtail scad), Scomberoides lysan (Port hole fish), S. commersonianus (Talang queenfish), S. tala (Deep queenfish), S. tol (Slender queenfish), Trachinotus blochii (Subnose pompano), T. baillonii (Bailon's pompano), T. botla (Russel's pompano), Atropus atropus (Kuweh trevally), Selar crumenopthalmus (Bigeye scad), S. boops (Banded scad), Carangoides armatus (Longfin trevally), C. malabaricus (Malabar trevally), C. oblongus (Coach-whip trevally), C. chrysophrys (Longnose trevally), C. ferdau (Ferdau's cavalla), Atule mate (One fin let scad), Seriolina nigrofasciata (Black banded kingfish), Elagatis bipinnulata (Rainbow runner), Alectis indicus (Indian threadfin trevally), A. ciliaris (Redfin trevally), Rachycentron canadum (Cobia) and Coiyphaena hippurus (Dolphin fish) (Nair, 2000; Kasim, 2003). This group has emerged as one of the important resources especially in the mechanized sector, but are also exploited by motorized and non-mechanized sectors. Many carangid species form only a bycatch in almost all the gears except in small meshed drift gill nets, boat and shore seines, but the landings by these gears are negligible (Kasim, 2003). 2.2.15 Silverbellies (TL = 2.9 - 3.7) Silverbellies, also known as slipmouths or pony fishes (Family Leiognathidae), and called 'Mullan' in Malayalam (Kerala state), 'Karal' in Tamil (Tamil Nadu state) and 'Karlu' in Telegu (Andhra Pradesh state) are generally small, shallow water fishes usually seen in shoals. Leiognathus and Gazza species attain a maximum size of 28 cm (Leiognathus equulus) and 23 cm (Gazza minuta), respectively (Pauly and Pauly, 1981; Murty et al., 2003a; FishBase, 2004). The group includes Leiognathus splendens (Splendid ponyfish), L. dussumieri (Dussumier's ponyfish), L. brevirostris (Shortnose ponyfish), L. equulus (Common ponyfish), L.bindus (Orangefin ponyfish), Gazza minuta (Toothpony) and Secutor insidiator (Pugnose ponyfish) (Samuel, 1968b; Murty et al., 2003a). 46 Silverbellies are of little demand when fresh, but there is a considerable market for them in form of sun dried fish (silverbellies contain very little fat, so, they are easily sun dried), fishmeal and poultry feed. Silverbellies are exploited by trawl and a variety of artisanal gears. However, about 80% of landings are contributed by trawls (Samuel, 1968b; Murty et al., 2003a). 2.2.16 Big jawed jumper ( T L = 4.0) Lactarius lactarius, popularly known as Big jawed jumper, Whitefish or False trevally, is the only species in the Family Lactariidae which occurs all along the Indian coast. Big jawed jumper is a carnivore and mainly feed on teleost fishes (particularly anchovies) and crustaceans (Acetes spp) (Vivekanandan et al., 2003c; FishBase, 2004). Though medium in size, up to a maximum of 40 cm (FishBase, 2004), this fish fetches optimum price (Rs. 40 or US$ 0.87 per kg in 1999) due to their good taste and consumer preference. No fishery targets the Big jawed jumper; they are bycatch of the trawls and are mostly consumed in fresh condition, but also salted and dried (Bensam et al., 2000). 2.2.17 Pomfrets ( T L = 3.0 - 3.6) Pomfrets (Families Stromateidae and Carangidae) are one of the most delicious food fish available along Indian coast. Their maximum size ranges from 40 cm (Pampus chinensis) to 75 cm (Apolectus niger). Pomfrets mainly feed on crustaceans, zooplanktons, polychaetes and larval decapods (Sivakami et al, 2003; FishBase, 2004). The fishery is primarily comprised of three species, Apolectus niger (Black pomfret), Pampus argenteus (Silver pomfret) and Pampus chinensis (Chinese pomfret) (Kumari and Dharmaraja, 1981; Sivakami et al., 2003) with a trophic level of 3.0, 3.1 and 3.6 (FishBase, 2004). They are highly appreciated table fishes for internal and export markets, fetching a very high price (Rs. 94 or US$ 2.05 per kg in 1999). Despite their high economic value, the research on their biology, fishery and population dynamics is scanty and scattered (Khan, 2000a). However, fisheries statistics are available for each of these species. 47 2.2.18 Mackerels (TL = 2.7 - 3.1) Mackerels belong to the Family Scombridae with their maximum size range from 22 cm (Rastrelliger faughni) to 39 cm (R. kanagurta). This group includes Rastrelliger kanagurta (Indian mackerel), R. faughni (Island mackerel) and R. brachysoma (Short mackerel). Rastrelliger kanagurta, also called 'Indian mackerel', constitutes in India, the second most important species after the Indian oil sardine (Yohannan and Sivadas, 2003). The trophic level of Indian mackerel used here is not taken from the FishBase or Sea Around Us websites (as for the other species), because the values of 3.4 and 4.4 given therein are erroneous (D. Pauly, Fisheries Centre, UBC, pers. comm. Oct. 2004)2. Therefore, the (mean weighted) trophic level (TL) was recalculated based on Equation 2.1: n TLi = 1 + S (DCy . TLj) (Equation 2.1) where TLj is the trophic level of species i, DCy is the proportion of prey species j in the diet of species i and TLj is the trophic level of prey species j (Christensen and Pauly, 1992). The diet composition was taken from Rao (1967), which includes 24% Coscinodiscus (TL = 1.0), 4% foraminifera (TL = 1.0), 2% polychaetes (TL = 2.1), 36% copepods (TL = 2.1), 20% stomatopods (TL = 3.1), 12.3% other crustaceans (TL = 2.7), 1% bivalve larvae (TL = 2) and 6% fish scales (TL =1.0 and 3.0). It was not clear if fish scales were consumed as detritus (TL = 1) or taken from live fish (mean TL ~ 3.5). Therefore, the TL was calculated two times using the appropriate TLs. The resulting average value of TL = 3.1 was used as TL of Indian mackerel. Indian mackerel is nutritious and affordable even to the poor. Though, small quantities were exported to the Middle East, the bulk of the catch is still consumed within India (Yohannan and Nair, 2002). All mackerel species are usually exploited by the large seines, mainly the purse seines (Noble et al., 1992; Yohannan and Saidkoya, 2000). B e c a u s e the o r i g i n a l t r o p h i c l e v e l ( T L ) e s t i m a t e w a s n o t b a s e d o n d i e t c o m p o s i t i o n d a t a (as s h o w n i n s e c t i o n 2 . 2 . 1 8 ) , bu t f r o m the m e a n T L o f i n d i v i d u a l p r e y i t e m s + 1 , w i t h m o r e a n i m a l p r e y b e i n g d i s t i n g u i s h e d t a x o n o m i c a l l y t h a n p l a n t s , t h u s b i a s i n g the e s t i m a t e d T L u p w a r d . 48 2.2.19 Seerfishes (TL = 4.2 - 4.5) Seerfishes or Spanish mackerels (Family Scombridae) are one of the commercially important marine pelagic finfish resources of India. Their size ranges from 85 cm {Scomberomorus guttatus) to 267 cm (S. commersori). Seerfishes are mainly piscivorous, but occasionally feed on prawns, squids and cuttlefishes. Their main food items are sardines, carangids, silverbellies, croakers, etc. (Muthiah et al, 2003; FishBase, 2004). The fishery is sustained mainly by four species, Scomberomorus commersori (King seer), S. guttatus (Spotted seer), S. lineolatus (Streaked seer) and Acanthocybium solandri (Wahoo) with TL of 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 and 4.4, respectively. There is a low seasonal catch trend along the east coast as compared to the west coast (Muthiah et al., 2003). Seerfishes are in great demand all over the country and fetch very high price, ranging from Rs. 80-150 per kg (Rs.96 or US$ 2.09 per kg in 1999), on par with Pomfrets (Rs. 94 or US$ 2.05 per kg in 1999). They are consumed mostly in fresh form (Jhingran, 1991; Sathiadas and Hassan, 2002; Muthiah et al., 2003). 2.2.20 Tunas (TL = 4.1 - 4.5) Tunas are fishes of the Family Scombridae, with size ranging from 56 cm (Auxis rochei) to 267 cm (Thunnus albacares). Their major food items include crustaceans, especially shrimp and crabs, cephalopods and small pelagic fishes (Pillai and Gopakumar, 2003; FishBase, 2004). The commonly occurring tuna species in the fisheries are Euthynnus affinis (Little tuna/ Kawakawa), Katsuwonus pelamis (Skipjack tuna), Thunnus tonggol (Longtail tuna), Auxis species such as, A. thazard (Frigate tuna) and A. rochei (Bullet tuna) and other tunnies, including, Thunnus albacares (Yellowfin tuna) and Sarda orientalis (Striped bonito) (Ganga and Pillai, 2002). Trophic levels of E. affinis, Auxis spp., K. pelamis, T. tonggol and other tunnies are 4.5, 4.3, 4.4, 4.1 and 4.3, respectively (FishBase, 2004). Tunas constitute one of the economically important marine fisheries resources of India, but are caught mainly by small-scale sector. The catches of the industrial sector are very low. About 75% of the landings are marketed fresh for human consumption. 49 The remainder is salt dried (3%), utilized for Masmin3 production (10%), export (9%) and canning (4%) (Antony et al, 2002; Pillai and Gopakumar, 2003). 2.2.21 Billfishes ( T L = 4.5) Billfishes (Families Istiophoridae and Xiphiidae) are large sized fishes, which attain maximum size of 506 cm (Xiphias gladius). They feed mainly on fishes, crustaceans and cephalopods (FishBase, 2004). Billfish catches in India are comprised mainly of two species, Istiophorus gladius (Indian sail fish) and Xiphias gladius (Swordfish). Being highly valued table fishes, they are of great importance in the scombroid fishery of India (Jhingran, 1991; James et al, 1992). 2.2.22 Barracudas ( T L = 4.5) Barracudas (Family Sphyraenidae) are important food and sport fishes in tropical waters. Their maximum size ranges from 55 cm (Sphyraena obtusata) to 200 cm (S. barracuda). Barracudas feed mainly on fishes but also take squid (FishBase, 2004). Four species, Sphyraena jello (Banded Barracuda), S. obtusata (Great barracuda), S. barracuda (Great barracuda) and 5*. forsteri (Bigeye barracuda) are contributing to commercial barracuda fishery in Indian waters. The entire catch is sold fresh in the local markets of India. The smaller species are auctioned at Rs. 10-25 or US$ 0.21-0.54 per kg and the larger species fetch Rs. 25-45 or US$ 0.54-0.98 per kg in the landing centres (Jhingran, 1991;Kasim, 2000). 2.2.23 Mullets ( T L = 2.1) Mullets (Family Mugilidae) are coastal species that usually enters into estuaries, lagoon and backwaters and feeds mainly on sedimented detritus. Their size ranges from 16 cm (Liza parsia) to 147 cm (Mugil cephalus) (FishBase, 2004). Grey mullets are represented by such important species as Mugil cephalus (Flathead mullet), Chelon macrolepis (Largescale mullet), Valamugil seheli (Bluespot mullet), V. cunnesius (Longarm mullet), Liza parsia (Goldspot mullet), L. tade (Tade mullet) and L. vaigiensis (Squaretail mullet) (Jhingran, 1991; FishBase, 2004). 3 ' M a s m i n ' is the t r a d i t i o n a l c u r e d , d r i e d a n d s m o k e d t u n a p r o d u c t f r o m L a k s h a d w e e p I s l a n d s , w h i c h c o m m a n d s a g o o d m a r k e t in t h r o u g h o u t I n d i a a n d o v e r s e a s , e . g . , i n S r i L a n k a , S i n g a p o r e a n d M a l a y s i a ( A n t o n y el al., 2 0 0 2 ) . 50 2.2.24 Unicorn cod ( T L = 3.3) Bregmaceros mcclellendii, also known as Unicorn cod (Family Bregmacerotidae) is a small fish growing to about a maximum of 12 cm total length. They mainly feed on planktonic crustaceans (FishBase, 2004). Unicorn cod supports a seasonal fishery mainly around Mumbai (Maharashtra), and in Gujarat (Jhingran, 1991). 2.2.25 Flatfishes ( T L = 3.5 - 3.9) This group is comprised mainly of halibut, flounders and soles. Their size ranges from 12 cm (Pseudorhombus natalensis) to 65 cm (Psettodes erumei). Their main food items are benthic invertebrates, fishes and cephalopods (Bensam et al, 2000; Vivekanandan et al., 2003b; FishBase, 2004). The dominant and commercially important species of flatfishes, which support fisheries, are listed below. Large sized flat fishes, such as Psettodes erumei fetches a good price in the market compared to small sized soles, which sell for around Rs. 15 or US$ 0.32 per kg. About 90% of the flatfishes are salted and sundried and sold outside the peak fishing season at price of about Rs. 30 or US$ 0.65 per kg (Vivekanandan et al, 2003b). 2.2.25.1 Halibut ( T L = 3.9) This group (Families Psettodidae and Soleidae) includes Psettodes erumei (Indian halibut) and Synaptura commersonnii (Commerson's sole) (Mathew et al, 1992; Bensam et al, 2000; Vivekanandan et al, 2003b). 2.2.25.2 Flounders ( T L = 3.5) The important commercial species of flounders (Families Paralichthyidae and Bothidae) in Indian waters are Pseudorhombus arsius (Large tooth flounder), P. elevatus (Deep flounder), P. javanicus (Javan flounder), P. malayanus (Malayan flounder), P. natalensis (Natal flounders), P. triocellatus (Three spotted flounder), Bothus pantherinus (Leopard flounder), B. myriaster (Indo-Pacific oval flounder) and Chascanopsetta lugubris (Pelican flounder) (Mathew et al, 1992; Bensam et al, 2000; Vivekanandan et al, 2003b). 2.2.25.3 Soles ( T L = 3.5) This group (Families Cynoglossidae and Soleidae) is composed of Cynoglossus dubius (Tongue sole), C. bilineatus (Malabar tongue sole), C. are! (Largescale tonguesole), 51 C. pucticeps (Speckled tonguesole), C. carpenteri (Hooked tonguesole), C. dispar (Roundhead toungesole), C. macrolepidotus, C. macrostomus (Malabar tonguesole), Paraplagusia bilineata (Doublelined tonguesole), Brachirus orientalis (Oriental sole), Solea elongata (Elongate sole), Zebrias quagga (Zebra sole) and Z. synapturoides (Indian zebra sole) (Mathew et al, 1992; Bensam et al, 2000; Vivekanandan et al, 2003b). 2.2.26 Crustaceans ( T L = 2.7 - 3.1) The crustaceans group is comprised mainly of penaeid prawns, non-penaeid prawns, lobsters, crabs and stomatopods (mantis shrimp). India is one of the major contributors of marine crustaceans in the world market (Anon., 1982). Crustaceans also fetch a very high price of Rs. 200 or US$ 4.3 per kg in the domestic market (Sathiadas and Hassan, 2002). 2.2.26.1 Penaeid prawns ( T L = 2.7) Penaeid prawns (Family Penaeidae) feeds mainly on small crustaceans, gastropods, bivalves and detritus (Kurian and Sebastian, 1976a). Some of the important penaeid prawns that support commercial fisheries along the Indian coasts are Penaeus indicus (Indian white prawn), P. semisulcatus (Green tiger prawn), P. monodon (Giant tiger prawn), P. merguiensis (Banana prawn), P. japonicus (Kuruma prawn), P. penicillatus (Redtail prawn), Penaeopsis jerryi, Metapenaeus dobsoni (Flowertail prawn), M. monoceros (Speckled prawn), M. affinis (Jinga prawn), M. kutchensis (Ginger shrimp), M. brevicornis (Yellow prawn), Metapenaeopsis stridulans (Fiddler shrimp), M. andamanensis (Rice velvet shrimp), Parapenaeopsis stylifera (Kiddi prawn), P. hardwickii (Spear prawn), P. sculptilis (Rainbow prawn), P. maxillipedo (Torpedo prawn), P. uncta (Uncta prawn), Parapenaeus longiceps (Flaming prawn), Trachypenaeus curvirostris (Rough prawn), Solenocera crassicornis (Coastal mud prawn), S. choprai (Coastal mud prawn), S. hextii (deep sea mud shrimp), and Aristeus alcocki (Arabian red shrimp) (Kurian and Sebastian, 1976b; Suseelan et al, 1992; Nandakumar and Maheswarudu, 2003). The penaeid prawn fishery constitute the backbone of the seafood export industry, being the major foreign exchange earner as well as source of livelihood for millions of fish workers. Frozen shrimp contributes about 70% (Rs. 44,800,000 corresponding to US$ 978,807) of India's total seafood export value and the share of capture fisheries is 59% by volume (Nandakumar and Maheswarudu, 2003). 52 2.2.26.2 Non-penaeid prawns ( T L = 2.7) The non-penaeid prawn resources of the country are primarily composed of Nematopalaemon tenuipes (Spider prawn) and Exhippolysmata ensirostris (Hunter shrimp), which constitute one of the important fisheries resources of the northwest coast. Acetes indicus and A. johni, commonly known as Paste shrimps (Family Sergestidae) feeds mainly on detritus, diatoms, foraminifers, polychaetes and other planktonic crustaceans (Kurian and Sebastian, 1976b, a; Deshmukh, 2003). 2.2.26.3 Lobsters ( T L = 2.7) Lobsters (Family Palinuridae) are widely distributed all along the Indian coast. They feed on smaller crustaceans, molluscs and polychaetes (Radhakrishnan and Manisseri, 2003). This group includes Panulirus polyphagus (Mud spiny lobster), P. homarus (Scalloped spiny lobster), P. ornatus (Ornate spiny lobster) P. versicolor (Tropical rock lobster), Thenus orientalis (Shovelnosed lobster), Puerulus sewelli (Indian ocean lobster), and Linupurus somniosus (Kurian and Sebastian, 1976c; Radhakrishnan and Manisseri, 2003). Lobsters are one of the most valuable and highly priced seafood. Among them, the spiny lobsters (rock lobsters), especially the live ones, fetch the highest price. Heavy demand and attractive price in international market have resulted in increased exploitation of lobsters in recent years (Radhakrishnan and Manisseri, 2003). Trawlers targeting shrimps land 75% of the lobster catch. Trap fishing also catches significant amounts (40%) of lobsters in south west coast of India (Rajan and Meenakumari, 1995). 2.2.26.4 Crabs ( T L = 2.9) Marine crabs (Family Portunidae) generally feed on detritus, smaller crustaceans, fishes and molluscs. The important crabs found in the Indian waters are Portunus sanguinolentus (Spotted crab), P. pelagicus (Reticulate crab), Charybdis feriatus (Cross crab), C. annulata and C. natator. Out of these, Portunus sanguinolentus, P. pelagicus and Charybdis feriatus are the dominant species of edible marine crabs; they are landed mainly as a bycatch of the trawlers. Marine crabs are also one of the valuable seafood items of great demand both in the domestic and export market of India (Radhakrishnan, 2000; Manisseri and Radhakrishnan, 2003). 53 2.2.26.5 Stomatopods ( T L = 3.1) Stomatopods (Family Squillidae) grow to about 14 cm in length and are predatory. Oratosquilla nepa (mantis shrimp) is the species that contributes to most of the catch (Shanbhogue, 1973; Okey, 2001). There is no fishery targeting stomatopods in India and the catches are incidental and landed along with prawns and fishes by the shrimp trawlers. Mantis shrimp catches are either thrown back to sea to accommodate the commercially important fish or sold cheaply in certain localities to be used in poultry feed and as fertilizers. Unlike Philippines and Japan, the stomatopods are not consumed as food in India (Shanbhogue, 1973; Rajeswary and Hameed, 1998). 2.2.27 Molluscs excluding cephalopods ( T L = 2.0) This group consists mainly of gastropods and marine bivalves (clams, mussels, edible oysters and pearl oysters) that mainly feed on dead and decayed matter, algae, polychaetes and phytoplankton (Kripa and Appukuttan, 2003; Ramadoss, 2003). However, the helmet shells, the hairy tritons, the murex shells and the frog shells are also reported to be feeding on animals such as sea urchins and small clams (Ramadoss, 2003). The most important shells and marine bivalves of commercial value are Xancus pyrum (Sacred chank), Turbo marmoratus (Turban shell), T. intercostals (Ribbed turban), Trochus niloticus, T. radiatus (Top shells), Umbonium vestiarium (Button shell), Lambis chiragra (Spider shell), L. lambis (Scorpion shells), Cypraena monita (Cowries), Cellana radiate, Strombus canarium (Winged shells), Thais rudolphi, T. bufo, Oliva gibbosa, Babylonia spirata, B. zeylanica, Cassis cornuta (Helmet shells), Chicoreus ramosus , Pleuroplaa trapezium (Murex shells), Villorita cyprinoides (Black clam), Paphia malabarica (Short neck clam), Meretrix casta, M. meretrix (Yellow clams), Marcia opima (Baby clam), Mesodesma glabaratum, Sunetta scripta (Marine clam), Donax spp. (Wedge clam), Geloina bengalnesis (Big black clam), Anandra granosa (Cockle), Placenta placenta (Windowpane oyster), Hippopus hippopus (Giant clam), Perna viridis (Green mussel), P. indica (Brown mussel), Pinctada fucata (Indian pearl oyster), P. margaritifera (Black lip pearl oyster), Crassostrea madrasensis (Indian backwater oyster) and Saccostrea cucullata (Rock oyster) 54 (Appukuttan and Ramadoss, 2000; Chellam et al, 2000; Kripa and Appukuttan, 2003; Ramadoss, 2003). In the earlier days, after sorting bycatch on deck, the shell bycatch was thrown out into the sea as discard. Once the shell-craft industries got established and flourished, however, these molluscs were brought ashore and sold. Presently, these molluscs occupy an important place in the commercial shell-craft industry (Ramadoss, 2003). Umbonium vestiarium is the only gastropod species that is sold in the local market as food. The clam landings are used as a major ingredient of prepared shrimp feed or are fed directly to shrimp, while their shells are used by ornamental shell-craft industry and for manufacture of cement, calcium carbide, sand-lime bricks and lime (Kripa and Appukuttan, 2003). 2.2.28 Cephalopods (TL = 3.6) This group includes squids, cuttlefishes and octopuses (Families Loliginidae, Sepiidae and Octopodidae). They are carnivorous and their food consists of teleost fishes, crustaceans and cephalopods. Cannibalism is also common among them (Meiyappan and Mohamed, 2003; CephBase, 2004). Commercially important species are Loligo uyii (Little squid), L. duvauceli (Indian squid), Doryteuthis sibogae (Siboga squid), D. singhalensis (Needle squid), Loliolus investigatoris, Sepioteuthis lessoniana (Palk-bay squid), Sepia pharaonis (Pharaoh cuttlefish), S. aculeata (Needle cuttlefish), S. elliptica (Golden cuttlefish), S. prashadi (Hooded cuttlefish), S. brevimana (Shotclub cuttlefish), Sepiella inermis (Spineless cuttlefish), Octopus dollfusi (Marbled octopus), O. membranaceous (Webfoot octopus), O. lobensis (Lobed octopus), O. vulgaris (Common octopus) and Cistopus indicus (Old woman octopus). These were once thrown overboard as discards but the demand from export trade in the mid-1970s induced the fishers to save these catches. The bulk of the catches are now exported and very little is used for local consumption. Cephalopods are exported as frozen and dried products. The main markets for export of Indian cephalopods are Europe, Japan and China (Meiyappan et al, 2002; Meiyappan and Mohamed, 2003; CephBase, 2004). 5 5 2.2.29 Miscellaneous The catch data reported under this group does not identify the species composition. It is assumed that this group mainly contains so called 'trash fish', which are of smaller size and low consumer preference. Sujatha (1996) has shown that the trawl fishery off Vishakapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) contains 67% to 94% juveniles of larger fishes. Based on this and similar information from other sources, this group was reduced to zero by distributing its catch among all other groups. For a detailed account, see Chapter 3; section 3.2.2.5. 56 Chapter 3: Historical reconstruction of Indian catches: 1950 - 2000 3.1 Introduction Institutes and departments falling under both federal and state governments estimate and collect the official fisheries statistics in India. The Fishery Survey of India (FSI) conducts exploratory surveys to estimate maximum sustainable yield and the Central Marine Fisheries Research institute (CMFRI) as well as the state fisheries departments monitor and estimate the annual fish catch (Somvanshi, 2001a; for information on other fisheries related institutes, see Chapter 1, section 1.4.4.2). As per the latest estimates of FSI, the potential yield of the Indian EEZ is 3.9 million t. Out of this, 2.2 million t would be available from coastal waters and 1.7 million t from the offshore and deep sea waters (Nair, 1998; Pillai et al., 2000). The CMFRI started collecting catch data for whole India since its inception in year 1947, but soon the need for estimates by region was felt for state planning and development. As a result, the state governments also started collecting data on marine fish landings. However, the sampling design and methods used for collection of marine fish catch statistics differs from the state to state (CMFRI, 1985). The federal government made an effort, in 1985, to standardise the sampling method and streamline the process of collection of marine fish landings in India, by arranging for training workshops to be held by CMFRI for the officials of state departments and union territories, with focus on the collection method of statistics. These workshops, however, did not appear to have had much success. State reports provide taxonomically highly aggregated landings statistics (e.g., only 26 groups in Gujarat state), with the bulk of the landings grouped under the 'miscellaneous category' with little or no information on species caught. For example, in reports from Gujarat state, the percentage of the 'miscellaneous' group in total landings is as high as 39% (GOG, 2000). Moreover, no details are given on the methodology used for arriving at the catch figures. On the other hand, landing data published by the CMFRI divide the catch into 68 groups and the statistical reports describe the methods used to derive estimates. CMFRI statistics also have a miscellaneous group, as in state reports, but their percentage is quite low ranging from 2% in 1957 to 11% in 1950 (Here, the miscellaneous group was further reduced; see section 3.2). 57 CMFRI adopted a multistage stratified random sampling design to collect the information required for estimation of marine fish landings with a stratification that is both temporal (days) and spatial (zones) (Srinath, 2003). Under this approach, all maritime states are divided into contiguous and compact 'fishery zones'1, consisting of several landing centres. 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 et al, 1981). In order to ensure homogeneity among landing centres, a further stratification is preferred, if required, within a zone, to reduce sampling variance (Algaraja, 1998). Also, important landing centres, such as major fisheries harbour are treated as a single zone. In total, samples are collected from 2251 fish landing centres and the frequency of observations are up to 18 days per month (Vivekanandan, 2003). Catch samples are obtained from fishing units landings (within a time interval) in a randomly selected landing centre. The total catch estimates for the month are obtained from these samples, using appropriate raising factors. The precision of the estimate is based on the sample size of sampling units (Kumari and Dharmaraja, 1981). All field data are processed at the headquarters of the CMFRI at Kochi, Kerala. The estimation error is thought to lie between 4% to 5% of annual total landings of India (Jhingran, 1991). I present in the following, the precedences I developed to ensure consistency of the CMFRI data. 3.2 Materials and methods For each maritime state and union territory the catch data (which always pertain to weight in tonnes) were compiled. This included both landings reported in CMFRI and discards to estimate total catch (landings + discards) over the period of 1950 to 2000. The various techniques used in these calculations are presented below. 3.2.1 Compilation and encoding 3.2.1.1 Compilation Landings data are compiled from published sources of the CMFRI, state reports and other sources. The bulk of the data used in this catch reconstruction originate from CMFRI publications, as reports published by other institutes or departments were largely inaccessible, even during on site visits (pers. obsv. (July), 2003). E a c h z o n e is c o m p r i s e d o f 2 0 to 3 0 l a n d i n g c e n t e r s w i t h s i m i l a r l a n d i n g s l e v e l s ( A l g a r a j a , 1 9 9 8 ; S i l a s , 1 9 7 7 ) . 58 TABLE 3.1. List of sources used to compile marine landings and price data from 1950 to 2000. These sources do not include data on discards and Industrial fleet catches (except prawns). A & N Islands: Andaman and Nicobar Islands; D & D: Daman and Diu. Source Data type Years covered Remarks Nair and Banerji (1965) Landings 1950-1962 Data unavailable for Pondicherry (1950-1962), A & N Islands (1950-1955), Lakshadweep (1950-1960), Goa (1950-1956, 1962) and Daman and Diu (1950-1962) CMFRI (1969a) Landings 1956-1968 Only totals given for Goa (except 1956-1957, 1962-1964), Lakshadweep (except 1956-1959), and A & N Islands. CMFRI (1969b) Landings 1963-1968 Species wise landings; unavailable for Goa and union territories (except Pondicherry) LDOF(1990) Landings 1963-1968 Available only for Lakshadweep CMFRI (1979) Landings 1969-1978 Unavailable for Daman and Diu Algaraja (1987) Landings 1975-1984 Data only for Lakshadweep and A & N Islands Alagaraja et al. (1987) Landings 1975-1984 Available only for Andhra Pradesh Balane/a/. (1987) Landings 1975-1984 Available only for Gujarat Dharmaraja et al. (1987) Landings 1975-1984 Available only for Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Jacob et al. (1987) Landings 1975-1984 Available only for Kerala Kurup etal. (1987) Landings 1975-1984 Available only for Karnataka and Goa Philipose et al. (1987) Landings 1975-1984 Available only for West Bengal Scariahefo/. (1987) Landings 1975-1984 Available only for Orissa Srinath era/. (1987) Landings 1975-1984 Available only for Maharashtra Devaraj (1995) Prawn landings 1978 Industrial vessels only CMFRI (1980) Landings 1979 Unavailable for Daman and Diu CMFRI (1982) Landings 1980-1981 Unavailable for Daman and Diu Sudarsan (1992a) Prawn landings 1981-1991 Industrial vessels only Verghese (1998) Prawn landings 1982-1992 Industrial vessels only G0K(1991) Price 1982-1989 Landing price in Kerala Rao (1988) Prawn landings 1983-1987 Industrial vessels only CMFRI (1995) Landings 1985-1993 Data unavailable for Lakshadweep, A & N Islands, D & D CMFRI (1989) Landings 1985 Data used for Andaman & Nicobar Islands Scariahera/. (2000b) Landings 1985-1995 Only totals available for Orissa Varghese (1991) Landings 1986 Available only for Lakshadweep Raghavan and Shanmughnam (1993) Landings 1987-1990 Available only for Lakshadweep DAHD (1994) Landings 1991-1992 Data used for Andaman & Nicobar Islands Scariah e; a/. (2000a) Landings 1994-1995 Available only for Gujarat DAHD (2001) Landings 1994-1997 All maritime states and union territories GOG (2000) Landings 1996-1997 Available only for Gujarat Sathiadhas (1999) Price 1996-1997 Landing price for India as a whole MPEDA (2001) Landings 1998-2000 All maritime states and union territories Sathiadas and Hassan (2002) Price 1999-2000 Landing price for India as a whole These sources do not include data on industrial fleet (boats > 25 m) catch (except prawns) and on discards. The approaches employed to estimate these unreported values are discussed in section 3.2.3. 59 The publications in Table 3.1 provided vital information but suffered from various imperfections. These include: (1) a different format in publications by different institutes; (2) combined statistics of landings data for some states (e.g., data for West Bengal and Orissa are combined from 1950 to 1968); (3) combined statistics for taxonomic groups in initial years (e.g., landings for elasmobranchs are not divided into sharks, ray and skates from 1950 to 1980, but divided thereafter); (4) missing values for some species; (5) large catches in non-informative 'miscellaneous groups'; (6) absence of landing estimates for important fisheries, notably on industrial catch (vessels >25 m); (7) absence of data on turtles or mammals caught as bycatch, and (8) general scarcity of information on discards and illegal fishing. Illegal fishing is reported in Indian waters by Dan (1982) and Rajan (2003), mainly by trawlers from Thailand, Myanmar and Indonesia. In 1980s, 30-100 Thai trawlers were found operating in the northern part of the Bay of Bengal, i.e., near Sandheads area, to mainly catch shrimps (Dan, 1982). From 1990-2000, 136 boats belonging to Thailand, Myanmar and Indonesia were apprehended from Andaman waters (Rajan, 2003). These poachers are reported to be discarding large quantities of fish (Dan, 1982), and even conducting blast fishing (Rajan, 2003), but there is no quantifiable information on amount of catches or discards. Similarly, information is missing on bycatch of mammals and turtles, which are often reported as strangled by fishing gears (CMFRI, 1983a; 1987a; b). Thus, in the absence of any quantifiable information illegal fishing is not further considered in this study. Overall, data from union territories were more problematic than those from states. For example, CMFRI data do not include species wise landings for Lakshadweep, Goa and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, especially from 1950 to 1960s (Nair et al, 1965; CMFRI, 1969b). In order to resolve these issues, various methods were employed that are discussed in detail in the following sections. 3.2.1.2 Encoding As all data listed above were available in only paper format, it was encoded using Microsoft Excel. The landings data thus assembled were aggregated into 29 broad taxonomic categories (see Chapter 2) with further subdivisions into subgroups at Family, Genus and Species level. In total, 65 statistical categories were used in all analyses through common template applied to all Indian states and union territories and which roughly corresponds to CMFRI's published format for landing statistics. 60 3.2.2 Reported landings 3.2.2.1 Ratio divisions of trawler catches Nair and Banerji (1965) have reported aggregated annual trawler catch by species from 1950 to 1962 but this pertains to all of India, i.e., it is not distributed by states or species; CMFRI (1969) on the other hand, divided trawler catches from 1960 onwards among states. Therefore, Nair and Banerji's trawler catches from 1950 to 1959 were divided among states of West Bengal, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka and Maharashtra, based on CMFRI for 1960. Then, the calculated values of all states were assigned to the demersal groups in proportion to their presence, the main assumption were being that trawlers near exclusively catch demersal taxa. 3.2.2.2 Ratio divisions at species level Assuming that total catches were correct, an effort was made to deal with incomplete or incoherent subsets of the data. For example, from 1950 to 1979 combined totals were available for elasmobranchs but were not divided into sharks, skates and rays. Therefore, while keeping the totals unaltered, elasmobranchs were divided into sharks, skates and rays based on their first available ratio. In this case the ratio of year 1980 was applied to elasmobranchs from 1950 to 1979. Here, the basic assumption is that the ratio of the subcategories has remained unchanged for years before 1980. This method was applied to groups that included pomfrets, tunas, seer fishes, perches and elasmobranchs in almost all states, but for different periods. Though, such inferences tend to deny the chances of serial depletion, gear transition or taxonomic changes etc., but, in absence of any other information, this was the only option to estimate the missing values. 3.2.2.3 Ratio divisions at state level Combined landings statistics were available for the states of West Bengal and Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry and Gujarat and Daman and Diu from 1950 to 1974, 19542 to 1974 and 1950 to 1993, respectively. In order to disaggregate specieswise landings among individual states, ratios for each group in a year were estimated using data from the first year for which separate data were available for the combined states. These calculated ratios were then applied to all previous years. Daman and Diu was the part of Goa until 1987 and became a separate union territory after statehood was conferred to Goa in May 1987 (GOI, 2004a). In CMFRI publications, the landings of Daman and Diu were always added to Gujarat instead of Goa because fishing vessels 2 P o n d i c h e r r y w a s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o I n d i a i n 1 9 5 4 . F o r the y e a r 1 9 5 0 - 1 9 5 3 , the c a t c h v a l u e s f o r P o n d i c h e r r y w e r e e x t r a p o l a t e d b a s e d o n e s t i m a t e d v a l u e s o f y e a r 1 9 5 4 (see s e c t i o n 3 . 2 . 2 . 4 . 1 ) . 61 based in Daman and Diu generally operate in Gujarat waters (CMFRI, 1983; Srinath, CMFRI, pers. comm. April, 2004). 3.2.2.4 Estimation of missing values Pauly (1998) pointed out that reconstruction of series of catches and their composition may require interpolations and other bold assumptions, justified by the unacceptability of the alternative, i.e., "accepting catches as zero, or otherwise known to be incompatible with empirical data and historic records" (Pauly, 1998). Therefore, estimates for missing years were interpolated3 and occasionally extrapolated4. Various other adjustments were also made based on information in the literature, as detailed in the appropriate sections. 3.2.2.4.1 First inter and extrapolations: total landings The missing annual landings of the following states were estimated by interpolations and extrapolations: 1. Andaman and Nicobar Islands: Species wise data from 1950 to 1955, 1963 to 1968 and, 1986 to 1990 were unavailable. It was assumed that the fisheries remained unchanged over the period of 1950 to 1955, and that the composition of the landings of the year 1956 (Nair and Banerji, 1965) could be extrapolated backward. The CMFRI (1969) provided only total landings from 1963 to 1968, with no information on species caught. In order to distribute landings among the groups, the values were interpolated between given group landings for 1962 (Nair and Banerji, 1965) and 1969 (CMFRI, 1979). Then, all the interpolated values were adjusted to match the published totals. Annual landings for 1986 to 1990 were interpolated between 1985 (CMFRI, 1989) and 1991 (DAHD, 1992), as totals were unavailable for these years. 2. Goa: No landings data were available from 1950 to 1957. Thus, it was assumed that the fisheries remained unchanged during this period, i.e., the landings of 1958 (Nair and Banerji, 1965) were extrapolated backward. Again data were unavailable from 1962-1968, so, the values were interpolated between 1961 and 1969. However, the totals (i.e., without species breakdown) were available from 1965 to 1968 (CMFRI, 1969a), and the interpolated values were adjusted accordingly. 3. Lakshadweep: The Lakshadweep fisheries department came in existence in 1960, so no data were available from 1950 to 1959. Ragahavan and Shanmughnam (1993) pointed out that before 1960, fishing in Lakshadweep relied only on small scale methods. Thus, 3 E s t i m a t i n g a v a l u e b e t w e e n t w o g i v e n v a l u e s . 4 E s t i m a t i n g a v a l u e b y e x t e n d i n g k n o w n v a l u e s b a c k w a r d o r f o r w a r d . 62 annual reported landings before the year 1960 (Nair and Banerji, 1965) could only have been low; therefore, the low 1960 figure was extrapolated backward to fill in the years 1950 to 1959. 4. Pondicherry: The union territory of Pondicherry was incorporated into India in 1954 (GOI, 2004b), and thus data were not available from 1950 to 1953. It was assumed that landings remained unchanged over the period of 1950 to 1953, i.e., the landings of 1954 were extrapolated backward. 3.2.2.4.2 Second inter and extrapolations: group landings In a few cases, landings of the species (e.g., Chirocentrus dorab) or groups (e.g., the scads) were missing for few years. In such cases the values were interpolated between the landings for years for which the information was available. If the total was given for a group, then interpolated or extrapolated values for subcategories were adjusted, so that the total of all groups matched the given total or subtotal. For example, in Andhra Pradesh, a subtotal is given for elasmobranchs from 1994 to 1997. Here, the values were interpolated between 1993 and 1998 for each subgroup (sharks, skates and rays) and then adjusted to available subtotal. Similarly, landings that were missing for earlier years or later years were replaced by extrapolation of the first or last available value. However, when the number of extrapolated years exceeded 10, a value of 1 t was assigned to the values still missing based on the observation that CMFRI assigns zeroes when catches are low (CMFRI, 1969). Furthermore, if zero or near zero landings for a single year are bracketed by high catches then the zero estimates were replaced by an interpolated value. The logic here is that near zero catches are unlikely when the previous and following year shows substantial amount of species landed. All interpolated and extrapolated values were extracted from the miscellaneous group and similarly few erroneous values were replaced by interpolated values and the difference was added back in to miscellaneous. 3.2.2.5 Miscellaneous Along other taxonomically disaggregated groups, India reports 2% (1957) to 24% (1995) of its annual landings under the 'miscellaneous group'. In total, India has reported approximately 5 million t of marine landings this way since 1950, with total marine landings of approximately 71 million t. Because the miscellaneous group represents considerable amount of landings, they were not excluded from the total landings, rather an attempt was made to disaggregate this group into the better defined groups. George et al. (1981) mentioned that the miscellaneous group contains 63 several species of so called 'trash fish', which are of smaller size and low consumer preference. Sujatha (1996) has shown that the fish catch of the trawl fishery off Vishakapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) contains 67% to 94% juveniles. Similarly, Puthra et al. (1998) found that trawlers operating from 1988 to 1993 off the Veraval coast in Gujarat caught up to 52%> of juveniles. Based on this and similar information from other sources (Sivasubramaniam, 1990; Gordon, 1991; Rohit et al., 1993; Puthra et al., 1996; Salgrama, 1999), the miscellaneous group was reduced to zero by following a two-step approach. In the first step, this group was treated as a 'reservoir' with all interpolated and extrapolated catches taken out, and few erroneous catches added to this group (see section 3.2.2.4.2). Once this first step was completed, the remaining miscellaneous landings at state level were assigned to specific fish, crustacean and mollusc taxa in proportion to their value in the total. 3.2.3 Unreported catches 3.2.3.1 Industrial catches The industrial or commercial vessels that operate mostly from Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh do not report their landings regularly to the designated institutes. Even, CMFRI has failed to obtain data from them (Srinath, CMFRI, pers. comm. April, 2004). However, the DAHD reports landings of the deep sea sector (assumed to consist of industrial vessels) of 30,000 t per year from 1994 to 1997, but without information on species composition (DAHD, 2001). These data are suspicious; the landings remain at 30,000 t from 1994 to 1997 despite a decrease in number of vessels from 117 to 67: Therefore, these data were not included in the recorded landings from 1950 to 2000. Instead, industrial catches were calculated using different methods (see sections below). 3.2.3.1.1 Industrial landings The first commercial trawlers to operate in India were imported from the Gulf of Mexico in 1972 to initiate deep sea fishing (Devaraj, 1995; also see chapter 1; section 1.4.8). The data on total number of vessels were available only for years 1972, 1978 (Devaraj, 1995) and, 1981 to 1991, when 168 units were recorded (Rao, 1988; Sudarsan, 1992a; Verghese, 1996). The majority of these vessels operate on the east coast of India, though most are based at Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (Devaraj, 1995; Srinath, CMFRI, pers. comm. April, 2004). Therefore, for year 1998, it was assumed that 50 Vishakapatnam commercial trawlers (Salgrama, 1998) correspond to the total number of industrial vessels presently operating in Indian waters. Other values for the total number of vessels also exist. For example, according to Verghese 64 (1996), 155 large industrial vessels trawled for prawn and fish in 1991-1992, while Sudarsan (1992) reported 180 fishing vessels. In such cases, the mean of the values were considered, i.e., 168 in the above example. The total number of vessels from 1973 to 1977, 1979 to 1980 and 1992 to 1997 were estimated by interpolating between 1972 and 1978, 1978 and 1981 and 1991 to 1998, respectively. For 1999 and 2000, the values for 1998 were extrapolated forward. Data on prawn catches by industrial vessels were available for 1978 (Devaraj, 1995) and 1981 to 1991 (Rao, 1988; Sudarsan, 1992a; Verghese, 1996). For 1972, total catches were estimated based on the average shrimp catch per vessel for year 1981, i.e., 28 t per vessel (Devaraj, 1995). The mean fish catch per vessel was calculated by dividing the estimated total fish catch (based on a 1:9 shrimp to fish ratio; see below) by the total number of vessels. Similarly, the average shrimp catch per vessel and average fish catch per vessel were calculated for 1996 and 1997. Their average was then used to derive the total shrimp and fish catch for 1998. For the other years, estimates were obtained by interpolation and extrapolation as explained above in conjunction with the total number of vessels. Catches also suffered from the same uncertainty, and thus means were taken where possible. Gordon (1991) used (head off) shrimp to fish ratio of 1:15, corresponding to 1:9 (with shrimp heads on). The latter ratio was used to estimate fish catches from prawn landings. 3.2.3.1.2 Industrial discards Fishes are major non-target species (bycatch) of shrimp trawlers. By catch and discards have been described differently by different authors in various parts of the world (Clucas, 1997). In India, 'bycatch' is generally taken to refer only to the bycatch that is landed. Here, however, bycatch refers to landed bycatch plus discards (i.e., the bycatch which is thrown back to the sea). Various reasons have been presented by different authors to explain discarding (Clucas, 1997); saving space in order to retain large amount of highly priced prawns seems to be the major one. It is assumed that, from 1972 to 2000 only 30% of the fishes caught by trawlers are retained and 70% are discarded, though, some reports indicate that discards have decreased since the 1990s due to declining abundances of shrimps and prawns (Kungsuwan, 1999; Salgrama, 1999). However, my estimates of discards are conservative. For example, Gordon (1991) estimated 40,000 to 60,000 t annual discards in 1988 by industrial trawlers (over 20 m) as compared to my estimate of 6,665 t. Similarly, in 1998; Salgarama (1999) reported 15,000 t of discards by commercial vessels as compared to my estimate of 3,311 t. 65 3.2.3.2 Division of catch among states The reported and estimated catches of prawn and fishes for India as a whole were divided among states of Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal from 1972 to 2000, because these industrial vessels generally operate on the east coast (Devaraj, 1995; Srinath, CMFRI, pers. comm. April, 2004). This division was based in proportion to the states value in India's total landings for respective years. Some of these commercial vessels were reported fishing for lobster as far as Kerala (Sudarsan, 1992b). However, deep sea lobster fishing started in 1988 due to declining shrimp catches in the upper Bay of Bengal (Sivaprakasam, 1992). Thus, from 1987 to 2000, the states of Kerala and Karnataka were also included and likewise, catches were divided in proportion to their value in India's total. 3.2.3.3 Species composition of catches An analysis of the literature shows that trawlers catch large number of species as bycatch (George et al, 1981; Sivasubramaniam, 1990; Gordon, 1991; Kurup et al, 2003) with huge amount of juveniles. Most of these species, however, are represented in the groups of reconstructed landings data (also see section 3.2.2.5). Based on the assumption that the taxa that are commercially valuable are landed ashore while remainder are thrown overboard (Sivasubramaniam, 1990), the price data were used to rank the demersal groups from high to low priced. Pomfrets for example are one of the highly valued group (see Chapter 2). Others are cephalopods, eels, big-jawed jumper, elasmobranchs and mullets. The retained bycatch (30%) was assumed to consist of the highest priced species. The retained catch values 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 in the total catch. This procedure was performed independently for each year. 3.2.3.4 Other discards Along with the industrial fleet, other mechanised vessels also discard unwanted species (Gordon, 1991). To quantify their discards, it was assumed that 2% of India's total marine landings are discarded from 1970 onwards. The year of 1970 was chosen because several technological advances were introduced then and thereafter (also see section 1.4.8). The discard figure is 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 (except industrial trawlers) were very low (i.e., 2%) and most of the bycatch were utilised. 66 These estimated discards were then assigned to all states and union territories based on their proportion in India's total. The discards in each state were then assigned proportionally among all other groups. 67 Chapter 4: Measuring the impacts of fishing 4.1 Introduction The evolution of fishing gears from hand held devices to industrial vessels had a huge effect on the abundance and biodiversity of the world's fish stocks. Fisheries are impacting ecosystems because the fish that are killed and removed function as parts of the food webs, both as consumers and prey (Parsons, 1996). For clarity, before moving on with this chapter, it is important to define the key terms of this analysis: ecosystems and the trophic level. An Ecosystem is "an area where a set of species interact in characteristic fashion, and generate among them biomass flows that are stronger than those linking that area to adjacent one" (Pauly and Froese, 2001) and trophic level is "a number indicating the position of a species within an ecosystem through the number of steps linking it to the plants" (Pauly and Froese, 2001; Lindeman, 1942 and see section 4.2.2) Fisheries target specific fish species, valuable in terms of their market value, but they do it at the expense of other species because the target species are embedded within an ecosystem (Alverson et al, 1994; Pauly and Palomares, 2001). Though concerns about sustainability has been raised globally, and ecosystem-based approaches have been proposed to manage fisheries (Kirkwood et al, 1994; Jennings and Kaiser, 1998), concepts such as 'ecosystem health' are difficult to translate into operational objectives that can be directly used when policy making (Larkin, 1996). Therefore, there is a need for predictive indicators (Murawski, 2000), which can be easily parameterised using easily accessible statistics (Christensen, 2000) while communicating with a single number a variety of complex processes occurring within an ecosystem (Pauly and Watson, 2004). Pauly et al. (1998a; 2001b) and Pauly and Watson (2004) have proposed two such indicators of fisheries sustainability: 'the Marine Trophic Index' (MTI) and the 'Fishing in Balance' (FiB) index. Mean Trophic Index is name given by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) for the mean trophic level (TL) of fisheries catches (Pauly and Watson, 2004). This was used by Pauly et al. (1998a) to demonstrate the global declining trend of mean T L of catches from 1950 to 1994 based on the FAO dataset. The proposed explanation for this phenomenon, now widely known as 'fishing down marine food webs' is that the fisheries catches are shifting 68 from large, high-TL species to the small, low-TL species in response to their relative abundance in the ecosystem. Fishing down marine food web effect has also been shown in Thailand (Christensen, 1998), Canada (Pauly et al., 2001), Greece (Stergiou and Koulouris, 2000), Iceland (Valtysson and Pauly, 2003), North Sea (Furness, 2002) and many others (Pauly and Watson, 2004). This phenomenon is widespread because the high-TL species (e.g., large piscivorous fishes such as sharks etc.), which are long-lived species with low reproductive rate are less resilient to overfishing, and tend to be depleted quickly as compared to low-TL species, which are short lived and fast growing (Kirkwood et al., 1994). Caddy et al. (1998) and Caddy and Garibaldi (2000) have suggested alternative explanations for observed trends in mean TL. They agreed that a general decline in mean TL of marine landings has occurred in many regions of the world. While they conceded that the decline in landings of larger fishes are due to overfishing, they suggest that the decline in global TLs is due to cascading and bottom-up effect, i.e., is not necessarily only because of top-down effect. For example, in the Baltic Sea, 'bottom-up' effects are caused by increased nutrification, which is primarily responsible for observations of increased landings of species of lower TL and hence declines of mean TL (Caddy and Garibaldi, 2000). Moreover, they suggest, the apparent changes in trophic composition of catches could be due to changes in market demand, capture technology, or to changes in environmental conditions, rather than just a release of predator pressure. Other criticisms were related to the over aggregation of the FAO data used by Pauly et al. (1998a), ontogenic changes of TL, and the composition of landings not necessarily reflecting relative abundances in the underlying ecosystem. Pauly et al. (1998b), gave a response addressing these various points. Pauly and Palomares (2000; 2001), Pauly et al. (2001) showed that disaggregation of statistics, and explicit consideration of ontogenic TL changes further strengthens the fishing down effect. Thus, these effects were not generating the effect, but rather masking it. With the fishing down effect now being well established, Pauly and Watson (2004) went on to refining the approach used to document it, that the mean TL used to document fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems should be computed after excluding low-TL species from the analysis whose 'bottom-up' driven fluctuations tend to mask the (top-down) effect of fishing (for more details see section 4.2.3). 69 Further, to evaluate the success of 'fishing down' as a deliberate choice, Fishing in Balance (FiB) index was proposed by Pauly et al. (2000). This index is based on the notion that biological production increases by about one order of magnitude as one moves down one trophic level in a typical marine ecosystem (Pauly and Christensen, 1995). Thus, the FiB index is conceived such that it remains constant when a change in TL is matched by a corresponding change in catch. 4.2 Materials and methods: 4.2.1 Catch statistics The landings data used for the east and the west coast of India cover the period 1950 to 2000. The catch data for India's EEZ were reconstructed and estimated based on the reports and other miscellaneous sources by Indian authorities and research institutes. This data set comprises 65 statistical categories that range from species (15) to genera (7) and higher groups (43). Key features of this dataset and methods used in its compilation are provided in Chapters 2 and 3. 4.2.2 Trophic levels The trophic levels (TL) estimates used are based on their diet composition data and on the equation 4.2. TL, = 1 + Z (DC/,, TLj) . . .(Equation 4.1) where TL,- is the trophic level of species i, DQ ; is the proportion of prey species j in the diet of species / and TL/ is the trophic level of prey species j (Christensen and Pauly, 1992). The primary producers (i.e., plants) and detritus, both are assigned definitional TL of 1. Thus, a consumer eating 40% plants (TL = 1) and 60% herbivores (TL = 2) will have a trophic level of l+[(0.4 • 1) + (0.6 • 2)] = 2.6 (Christensen and Pauly, 1992). The TLs used are fractional trophic levels (Odum, 1975; Christensen and Pauly, 1992) obtained mainly from FishBase (www.fishbase.org) for fishes. For invertebrates; the estimates were based largely on Sea Around Us (www.seaaroundus.org) database, and the 70 TSCCAAP Table' of FishBase 2000 (Froese and Pauly, 2000). If more than one TL estimate was available for any species (or of species group), then the median of all available was used. In total, 415 different species of fishes, molluscs and crustaceans aggregated into groups were considered in this analysis and group TLs are given in Chapter 2. Details of TL estimates (diet composition and prey items) for fish species are documented in FishBase. In absence of any other available source, the trophic level of 3.1 for the stomatopods were obtained from an Ecopath model of Middle Atlantic Bight (Okey, 2001). Similarly, the trophic level of Rastrelliger kanagurta (Indian mackerel) was re-estimated based on their diet composition given in local sources, because the given trophic levels at both the FishBase and Sea Around Us websites were erroneous (D. Pauly, Fisheries Centre, UBC, pers. comm. Oct. 2004; also see section 2.2.18). 4.2.3 Mean Trophic Index (MTI) Mean Trophic Index is the name given by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2004) for the mean trophic level of fisheries catches, which are calculated for each year by weighting trophic levels of each species weighted by their catches, as described in equation 4.3: m m MTI = TL * = S Yik TL, / S Yik ...(Equation 4.2) i=i /=i where Y,* is the catches (consisting of landings and discards) of species (groups) / in year k and TL, is its trophic level (Pauly et al., 1998a). Here, mean TLs of catches were computed in two different subsets of the data (see Chapter 5). At first, mean TL were computed using all neritic (= shelf) i.e., excluding only tuna and billfishes. These oceanic fishes were excluded in the analysis because they originate from an ecosystem (the high seas) other than rest of the catches considered here (shelf waters). Secondly, mean TLs were computed excluding not only the tuna and billfishes, but also species with TL below 3.25, the cutoff TL value proposed by Pauly and Watson (2004). The resulting mean TL values thus correspond to the 3 2 5 MTI of Pauly and Watson (2004), which emphasizes changes in the relative abundance of medium and high-TL species. The 71 cutoff of 3.25 which they proposes has the effect of removing most of the small planktivorous fish species whose fluctuations can potentially mask the fishing down effect. Regression lines were then fitted to TL and/or MTI time series starting from different starting points for different states. These points are selected to represent the start of the fishing down trend (SOFT). Different SOFT points are used for the different states because: (1) the fishing down effect will be detectable only after fishing pressure has reached some critical level, varying between states and (2) in earlier decades (dataset starts from 1950) the fisheries statistics were not very good (or insufficiently detailed). Moreover, although shown (as open dots) in the graphs of Chapter 5, the data from 1994 to 2000 were also not included in regression analysis, for three reasons; (1) they were based on sampling methods different from those used by CMFRI; (2) the data collecting system in India have deteriorated in the last decade of the 20th century (Herrere and Kapur, 2002), and (3) the data clearly deviate, on most plots from the trends suggested by the earlier years. Provisions were not made to include ontogenic TL changes in this study. As discussed in Chapter 1 (section 1.4.9.3), overfishing is reported in Indian waters, and fishing tends to reduce the mean size of the species. Thus, the explicit consideration of TL change with size would have only accentuated the fishing down effects (see Chapter 5) in India. Thus, a length based model applied to the Northeastern Atlantic (Pauly and Palomares, 2001) and Eastern Canada (Pauly et al., 2001) increased the fishing down effect, though not to a large amount. 4.2.4 Fishing in Balance (FiB) index FiB index enables us to assess whether a fishery is balanced in ecological terms or not and for each year / in a series it is defined as: FiB, = log [Y*. (1/TE) T\0] - log [Yn . (1/TE) T L „) ] ...(Equation 4.3) where Y is the catch in year k, TL the mean trophic level in the catch, TE the mean transfer efficiency between trophic levels, and 0 refers to any year used as a baseline to normalize the index (Pauly et al., 2000b). Here TE is set at 10% or 0.1, as was estimated by Pauly and Christensen, (1995) on the basis of 48 published ecosystem models. 72 The FiB index is designed such that its value does not change when a change in TL is matched by a corresponding (in signed value) change in catch. Thus, when TL decreases, catch is expected to increase, and conversely when increases. Moreover, given a TE of 0.1 and equation (4.3), a decline of one TL should correspond to a ten fold increase of catch, and conversely for a TL increase. In this analysis the baseline year differs for different states and are based on the same SOFT points used for the TL/MTI series, and which are shown in graphs of Chapter 5. Unlike, the TL/MTI graphs, the FiB index is shown for all shelf species only, because (1) the trends are roughly similar and, (2) the proposal of 3 2 5 MTI is relatively recent. Thus, such differences will be analysed and discussed in future. 73 Chapter 5: Results and Discussion 5.1 Resu l t s The main objective of this study is to determine if the marine fisheries as presently conducted are ecologically sustainable or not. Such analysis could be conducted either by analyzing data for India as a whole, or by looking at its each of its component states and union territories. Available data on India as whole may not reflect the true extent of fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems, because a decreasing trend in one area may be masked by an increasing trend in another. Hence, to better understand the underlying trends, finer spatial analyses are required in which all maritime states and union territories are examined individually. This is the reason why total marine catches were reconstructed for all maritime states and union territories within the Indian EEZ over the period of 1950 to 2000, then evaluated on the basis of two ecological indicators, the MTI and the FiB index (see Chapter 3 and 4). The following sections show the results, along with interpretative comments, starting with India and progressing geographically from the northwest to the northeast states and union territories. Note that all mean TL and MTI trends1 presented below omit tuna and billfishes and are thus limited to shelf (= neritic) species. 5.1.1 I n d i a Reconstructed Indian marine catches (Figure 5.1) indicate a gradual increase between 1950 and 2000 from 0.6 to 3.3 million t. Indian mackerel, Oil sardine, Bombay duck, sciaenids and penaeid and non-penaeid prawns jointly contribute about half of the overall catch. Out of these, Indian mackerel and Oil sardine show huge fluctuations over the five decades considered here. There are biological limits beyond which fisheries cease to be sustainable. When a multi-species stock is overexploited, the top predators will be the first to decline (Pauly, 2000). This is evident in Figure 5.2, which illustrates a decline in the mean marine trophic level of species with TL >3.25 (3 2 5MTI) from 1964 onwards (i.e., from the start of the fishing 1 In the f i g u r e s s h o w i n g t r e n d o f M T I , c o e f f i c i e n t o f c o r r e l a t i o n (r) w i t h s i n g l e * s h o w s 5 % l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e a n d * * s h o w s 1% l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . 74 down trend, or SOFT point in Figure 5.2). However, the mean trophic levels of catches show no clear trend when shelf species with TL <3.25 are included. This indicates that the fishing down effect is masked by the fluctuating catches of low-TL species i.e., Oil sardine and Indian mackerel, as mentioned above. Hence, the use of the 3 2 5 MTI (see Chapter 4; section 4.2.3). Figure 5.3 illustrates a time series of the FiB index in the Indian EEZ. From 1964 onwards, the index shows an upward trend suggestive of geographic expansion, from shallow to deep waters, also corresponding to the trend of introduction of new technologies in the Indian fisheries from the early 1960s on (also see Chapter 1; section 1.4.8), which allowed expanding fishing activities beyond coastal waters. As might be seen in the example below, FiB plots and plots of TL vs. log catch essentially convey the same information; this is the reason why both plots are presented only for Gujarat. 5.1.2 Gujarat The marine catches from Gujarat state constitute 16% of India's total catch. The reconstructed catches (Figure 5.4) fluctuate sharply, though generally increasing over the 5 decades considered here. From 1961 onwards (i.e., from the start of the fishing down trend, or SOFT point in Figure 5.5), there was marked decline in 3 2 5 MTI from mean TL = 4.2 to TL = 4.0, i.e., about 0.008 year"1. Unlike for India as a whole, the downward trend is visible even when all shelf species are included because the bulk of the landings are from group >3.25 TL (see Figure 5.4). Moreover, this trend indicates a steep rate of decline, i.e., 0.01 TL year"1, due to wider range of TLs considered. Furthermore, the time series of the FiB index (Figure 5.6) shows a more or less flat sequence of points from 1961 (SOFT) to the late 1980, corresponding to an inverse relationship between TL and log catches for the same period (Figure 5.7). However, from the 1990 onwards there is an increase in the FiB index, demonstrating a strong expansion of the fisheries range. 75 4,000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.1. Trends of catch (million tonnes) in India from 1950 to 2000. 4.2 r 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.2. Trends in mean trophic level of landings in India from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.3. Trend of F i B index in India from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 76 350 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.4. Trends of catch (thousand tonnes) in Gujarat state from 1950 to 2000. 0.9 r -1.2 1 ' — ' • 1950 I 960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Y e a r FIGURE 5.6. Trend of F iB index in Gujarat from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 1950 1970 1980 Year 2000 FIGURE 5.5. Trends in mean trophic level of landings in Gujarat from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). S 3.5 i S0FT(I961) 4.5 5.0 5.5 I logCatchftlO 3) FIGURE 5.7. The plot of marine trophic levels of landings vs. catch (thousand tonnes) for Gujarat. 77 5.1.3 Daman and Diu Daman and Diu contributes only 0.5% in total marine catch of India. Overall, the catches (Figure 5.8) increased gradually until 1990, followed by a sharp increase towards 2000. The 3 2 5 MTI shows a decline from 1960 (i.e. SOFT point in Figure 5.9) at the rate of 0. 004 year"1, mainly due to the decline of Harpadon nehereus (Bombay duck). Furthermore, inclusion of small pelagic species mask this declining trend (Figure 5.9) due to their highly fluctuating catches. The time series of the FiB index (Figure 5.10) shows a decrease from 1960 (SOFT point) to 1972, followed by a gradual increase in the following decades. The initial decrease was due to limitation of fishing operations up to coastal areas (Balan et al., 1987). However, in mid 1970s, the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu focussed on expansion of fisheries to the deep sea (IDBI, 1974a, b). A fisheries federation was established at Panaji, Goa to encourage mechanisation to increase the catches (Gupta et al., 1984b). This expansion since mid 1970s is clearly visible in the FiB index (Figure 5.10), though it was not sufficient to offset the declining TL trend. 5.1.4 Goa Goa contributes 3% in total marine catches of India. Reconstructed catches (Figure 5.11) show a steady increase until 1980s, with a sharp increase thereafter. The species with TL <3.25 contributes more than 50% in total catch with major landings of Indian mackerel, oil sardine and other sardines. Trends in the mean TL of landings in Goa for five decades are illustrated in Figure 5.12. There was a marked decline in 3 2 5 MTI for last three decades from TL = 4.0 to TL = 3.8 1. e., at the rate of 0.01 year"1. Goa was thought to be good location for deep sea fishing industry (IDBI, 1974a) and, as mentioned in section 5.1.4, its fisheries experienced technological improvements in the mid-1970s (Gupta et al, 1984b). As a result, the fisheries expanded to offshore areas; this expansion is visible in the trend of FiB index (Figure 5.13), which has increased gradually from 1973 onwards. 78 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.8. Trends of catch (thousand tonnes) in Daman & Diu from 1950 to 2000. 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.10. Trend of F i B index in Daman & Diu from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 79 1970 Year Tunas & Billfishes FIGURE 5.11. Trends of catch (thousand tonnes) in Goa from 1950 to 2000. 4.3 4.1 _ 3.9 5 > a. a 1 3 J s 3.3 3.1 2.9 r = -0.801**; b =-0.00910; n = 21 All shelf species 1950 1960 1980 2000 Year FIGURE 5.12. Trends in mean trophic level of landings in Goa from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). .'000 FIGURE 5.13. Trend of F i B index in Goa from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). SO 5.1.5 Maharashtra The state of Maharashtra ranks second among India's maritime states, contributing 18% on average in total marine fishery of the country. The reconstructed catches (Figure 5.14) indicate a steady increase between 1950 and 2000 from 99 thousand t to 478 thousand t. As in other northwest states, species with TL <3.25 predominate the Maharashtra catches. The fishing down effect is visible from 1955 onwards for 3 2 5 MTI, with a rate of 0.004 year"' (Figure 5.15). No clear trend is visible when all shelf species are included. After Independence in 1947, the fisheries of Maharashtra were encouraged, but the increasing fishing effort were mainly concentrated in coastal areas, leading to catch declines as early as the mid-1950s (Figure 5.14). However, from the early 1960s, owing to increase in the mechanization in Maharashtra (Srinath et al., 1987), marine catches increased steadily as fisheries expanded to offshore and deep sea waters, as confirmed by the FiB index series (Figure 5.14). 5.1.6 Karnataka Karnataka contributes 8% of India's total catch. The reconstructed catches show huge fluctuations, mainly due to Oil sardine and Indian mackerel, which forms bulk of the catches. Overall, catches increased between 1950 and 2000 from 47 thousand t to 139 thousand t. Figure 5.18 illustrates a decline in 3 ' 2 5 MTI, which proceeds at a rate of 0.009 year"1, while no clear trend is visible when all shelf species are considered. This is due to the masking effect of highly fluctuating catches of Oil sardine and Indian mackerel. Their removal from the analysis shows a decline in mean marine TL of landings at the rate of 0.002 year"' (not shown here). The time series of the FiB index (Figure 5.19) shows a decrease from 1962 to 1966; it then increases steadily until 1988, suggestive of expansion in fisheries. This trend corresponds with the growth of fishery sectors in Karnataka. The first demonstration of mechanised fishing was held in 1957 at Mangalore (Gupta et al., 1984c), but until early 1960s no concerted efforts were made to develop the fisheries, and fishing remained confined to inshore areas, irrespective of increasing effort. Then, it was realised that the inshore waters were heavily exploited (Kurup et al., 1987). 81 600 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.14. Trends of catch (thousand tonnes) in Maharashtra from 1950 to 2000. 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.15. Trends in mean trophic level of landings in Maharashtra from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). .0.7 ' ' ' > 1 1 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.16. Trend of F i B index in Maharashtra from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 82 FIGURE 5.18. Trends in mean trophic level of landings in Karnataka from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 1980 1990 2000 FIGURE 5.19. Trend of F i B index in Karnataka from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 83 Thus, the fisheries shifted towards unexploited offshore and deep sea areas, thereby relying on large number of newly introduced mechanised vessels2: the number of mechanised boats increased between 1958 and 1978 from 9 to 1,685 (Gupta et al., 1984c) . 5.1.7 Kera la Kerala occupies the foremost position in India's total marine catches by contributing = 26% over the five decades. However, the catches show huge fluctuations corresponding to catches of Indian mackerel and Oil sardine (Figure 5.20), as in the state of Karnataka. The fishing down effect is visible in Kerala (Figure 5.21) from 1964 onwards for 3 2 5 MTI, with a decline of 0.008 year"1. However, no clear trend is apparent when all shelf species are included. This is again because of fluctuations by the small pelagics, i.e., mainly Oil sardine, other sardines and Indian mackerel (see Chapter 4; section 4.2.3). The FiB index (Figure 5.22) increases gradually from 1964 onwards, indicating a geographical expansion of fisheries to previously unexploited areas. Kerala was the first state of India where mechanization began, in the late-1950s. Individual entrepreneurs invested in fishing in the mid-1960s, mainly trawling for prawn in coastal areas (Jacob et al., 1987). This was soon followed by various technological developments, enabling offshore expansion of the trawlers' areas of operation. The number of mechanized vessels increased from 23 in 1954 (Gupta et al, 1984d) to 4,206 by 1999 (DAHD, 2001). At present, the focus is to expand the fisheries into even deeper waters. 5.1.8 Lakshadweep The Lakshadweep (= Laccadive) Islands contribute only 0.3% of India's total marine catch. The reconstructed catches indicate a gradual increase from 1950s to 1980s, followed by a sharp increase to 12 thousand t (Figure 5.23) by 2000. Tunas and billfishes are the major fisheries, contributing about 70% of catches over the five decades. 3 2 5 From 1965 onwards, a decline is evident (Figure 5.24) in both MTI and for the mean TL of all shelf species, at the rate of 0.006 year"1. 2 M o t o i i s a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g t r a d i t i o n a l c r a f t s w a s n o t s u c c e s s f u l in s tate o f K a r n a t a k a d u e to s o m e t e c h n i c a l p r o b l e m s ( G u p t a el al., 1 9 8 4 ) . 84 <3.25TL 1970 1980 Year 2000 FIGURE 5.20. Trends of catch (thousand tonnes) in Kerala from 1950 to 2000. 4.2 4.0 3.8 S 3.6 "I 3.4 fa H 3 3.2 s 3.0 2.8 2.6 1950 1970 All shelf species Year ; n o u FIGURE 5.21. Trends in mean trophic level of landings in Kerala from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 1.0 r .0.2 1 1 1 — 1 1 1 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.22. Trend of F i B index in Kerala from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 8 5 However, the time series of the FiB index (Figure 5.25) shows continuous and steady increase from 1965 on. This is suggestive of geographical expansion of fisheries from coastal to deep sea waters. However, this expansion is relatively slow: even in the 1980s, most fishing was still confined to nearshore waters with pole and line as major gear (Algaraja, 1987). It is believed that the fisheries have not expanded to their fullest, due to shortage of skilled fishers in the Lakshadweep Islands (Raghavan and Shanmughnam, 1993). 5.1.9 T a m i l N a d u Among the various maritime states of India, Tamil Nadu, with 15% ranks third in the contribution to marine catches. The reconstructed catches show a gradual increase over the five decades considered here. Species with TL <3.25 contribute about half of the overall catch. Out of these, various sardines and Leiognathus species dominate the catches. 1 From 1956 onwards, there is marked decline in 3 2 5 MTI, of about 0.006 year"' (Figure 5.27). The downward trend is also visible in all shelf species with a steeper rate of decline, i.e., 0.013 year"'. Overall, the FiB index (Figure 5.28) shows a steady increase from 1956 onwards, suggestive of geographic expansion of fisheries from shallow to deep waters. This expansion has happened with improvement in technologies through time. The state's mechanisation program started in 1954, enabling mechanised vessels to be used for the operation of gill nets. After 1964, the emphasis shifted towards trawling (Gupta et al., 1984g). The total number of mechanised vessels in the state have increased from 50 in 1960 (Gupta et al., 1984g) to 9,896 in 1999 (DAHD, 2001). 5.1.10 P o n d i c h e r r y Pondicherry contributes about 1% in India's total marine catch. The reconstructed catches increased slowly between 1950 and 1993, followed by a dramatic increase (Figure 5.29). This clearly illustrates that there is some problem with the different dataset used from 1994 on. That is why the data points from 1994 to 2000 were excluded from the analysis even in the states where they seems to fit (also see Chapter 4; section 4.2.3). The species with TL < 3.25 contributes about half of the overall catch, with major landings of various sardines and anchovies. 86 20 Year F I G U R E 5.23. Trends of catch (thousand tonnes) in Lakshadweep from 1950 to 2000. 4.2 r 3.7 I 1 1 , , , 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year F I G U R E 5.24. Trends in mean trophic level of landings in Lakshadweep from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 1.4 r 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year F I G U R E 5.25. Trend of F iB index in Lakshadweep from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 87 FIGURE 5.26. Trends of catch (thousand tonnes) in Tamil Nadu from 1950 to 2000. 88 Figure 5.30 illustrates the fishing down effect from 1955 onwards, for all shelf 3 2 5 species and using MTI. The slope of decline is steeper when all shelf species are included because a wider range of TLs is available, compared to 3 2 5 MTI. The time series of the FiB index (Figure 5.31) is rather steady until 1994, when a sharp increase is observed. The steady values of the index suggest that the motorization and mechanization of the fishery (Gupta et al., 1984f; Dharmaraja et al., 1987) led to TL declines that were largely matched by the catch increases. However, the sharp increase after 1993 seems to be the artefact of data, as the source of catches data has changed from CMFRI (1950-1993) to DAHD and MPEDA reports (1994-2000). 5.1.11 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh contributes 7% of India's total marine catch. The reconstructed catches (Figure 5.32) fluctuate sharply, though generally increasing over the 5 decades considered here. Species with TL < 3.25 TL contribute about half of the overall catch. The fishing down effect is visible in Andhra Pradesh from 1968 onwards Figure 5.33). There was a marked decline in both 3 ' 2 5 MTI and all shelf species, at rates of 0.003 year"1 and 0.004 year"1, respectively. Again, the FiB index (Figure 5.34) shows a steady increase from 1968 onwards indicative of geographical expansion of fisheries from shallow to deep waters. Historical account of fisheries development in Andhra Pradesh supports this trend. Initially, the fishing effort of non-mechanized vessels, few small trawlers and gillnetters was mainly concentrated in inshore waters where prawns were known to be abundant (Gupta et al., 1984a; Alagaraja et al., 1987). However, due to dwindling catches from inshore areas and drastic changes brought in by mechanization, the fisheries moved towards deep sea waters via its industrial vessels. At present, most of these industrial vessels operate from Vishakapatnam harbour (Sujatha, 1996). 89 50 r 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year F I G U R E 5.29. Trends of catch (thousand tonnes) in Pondicherry from 1950 to 2000. 2.9 1 ' ' 1 1 1 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year F I G U R E 5.30. Trends in mean trophic level of landings in Pondicherry from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 -M 0.3 -a 0.2 ^ 0.1 I o.o --o.i --0.2 -1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year F I G U R E 5.31. Trend of F i B index in Pondicherry from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 90 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Y e a r F I G U R E 5.31. Trends of catch (thousand tonnes) in Andhra Pradesh from 1950 to 2000. r =-0.576"; b = -0.00280; n = 26 3.2 1 1 1 ' • 1950 1 9 6 0 1970 1980 1990 2 0 0 0 Y e a r F I G U R E 5.32. Trends in mean trophic level of landings in Andhra Pradesh from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 0.4 r .0.6 1 ' ' ' 1 1 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Y e a r F I G U R E 5.33. Trend of F i B index in Andhra Pradesh from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 91 5.1.12 Orissa Orissa contributes 3% of India's total marine catch. Overall, the reconstructed catches (Figure 5.35) indicate a gradual increase until 1992, followed by a sharp increase. The species with TL <3.25, notably various sardines contribute significantly to overall catch. Figure 5.36 illustrates a small decline of 0.003 year"' in 3 2 5 MTI but no clear trend is visible when all shelf species are included. The time series of FiB index (Figure 5.37) shows an increase from 1967 onwards, which again suggests that fisheries are expanding in Orissa state. However, the development of marine fisheries sector was very slow and steady in this state (BOBP, 1984). Even until the late 1970s, 97% of total fishing fleet (including inland) consisted of non-mechanized vessels (Gupta et al, 1984e), with little or no commercial exploitation beyond 50 m depth (Scariah et al, 1987). 5.1.13 West Bengal West Bengal contributes 3% of the total marine catch of India. The reconstructed catches (Figure 5.38) show a gradual increase over the first four decades covered here, but thereafter, the catches increased sharply. The species with TL < 3.25 contribute about 40% of the total catch with major landings of prawns, sciaenids and other clupeoids. From 1967 onwards (Figure 5.39), there is a decline in 3 2 5 MTI at the rate of 0.004 year"'. A less steep downward trend (slope = -0.003) occurs with inclusion of all shelf species. In West Bengal, inland fisheries are more developed than the marine fisheries, due to consumer preference for fresh water fish, which fetch higher prices than marine fishes. In mid-1980s it was realized that a good potential exists for the expansion of the small scale marine fish industry (Philipose et al, 1987). This geographic expansion of marine fisheries is also illustrated in the time series of the FiB index (Figure 5.40). 5.1.14 Andaman and Nicobar Islands The Andaman and Nicobar Islands contributes only 1 % to the total marine catch of India. Overall, the catches indicate gradual increase over decades and thereafter, followed by a sharp increase (Figure 5.41). 92 200 r 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.35. Trends of catch (thousand tonnes) in Orissa from 1950 to 2000. r = -0.548**; b--0.00320; n = 27 4 . 2 r 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.36. Trends in mean trophic level of landings in Orissa from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 2.0 r 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.37. Trend of F i B index in Orissa from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 93 250 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 F I G U R E 5.38. Trends of catch (thousand tonnes) in West Bengal from 1950 to 2000. F I G U R E 5.39. Trends in mean trophic level of landings in West Bengal from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 94 From 1950 (Figure 5.42) onwards, a decline is visible in both MTI and the mean TL of all shelf species, at the rates of 0.001 year"' and 0.008 year"', respectively (The slope of decline is steeper when all shelf species are included because a wider range of TLs is available). The time series of the FiB index (Figure 5.43) shows steady increase from 1950 onwards. However, fishing was until recently confined to near shore waters with little or no exploitation of offshore and deep sea areas (Rajan, 2003), owing to small number of skilled fishers3 and limited investments, due to limited information on resource availability (Kumaran, 1973; Algaraja, 1987). 3 T h e r e a re n o t r a d i t i o n a l f i s h e r s i n t h e s e i s l a n d s . F i s h i n g is m a i n l y d o n e b y the f i s h e r s w h o s e t t l e d h e r e , a n d o r i g i n a t e d m a i n l y f r o m T a m i l N a d u a n d P o n d i c h e r r y ( A l a g a r a j a , 1 9 8 7 ) . 95 2.9 -2.7 -2.5 ' 1 1 1 1 ' 1950 I960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.42. Trends in mean trophic level of landings in Andaman & Nicobar Islands from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 3.0 r 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 5.43. Trend of F iB index in Andaman & Nicobar Islands from 1950 to 2000 (open squares and circles represent data points not included in the analysis). 96 Chapter 6: Summary and conclusions 6.1 Summary and conclusions The results presented in Chapter 5 indicate that Indian marine fisheries are unsustainable at the ecosystem level. In summary, the time series of Indian catches illustrates that the catches have increased gradually from 1950s, with the rate of increase accelerating since the late 1980s and early 1990s. This increase, however, is limited to only mechanized and motorized sector because they can fish farther offshore. Conversely, the catches of the non-mechanized sector, mainly from coastal areas are declining since 1970s (Srinath, 2003: Figure 6.1). This has lead to frequent conflicts among different sectors (see Chapter 1; section 1.4.9.2). One of the major reason for these conflicts is the occurrence of Malthusian overfishing (Pauly, 1994) in Indian waters. My preliminary analysis of two fishing sectors (mechanised and non-mechanised) for all of India from 1950 to 2000 shows similar results as presented by Pauly (1994) for 5 Indian states from 1969-1977. The redistribution illustrated in the Figure 6.1. with an overall ceiling on catches agrees with the Pauly's model of fishery development, which suggests that increasing competition results in transfer of catch from one sector to another. This also clearly indicates that the coastal systems cannot continue to absorb excess labour and generate ever increasing catches (Pauly, 1994). Existing intra-fleet and interfleet competition in India is one cause of fisheries overexploitation. Along with Malthusian overfishing, growth overfishing, recruitment overfishing and, economic overfishing are also reported in Indian waters (Silas et al, 1980; James, 1992; Luther and Sastry, 1993; Sathiadas et al, 1995; Menon and Pillai, 1996; Pillai and Parakal, 2000; GOI, 2002) (see Chapter 1; section 1.4.9.3). Overfishing in combination with other factors, such as water pollution, habitat degradation etc., have pushed India's coastal resources into downward spiral, with no reversal in sight (other than finding new offshore areas for exploitation, as shown for India in the following section on the FiB index). The existing situation calls for an in-depth evaluation of the current state of affairs and for taking immediate measures, such as reducing effort, 97 increasing enforcement, increasing mesh sizes used in trawl nets etc., in order to avoid further depletion of the resources. 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year FIGURE 6.1. Marine fisheries catch (million tonnes) trends for the whole of India, 1950-2000, showing total catches that have ceased to increase (squares), and the transfer of an increasingly larger fraction of the catch from the non-mechanized (open dots) to the mechanized sector (closed dots). In this study two indicators, i.e., Marine Trophic Index (MTI) and Fishing in Balance (FiB) index are used. The results indicate that the deployment of the mechanized fleet increased the catches, but had a strong negative impact on the mean trophic level of the landings, i.e., on the MTI. The fishing down marine food web phenomenon is happening all over India, i.e., in each state and union territory. This trend was generally not visible when the small pelagics, i.e., mainly Indian mackerel and Oil sardine are included, i.e., their variability masked the fishing down phenomenon when the MTI was based on the mean trophic level of all shelf species (Pauly and Watson, 2004). On the other hand, application of a cutoff trophic level of 3.25 (i.e. excluding small pelagics and most invertebrates) revealed the fishing down effect for all states and union territories, (more pronounced on the west coast, which contributes 72% of India's total landings) while revealing the unsustainable state of India's ecosystems. This analysis thus confirms the potential usefulness of the MTI, recently adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as one of the 8 indicators of biodiversity (CBD, 2004). It also confirms that the use of MTI, jointly with a cutoff point 98 that excludes small pelagic fishes (e.g., 3 2 5MTI) better reveals underlying trends than overall the mean TL. The regression analyses tend to show high coefficients of correlation (r) between MTI and time (shown in graphs of Chapter 5). It must be noted, however, that this is due in part because the points used in the analyses are not really independent, as some of the underlying catch data were interpolated. As well, the straightness of line was used to identify which points to include in the regression. Overall, however, it is evident that there was a strong decline in mean marine TL of landings occurring in India, as in rest of the world (Table 6.1), whatever statistical test may be applied. T A B L E 6.1. Comparison of rate of T L decline per decade of India's maritime states and union territories with declines in other parts of the world. Location Years covered T L decline Source Goa 1973-1993 0.024 This study West Bengal 1967-1993 0.031 This study Andhra Pradesh 1968-1993 0.036 This study Lakshadweep 1965-1993 0.055 This study Andaman & Nicobar Islands 1950-1993 0.076 This study Gujarat State 1961-1993 0.120 This study Pondicherry 1955-1993 0.123 This study Tamil Nadu 1956-1993 0.128 This study Iceland 1990-1999 0.004 Valtysson & Pauly (2000) West coast of Canada 1895-1995 0.032 Pauly et al. (2001) Gulf of Thailand 1963-1982 0.100 Christensen (1998) East coast of Canada 1950-1995 0.100 Pauly etal. (2001) Greece 1964-1997 0.100 Stergiou & Koulouris (2000) Time series of the FiB index show an overall increase in overall of India, suggesting that fisheries expanded geographically. However, a closer examination of individual states illustrates a decline in earlier years, i.e., generally before 1970s, in spite of the poor quality of the underlying data. As mentioned above, seaworthy crafts capable of going offshore were not available before 1970s and thus, in the 1950s and 1960s, fishing effort was concentrated in coastal areas, where the resources were rapidly depleted. Subsequent geographic expansion masked the decline of coastal resources. 99 Moreover, in later years, a stagnation or decline in FiB index is visible in almost all areas. This indicates a serious problem, presumably the end of the expansion phase of Indian marine fisheries. However, the last years data are not reliable and hence, this issue remains uncertain. As illustrated in Table 6.1, India, though a developing country is not behaving any differently than the rest of the world. The historical review clearly indicates that Indian marine fisheries have also suffered from sequential depletions. Indeed, a forward extrapolation of current the fishing down trend in India would imply the disappearance of large fishes from the ecosystems and an increase in low-TL organisms, perhaps even jellyfish as reported from other parts of the world (Pauly and Palomares, 2001). Thus, based on present study, there is an immediate need to curb the existing overcapacity. The remaining effort must be redistributed across trophic levels from large predators to small prey species as suggested for other parts of the world (Pauly et al, 2003). Since million of people depend upon fisheries, thus implementation of any measure demands thorough evaluation of social as well as economic factors. Ecosystem models can nowadays also be used to search for suitable policy options. For example, Christensen and Walters (2004) have shown, for the Gulf of Thailand that how ecosystem modelling can be used to explore policy scenarios, while incorporating possible tradeoffs among social, economic and ecological objectives. So far, the main focus of Indian fisheries policy is to reduce conflicts among sectors, promote development (still ongoing), and generate food and foreign exchange, rather than controlling fishing effort, which was not perceived as a threat until recently. Thus, the CMFRI and other research institutes in India have recommended the creation of an independent fisheries department at the national level (Srinath and Balan, 2003) to be responsible for all fisheries management in India. Also, a need was expressed to introduce more regulations. However, promulgation of new regulations will not by itself bring any dramatic transformation in the existing condition of resources. Thus, monitoring and implementation of existing regulations is also required, as an expression of the political will to implement change. In order to promote sustainable fisheries in India, various other factors need attention, such as community level involvement in the management processes, increasing 100 the understanding of how people operate and on the factors that induce them to operate in a particular way, with emphasis on education (Presently, the illiteracy rate is 70% among fishers (Kochary et al., 1996). As well, there is a need to increase awareness about the advantages of sustainable use, to study the placement potential and effectiveness of no take zones and many others measures, which can be addressed in future studies. In conclusion, given the long time series of mean trophic levels and FiB index and their overall trend, Indian fisheries appear to be unsustainable at the ecosystem level. This will undoubtedly have serious social and economic implications, especially in terms of food security in India, where fish is one of the cheap sources of protein and employment, with fisheries providing full time employment to 1 million (in 1998) fishers. Sustainability of fisheries is given some importance in the latest (Tenth) Five Year Plan, but the concept of sustainable fisheries is just emerging in India. I hope that my research will bring some focus towards a problem that was not apparent before and hence, lead to more thorough analysis of this issue. 101 References: Alagaraja, K., Yohannan, K. C , Ammini, P. L. and Pavithran, P. P. (1987). An appraisal of the marine fisheries of Andhra Pradesh Special Publication 33, pp. 1-52. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin. Algaraja, K. (1987). An appraisal of the marine fisheries of Lakshadweep and Andaman & Nicobar Islands Special Publication 39, pp. 1-18. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin. Algaraja, K. (1998) Methods for assessing fishery resources. In: Symposium on Advances and Priorities in Fisheries Technology, (eds K. K. Balachandran, T. Iyer, P. Madhavan, J. Joseph, P. A. Perigreen, M R Raghunath and M. D. Varghese), Society of Fisheries Technologists, Cochin, pp. 24-30. Alverson, D. L., Freeberg, M. , Pope, J. and Murawski, S. (1994) A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards: A summary overview. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No.339, pp. 1-233. Anonymous (1982) Synopsis of marine prawn fishery of India-1980. Central Marine Fisheries Institute, Technical Series 3 5 , 1-14. Anonymous (1992) Hard cash in the soup bowl. Bay of Bengal News 48, 13-14. Anonymous (2002) Fishing in Indian EEZ: Guidelines. Fishing Chimes 22 (December). Antony, K. P., Muraleedharan, V. and Mukundan, M. K. (2002) Convenience products from quality upgraded Masmin. In: Management of Scombroid Fisheries (eds N. G. K. Pillai, N. G. Menon, P. P. Pillai and U. Ganga), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 218-225. Apparao, T., Nair, K. V. S., Chakraborty, S. K. and Raje, S. G. (1992) Croakers. In: Monsoon fisheries of the west coast of India: Prospects, problems and management. Bulletin number 45 (eds P. Vedavyasa, V. S. Murty and K. Rengarajan), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 169-181. Appukuttan, K. K. and Ramadoss, K. (2000) Edible and ornamental gastropod resources. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 525-535. Arora, R. and Grover, V. (1996a). Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar and Orissa Encyclopaedia of India and her states, pp. 1-7, 207-214, 547-556, 583-597, 728-766. Deep & Deep, New Delhi. Arora, R. and Grover, V. (1996b). Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra Encyclopaedia of India and her states, 599 pp.. Deep & Deep, New Delhi. 102 Arora, R. and Grover, V. (1996c). Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu Encyclopaedia of India and her states, pp. 1-9,139-148,289-307, 461-519, 554-555. Deep & Deep, New Delhi. Arora, R. and Grover, V. (1996d) Land and the People. In: Land and people, governments, constitution and central Acts 1 (eds R. Arora and V. Grover), Deep & Deep, New Delhi, pp. 1-8. Arora, R. and Grover, V. (1996e). Union Territories, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Chandigarh, Dadar & Nagar Haveli, Delhi, Goa, Daman and Diu, Lakshadweep and Pondicherry. Encyclopaedia of India and her states, pp. 4-30, 246-255, 357-364, 371-377, 409-419. Deep & Deep, New Delhi. Atookaren, O. D. (1991) Salient features of the policy on joint ventures in deep sea fishing. Seafood Export Journal 23 (1), 22-23. Balakrishnan, G. and Algaraja, K. (1984) Regulated mechanized and traditional fishing in Tamilnadu- An approach to end clashes. Marine Fisheries Information Service T & E series 5 8 (June -August), 10-13. Balan, K., Pannikar, K. K. P., Jacob, T., Andrews, J. and Rajendran, V. (1989) Motorization of country crafts in Kerala - an impact study. In: Special publication 45 (ed E. G. Silas), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 1-74. Balan, K., Sivaraman, P., George, K. P. and Ramachandran, M. (1987). An appraisal of the marine fisheries of Gujarat Special Publication 38, pp. 1-51. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin. Bapat, S. V. and Kurian, A. (1981) Present status and role of small scale fisheries of India. In: Bulletin number 30-A, CMFRI, Cochin, pp. 13-21. Beddington, J. R. and May, R. M. (1982) The harvesting of interacting species in the natural ecosystem. Scientific American 247 (4), 2-9. Bensam, P. (1999a). Development of marine fisheries science in India., pp. 1-379. Daya Publishing House, Delhi. Bensam, P. (1999b) Functioning of laws and regulations. In: Development of marine fisheries science in India, Daya Publishing House, New Delhi, pp. 345-346. Bensam, P. (1999c) History of marine fisheries development. In: Development of marine fisheries science in India, Daya Publishing House, New Delhi, pp. 252-260. 103 Bensam, P. (1999d) History of marine fisheries research and education. In: Development of marine fisheries science in India, Daya Publishing House, New Delhi, pp. 261-265. Bensam, P. (1999a) History of marine fisheries development. In: Development of marine fisheries science in India, Daya Publishing House, New Delhi, pp. 252-260. Bensam, P. (1999b) History of marine fisheries research and education. In: Development of marine fisheries science in India, Daya Publishing House, New Delhi, pp. 261-265. Bensam, P. (1999c) Functioning of laws and regulations. In: Development of marine fisheries science in India, Daya Publishing House, New Delhi, pp. 345-346. Bensam, P. (2000) An introduction to demersal fin fish resources. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 495-498. Bensam, P., Devadoss, P., Mathew, G., Hamsa, K. M. S. A., Gandhi, V., Lazarus, S., Zacharia, P. U., Khan, M. F. and Jayasankar, P. (2000) Flatfishes, goatfishes and whitefishes. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 617-635. Bensam, P., Menon, N. G., Balachandran, K. and Andrews, J. (1994) Need for protecting the non edible benthic biota of the inshore waters for the benefit of the coastal resources and the fishing industry. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 128, 1-5. Bhandarkar, B. (1999) Deep sea fishing policy of India needs fishermen orientation. Indian society of fisheries professionals 1 (2), 14. Bhathal, B. (2003) Gateway to Indian fishes. FishBytes Newsletter 9 (5), 4-5. BOBP (1982) Marine small scale fisheries of India: A general description. Development of small scale fisheries in the Bay of Bengal: INF 3, pp. 1-65. BOBP (1983) Marine small scale fisheries of Tamilnadu: A general description. Development of small scale fisheries in the Bay of Bengal: INF 5, pp. 1-50. BOBP (1983b) Marine small scale fisheries of Andhra Pradesh: A general description. Development of small scale fisheries in the Bay of Bengal: INF 4, pp. 1-50. BOBP (1984) Marine small scale fisheries of Orissa: A general description. Development of small scale fisheries in the Bay of Bengal: INF 7, pp. 1-49. 104 BOBP (1990) Marine small scale fisheries of West Bengal: An introduction. Development of small scale fisheries in the Bay of Bengal: INF 11, pp. 1-34. Burger, J. C , Field, C , Norgaard, R. B., Ostrom, E. and Policansky, D. (2001) common pool resources and commons institutions. In: An overview of the applicability of the concept and approach to current environmental problems, (eds J. C. Burger, R. B. Norgaard, E. Ostrom, D. Policansky and B. D. Goldstein), Island Press, Washington D C, pp. 1-15. Byers, T. J. (1998) Introduction: Development planning and the intervention of state versus liberalisation and the neo-liberal state: India. In: The state, development planning and liberalisation in India, (ed T. J. Byers), Oxford University Press, Delhi, pp. 1-35. Caddy, J. and Gulland, J. A. (1983) Historical patterns of fish stocks. Marine Policy 1, 267-278. Caddy, J. F., Csirke, J., Garcia, S. M. and Grainger, R. J. R. (1998) How pervasive is "fishing down marine food webs? Science 282, 1383a. Caddy, J. F. and Garibaldi, L. (2000) Apparent changes in the trophic composition of world marine harvests: the perspective from the FAO capture database. Ocean & Coastal Management 43 (8-9), 615-655. CBD (2004) Decision VII/30: Strategic plan: Future evaluation of progress. In: The 2010 biodiversity target: A framework for implementation. Decisions from the seventh meeting of the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 9-20 and 27 February 2004, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, pp. 345-355. CephBase (2004) CephBase. World Wide Web electronic publication www.cephbase.com. Chandy, M. (1970b) Fisheries of India. In: Fishes, National Book Trust, New Delhi, pp. 109-128. Chandy, M. (1970c) Fishing craft and gear. In: Fishes, National Book Trust, New Delhi, pp. 129-144. Chaudhary, R. R. (2000) Ocean/Marine management in India, Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis. 2004. Chauhan, P., Nagur, C. R. C , Mohan, M., Nayak, S. R. and Navalgund, R. R. (2001) Surface chlorophyll-a distribution in Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal using IRS-P4 Ocean Colour Monitor satellite data. Current Science 80 (2), 127-129. 105 Chellam, A., Victor, A. C. C , Dharmaraj, S. and Velayudhan, T. S. (2000) The pearl oysters. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 536-545. Chennubhotla, V. S. K., Rao, C. V. S., Chittibabu, K. and Rao, T. N. (1999) Crafts and gear used for marine fishing along the Andhra Pradesh coast. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 159, 1-8. Chidambram, K. (1982) Fishery management and legislation. In: Research in Animal production (eds P. L. Jaiswal and R. R. Lokeshwar), ICAR, New Delhi, pp. 674-687. Choudhury, R. C. (1987) Management of potential fishery resources. In: Seminar on potential marine fishery resources. Special Publication 30 (ed M. S. Rajagopalan), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 104-108. Christensen, V. (1998) Fishery-induced changes in a marine ecosystem: insight from models of the Gulf of Thailand. Journal of Fish Biology 53 (Supplement A), 128-142. Christensen, V. (2000) Indicators for marine ecosystems affected by fisheries. Marine Freshwater Research 51, 447-450. Christensen, V. and Pauly, D. (1992) Ecopath II - a Software for Balancing Steady-State Ecosystem Models and Calculating Network Characteristics. Ecological Modelling 61 (3-4), 169-185. Clark, C. W. (1990). Mathematical bioeconomics: The optimal management of renewable resources, 386 pp. Wiley Intersciences, New York. Clucas, I. (1997) A study of the options for utilization of bycatch and discards from marine capture fisheries. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 928 FIIU/C928, pp. 59. CMFRI (1969a). Marine fish production in India: 1950-1968 Bulletin number 13, pp. 1-144. CMFRI, Manapam. CMFRI (1969b) Quarter-wise species composition in landings of marine fishes in each state during 1960-1968. In: Marine fish production in India: 1950-1968 Bulletin number 13 (ed S. Jones), CMFRI, Manapam, pp. 11-32. CMFRI (1979) Trends in total marine fish production in India- 1978. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 9, 7-22. CMFRI (1980a) All India Marine Fisheries Craft and Gear -1980. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 30, 2-32. 106 CMFRI (1980b) Trends in total marine fish production in India-1979. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 22, 1-19. CMFRI (1982) Trends in total marine fish production in India-1981. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 41, 1-33. CMFRI (1983a) Sea turtles of India- Need for crash programme on conservation and effective management of the resource. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 50, 1-9. CMFRI (1983b) Trends in marine fish production in India-1982-1983. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 52, 1-21. CMFRI (1985) Training programme on sampling design of CMFRI for survey of exploited fishery resources. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 62, 11-12. CMFRI (1986) The present status of ribbonfish fishery in India. In: Special Publication 24, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 1-49. CMFRI (1987a). In: National symposium on research and development in marine fisheries , Mandapam Camp, 16-18 September 1987 Special Publication 40, Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 1-113. CMFRI (1987b) Department of Ocean Development. In: 40 years of research and development in marine fisheries in India. CMFRI, Souvenir issued at the national symposium on research and development in marine fisheries, Mandapam camp, pp. 25-29. CMFRI (1987c) On a Baleen whale landed at Hollengade, Karnataka coast. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 78, 17. CMFRI (1987d) On a Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus stranded at Chappa beach, Narakkal, Cochin, southwest coast of India. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 71, 17-18. CMFRI (1988) Introduction of 43 footer mechanised boats for commercial trawling along the coast of Andhra Pradesh. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 86, 27-28. CMFRI (1989) Marine fish production in India: 1985-1986. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 91, 1-37. CMFRI (1995) Marine fish landings in India during 1985-1993. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 136, 1-31. 107 Csirke, J. (1984) Fish Report. FAO Report no. 291, pp. 67-90. DAHD (1992). Handbook on fisheries statistics 1991, pp. 66. Ministry of Agriculture. DAHD (1994). Handbook on fisheries statistics 1993, pp. 66. Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. DAHD (2001). Handbook of fisheries statistics 2000, pp. 124. Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi. DAHD (2004) Fisheries. Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying http://dahd.nic.in. Government of India. Dan, S. S. (1982) Illegal fishing in Indian waters. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 36, 19. Das, S. K. (1993) Recent policy initiatives on promotion of deep sea fishing industry. In: Development of marine fisheries for higher productivity and export: proceedings of the National Workshop on "Development of Marine Fisheries for Higher Productivity and Export" (eds C. P. Verghese and P. S. Joy), Govt, of India Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical & Engineering Training, Cochin, pp. 175-180. Davidar, E. R. C. (1968) The Nilgiri wild life association and status of wild life in the Nilgiris. Bombay Natural History Society 65 (2), 431. Day, F. (1873). Report on the fresh water fish and fisheries of India and Burma, pp. 2, x, 118, cccvii. Government Press, Calcutta. Dehadrai, P. V. (1999) Deep sea fisheries resources of India and development strategy. Indian society of fisheries professionals 1 (2), 5-6. Deshmukh, V. D. (2003) Non-penaeid shrimps. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 183-187. Devadoss, P., Vivekanandan, E., Raje, S. G., Mathew, G. and Chandrasekar, S. (2000) Elasmobranch resources of India. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 563-578. Devahesen, D. W. and Chidambaram, K. (1953). The common food-fishes of the Madras State, pp. vii- x. Superintendent Government Press, Madras. 108 Devaraj, M. (1995) Deep sea fishing in Indian waters. In: Fisheries a multi billion dollar industry, Aquaculture foundation of India, Fisheries technocrafts forum, Madras, pp. 35-41. Devaraj, M., Kurup, M. N., Pillai, N. G. K., Balan, K., Vivekanadan, E. and Sathiadas, R. (1997) Small pelagic resources and their fisheries in the Asia Pacific region. In: 31 (eds M. Devaraj and P. Martosubroto), RAP publications, pp. 91-138. Devaraj, M. and Vivekanandan, E. (1999) Marine capture fisheries of India: Challenges and opportunities. Current Science 76 (3), 314-332. Dharmaraja, S. K., Vijayalakshmi, K., Najeemudeen, H., Prasad, C. J., Seynudeen, M. B., Anandan, K., Karthikeyan, M. and Balakrishnan, G. (1987). An appraisal of the marine fisheries of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Special Publication 34, pp. 1-63. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin. Dixitulu, J. V. Ft. (1999) On certain relevant parameters for framing an integrated national deep sea fishing policy. Indian society of fisheries professionals 1 (2), 7-9. Dwivedi, S. N. (1993) Long-Term Variability in the Food Chains, Biomass Yield, and Ocenaography of the Bay of Bengal Ecosystem. In: Large marine ecosystems: stress, mitigation, and sustainability (eds K. Sherman, L. M. Alexander and B. D. Gold), AAAS Press, Washington, DC, pp. 43-52. FAO (2000). The state of world fisheries and aquaculture-2000 (SOFIA), pp. 1-142. FAO, Rome. FishBase (2004) Fishbase. World Wide Web electronic publication www.fishbase.org. Froese, R. and Pauly, D. (2000). FishBase 2000: Concepts, design and data sources., pp. 344. ICLARM, Phillipines. Furness, R. W. (2002) Management implications of interactions between fisheries and sandeel-dependent seabirds and seals in the North Sea. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59 (2), 261-269. Ganga, U. and Pillai, N. G. K. (2002) Field identification of scombroids from Indian seas. In: Management of Scombroid Fisheries (eds N. G. K. Pillai, N. G. Menon, P. P. Pillai and U. Ganga), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 1 -13. George, M. J., Suseelan, C. and Balan, K. (1981) Bycatch of the shrimp fishery in India. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 28, 3-13. GOG (2000) Gujarat Government Annual Report of Fisheries. 31-32. 109 GOG (2004) Marine species, Government of Gujarat (Ports and Fisheries Department). GOI (1945). The Famine inquiry commission Final report, pp. 1-43. Manager of publications, Delhi. GOI (1945b). Report of the Fish Committee of policy committee, Number 5 on agriculture, forestry andfisheries., pp. 1-43. Government of India press. GOI (1951) First Five Year Plan. World Wide Web electronic publication www.planningcommission.nic.in. GOI (1956) Second Five Year Plan. World Wide Web electronic publication www.planningcommission.nic.in. GOI (1961) Third Five Year Plan. World Wide Web electronic publication www.planningcommission.nic.in. GOI (1969) Fourth Five Year Plan. World Wide Web electronic publication www.planningcommission.nic.in. GOI (1974) Fifth Five Year Plan. World Wide Web electronic publication www.planningcommission.nic.in. GOI (1980) Sixth Five Year Plan. World Wide Web electronic publication www.planningcommission.nic.in. GOI (1985) Seventh Five Year Plan. World Wide Web electronic publication www.planningcotnmission.nic.in. GOI (1997) Ninth Five Year Plan. World Wide Web electronic publication www.planningcommission.nic.in. GOI (2002) Tenth Five Year Plan. World Wide Web electronic publication www.planningcommission.nic.in. GOI (2004a) Goa. Goa, National Informatics Centre, Chief Secretariat, Goa: World Wide Web electronic publication http://www.goa.nic.in/. GOI (2004b) Parliament of India, http://parliamentofindia.nic.in, Government of India. GOI (2004c) Pondicherry: The French Heritage. Pondicherry, National Informatics Centre, Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry: World Wide Web electronic publication http://pondicherry.nic.in/. 110 Gopakumar, G. and Pillai, N. G. K. (2000) Whitebaits. In: Marine fisheries research and management, (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 296-309. Gordon, A. (1991) The bycatch from Indian shrimp trawlers in the Bay of Bengal: The potential for its improved utilization. BOBP/WP/68, pp. 1-25. Grainger, R. J. R. and Garcia, S. M. (1996) Chronicles of marine fishery landings (1950-1994): trend analysis and fisheries potential. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 359, 51pp. Gupta, V. K., George, P. S., Gupta, G. S., Khurana, R., Raghavachari, M., Rao, S. S. and Srivastava, U. K. (1984a) Andhra Pradesh. In: Current situation: Production and marketing, East coast- Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal 2 (1), Prabhat Press (Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad), Ahmedabad, pp. 1084-1253. Gupta, V. K., George, P. S., Gupta, G. S., Khurana, R., Raghavachari, M., Rao, S. S. and Srivastava, U. K. (1984b) Goa, Daman and Diu. In: Current situation: Production and marketing, West coast- Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka and Kerala 2 (1), Prabhat Press (Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad), Ahmedabad, pp. 397-468. Gupta, V. K., George, P. S., Gupta, G. S., Khurana, R., Raghavachari, M. , Rao, S. S. and Srivastava, U. K. (1984c) Karnataka. In: Current situation: Production and marketing, West coast- Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka and Kerala 2(1), Prabhat Press (Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad), Ahmedabad, pp. 473-635. Gupta, V. K., George, P. S., Gupta, G. S., Khurana, R., Raghavachari, M. , Rao, S. S. and Srivastava, U. K. (1984d) Kerala. In: Current situation: Production and marketing, West coast- Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka and Kerala 2 (1), Prabhat Press (Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad), Ahmedabad, pp. 639-841. Gupta, V. K., George, P. S., Gupta, G. S., Khurana, R., Raghavachari, M. , Rao, S. S. and Srivastava, U. K. (1984e) Orissa. In: Current situation: Production and marketing, East coast- Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal 2 (1), Prabhat Press (Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad), Ahmedabad, pp. 1255-1341. Gupta, V. K., George, P. S., Gupta, G. S., Khurana, R., Raghavachari, M. , Rao, S. S. and Srivastava, U. K. (1984f) Pondicherry. In: Current situation: Production and marketing, East coast- Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal 2 (1), Prabhat Press (Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad), Ahmedabad, pp. 1041-1079. I l l Gupta, V. K., George, P. S., Gupta, G. S., Khurana, R., Raghavachari, M., Rao, S. S. and Srivastava, U. K. (1984g) Tamil Nadu. In: Current situation: Production and marketing, East coast- Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal 2 (1), Prabhat Press (Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad), Ahmedabad, pp. 850-1037. Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of commons. Science 162 (3859), 1243-1248. Hart, P. J. B. and Reynolds, J. D. (2002) Banishing ignorance: underpinning fisheries with basic biology. In: Handbook of Fish Biology and Fisheries 2 (eds P. J. B. Hart and J. D. Reynolds), Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom, pp. 1-11. Herrere, Y. M. and Kapur, D. (2002) Infectious credulity: strategic behaviour in the manufacture and use of data. Paper presented at American Political Science Association Annual Meetings, Boston, MA. (http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/) Hill, A. V. (1945). Scientific research in India, pp. 1-4. Government of India Press. Hora, S. L. (1950) Knowledge of ancient Hindus concerning fish and fisheries of India. Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal 16, 43-56. ICAR (1998) Vision-2020 CMFRI perspective Plan. 1-70. IDBI (1974a) Candidate industrial projects. In: Goa, Daman and Diu: Industrial potential survey: Report of a study team (ed N. D. Joshi), Examiner Press (Industrial Development Bank of India), Bombay, pp. 51-71. IDBI (1974b) Infra-structure and incentives for industries. In: Goa, Daman and Diu: Industrial potential survey: Report of a study team (ed N. D. Joshi), Examiner Press (Industrial Development Bank of India), Bombay, pp. 4-11. Jacob, T., Rajendran, V., Pillai, P. K. M., Andrew, J. and Satyavan, U. K. (1987) An appraisal of the marine Fisheries in Kerala. 1-42. James, P. S. B. R. (1987) Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute. In: 40 years of research and development in marine fisheries in India, CMFRI, Souvenir issued at the national symposium on research and development in marine fisheries, Mandapam camp, pp. 8-24. James, P. S. B. R. (1992a) The Indian marine fisheries resources-past, present and future. Indian Journal of Fisheries 39 (1,2), 1-4. James, P. S. B. R. (1992b) A review of the existing regulations in the maritime states of India in relation to exploitation of fishery resources and their conservation and 112 management. Journal of Marine Biological Association of India 34 (1 & 2), 84-89. James, P. S. B. R. (1992b) A review of the existing regulations in the maritime states of India in relation to exploitation of fishery resources and their conservation and management. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India. 34 (1-2), 84-89. James, P. S. B. R., Murty, V. S. and Nammalwar, P. (1996) Groupers and Snappers of India: Biology and Exploitation. In: Biology, fisheries and culture of tropical groupers and snappers ICLARM Conference proceedings 48 (eds F. Arreguin-Sanchez, J. L. Munro, M. C. Balgos and D. Pauly), ICLARM, Manila, Philippines, pp. 106-128. James, P. S. B. R., Pillai, P. P., Jayaprakash, A. A., Pillai, N. G. K., Gopakumar, G., Yohannan, T. M., Muthiah, C , Kulkarni, G. M. and Kemparaju, S. (1992) Tunas and Billfishes. In: Monsoon fisheries of the west coast of India: Prospects, problems and management. Bulletin number 45 (eds P. Vedavyasa, V. S. Murty and K. Rengarajan), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 56-84. Jayaprakash, A. A. (2000) The Indian Oil sardine. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 259-281. Jayaprakash, A. A. (2003) Whitebaits. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 30-39. Jennings, S. and Kaiser, M. J. (1998) The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology 34, 201-352. Jennings, S., Kaiser, M. J. and Reynolds, J. D. (2001) Marine fisheries ecology: an introduction. In: Marine fisheries ecology (eds S. Jennings, M. J. Kaiser and J. D. Reynolds), Blackwell Science, United Kingdom, pp. 1-20. Jhingran, V. G. (1975a). Fish and fisheries of India, pp. 1-953. Hindustan Publishing Corporation, Delhi. Jhingran, V. G. (1975b) Fishes of India. In: Fish and fisheries of India, Hindustan Publishing Corporation, Delhi, pp. 1-70. Jhingran, V. G. (1975c) Marine fisheries. In: Fish and fisheries of India, Hindustan Publishing Corporation, Delhi, pp. 818-927. 113 Jhingran, V. G. (1991) Fisheries of the Indian Seas. In: Fish and fisheries of India, Hindustan Publishing Corporation, Delhi, pp. 577-656. JICA (1999) Country profile on environment: Bangladesh. Japan International Cooperation Agency 1-34. Johnson, D. S. (2002) Emptying the sea of wealth: Globalisation and the Gujarat fishery, 1950-1999. Faculty of Graduate Studies. Guelph, The university of Guelph: 1-219. Karbhari, J. P. (1982) Scientific, common and local names of commercially important marine fishes and shellfishes of Maharashtra and Gujarat coasts. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 44, 18-23. Kasim, H. M. (2000) Fishery, stock assessment and management of the barracuda resource in India. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 374-387. Kasim, H. M. (2003) Carangids. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 66-75. Khan, M. Z. (2000a) The fishery and resource characteristics of pomfrets. In: Marine fisheries research and management, (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 364-373. Khan, M. Z. (2000b) Fishery, biology and resource characteristics of golden anchovy, Coilia dussumieri (Cuv & Val). In: Marine fisheries research and management. (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 310-316. Khan, M. Z. (2003) Golden Anchovy. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 40-44. Kirkwood, G. P., Beddington, J. R. and Rossouw, J. A. (1994) Harvesting species of different life spans. In: Large-scale ecology and conservation biology (eds P. J. Edwards, R. M. May and N. R. Webb), Blackwell Scientific publications, pp. 199-227. Kochary, T., Patil, R. K. and Debnath, H. (1996) Victory for fish workers. Samudra (July), 13-14. Kocherry, T. X. (1999) Deep sea fishing policy-destruction of marine fisheries. Indian society of fisheries professionals 1 (2), 10-11. 114 Kripa, V. and Appukuttan, K. K. (2003) Marine Bivalves. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 211-220. Kumar, S. (2003) Separate Ministry for fisheries sector sought. The Hindu, Business Line, Internet edition. Kochi. Kumaran, M. (1973) The fishery potential of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on living resources of the seas around India (Proceedings of the Symposium on living resources of the seas around India, Kochi, 1968). CMFRI, Kochi, pp.387-389 Kumari, B. P. and Dharmaraja, S. K. (1981) On the pomfret fishery of India with special reference to the catch statistics of Maharashtra and Gujarat coasts. Indian Journal of Fisheries 25 (1 & 2), 214-221. Kungsuwan, A. (1999) Bycatch utilization in Asia: an overview. Report and proceedings of FAO/DFID expert consultation on bycatch., pp. 19-35. Kurian, A. (2000) The Bombay duck: stock status and response to exploitation. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 349-363. Kurian, A. (2003) Bombayduck. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 88-91. Kurian, C. V. and Sebastian, V. O. (1976a) The Class Crustacea. In: Prawns and Prawn fisheries of India, Hindustan Publishing Corporation, Delhi, pp. 14-58. Kurian, C. V. and Sebastian, V. O. (1976b) The Indian prawns of commercial importance. In: Prawns and Prawn fisheries of India, Hindustan Publishing Corporation, Delhi, pp. 75-104. Kurian, C. V. and Sebastian, V. O. (1976c) Lobster fishery. In: Prawns and Prawn fisheries of India, Hindustan Publishing Corporation, Delhi, pp. 157-164. Kuriyan, G. K. (1982) Fishing craft and gear. In: Research in Animal production (eds P. L. Jaiswal and R. R. Lokeshwar), ICAR, New Delhi, pp. 595-267. Kurup, B. M. , Premlal, P., Thomas, J. V. and Anand, V. (2003) Bottom trawl discards along Kerala coast: A case study. Journal of Marine Biological Association of India 45 (1), 99-107. 115 Kurup, K. N., Nair, G. K. K., Annam, V. P., Kant, A., Beena, M. R. and Kambadkar, L. (1987). An appraisal of the marine fisheries of Karnataka and Goa Special Publication 36, pp. 1-104. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin. Larkin, P. A. (1996) Concepts and issues in ecosystem management. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 6, 139-164. Larkin, P. A., Clark, C. W., Daan, N., Dutt, S., S, FL, Levin, S. A., Newman, G. G., Pauly, D., Radach, G. and Rosenthal, H. K. (1984) Group report: strategies for multispecies management. In: Exploitation of marine communities (ed R. M. May), Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 287-301. Lazarus, S., Scariah, K. S., Khan, M. Z. and Velayudhan, A. K. (1992) Ribbonfishes. In: Monsoon fisheries of the west coast of India: Prospects, problems and management. Bulletin number 45 (eds P. Vedavyasa, V. S. Murty and K. Rengarajan), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 121-132. LDOF (1990). Thirty years of fisheries development in Lakshadweep, pp. 78-80. Department of Fisheries, Lakshadweep. Lindeman, R. L. (1942) The Trophic-Dynamic Aspect of Ecology. Ecology 23, 399-418. Luther, G. (1973) The dorab fishery resources of India. In: Symposium on living resources of the seas around India, Dec 1968. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute., Kochi, pp. 445-454. Luther, G. and Sastry, Y. A. (1993) Occurrence of spawners, juveniles and young fish in relation to the fishery seasons of some major fishery resources of India-A preliminary study. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 122, 1-8. Manisseri, M. K. and Radhakrishnan, E. V. (2003) Marine crabs. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 188-194. Mathew, G. (2003a) Perches. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 102-109. Mathew, G., Khan, M. F. and Nandakumaran, K. (1992) Flatfishes and Flatheads. In: Monsoon fisheries of the west coast of India: Prospects, problems and management. Bulletin number 45 (eds P. Vedavyasa, V. S. Murty and K. Rengarajan), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 197-204. Mathew, G., Nammalwar, P., Chakraborty, S. K., Livingston, P., Philippose, K. K. and Hamsa, K. M. S. A. (2000) Exploited resources of major perches in India. In: 116 Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 636-655. Mathew, S. (2003b) Deep sea fishing: Towards diversified operations. The Hindu. Mathews, M. M. (2001). Participation in global conventions India: Facts and figures, pp. 370-371. Sterling publishers private limited, New Delhi. McPherson, K. (1993). The Indian Ocean : a history of people and the sea, pp. x, 318. Oxford University Press, Delhi ; New York. Meiyappan, M. M. and Mohamed, K. S. (2003) Cephalopods. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 221-227. Meiyappan, M. M., Mohamed, K. S., Vidyasagar, K., Nair, K. P., Ramachandran, N., Sarvesan, R. and Achary, G. P. K. (2002) A review on cephalopod resources, biology and stock assessment in Indian seas. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 546-562. Menon, N. G. (1996) Impact of bottom trawling on exploited resources. In: Marine biodiversity conservation and management (eds N. G. Menon and C. S. G. Pillai), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 97-102. Menon, N. G. (2003) Catfishes. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 110-119. Menon, N. G., Balachandran, K. and Scariah, K. S. (1998) The eels and eel fisheries of India. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 157, 10-14. Menon, N. G., Balachandran, K., Zacharia, P. U., Raje, S. G. and Khan, M. F. (2000) Marine catfish resources of India. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 579-603. Menon, N. G. and Pillai, N. G. K. (1996) The destruction of young fish and its impact on inshore fisheries. In: Marine biodiversity conservation and management (eds N. G. Menon and C. S. G. Pillai), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 89-96. Misund, O. A., Kolding, J. and Freon, P. (2002) Fish capture devices in industrial and artisanal fisheries and their influence on management. In: Handbook on fish 117 biology and fisheries 2 (eds P. J. B. Hart and J. D. Reynolds), Blackwell publishing, United Kingdom, pp. 13-31. Mitchiner, M. (1979). Non-Islamic States and Western Colonies, pp. 713-725. Hawkins Publications, London. MOEF (2002) Marine and coastal environment. In: Agenda 21-an assessment, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, New Delhi, pp. 1-24. Mohanraj, G., Batcha, H. and Gomathy (2003) Sciaenids. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 133-140. Mohapatra, P. (1986) Traditional marine fishing craft and gear of Orissa. 24, pp. 1-58. MPEDA (1987) Marine Products Export Development Authority. In: 40 years of research and development in marine fisheries in India. CMFRI, Souvenir issued at the national symposium on research and development in marine fisheries, Mandapam camp, pp. 41-49. MPEDA (2001). Statistics of Marine products Exports, 2000, pp. 344-369. MPEDA, Cochin. Mukundan, M. and Radhalakshmy, K. (1998) Trawl gear research in India. In: Advances and priorities in fisheries technology (eds K. K. Balachandran, T. S. G. Iyer, P. Madhavan, J. Joseph, P. A. Perigreen, M. R. Raghunath and M. D. Verghese), Society of Fishery Technologists, Cochin, pp. 125-130. Murawski, S. A. (2000) Definitions of overfishing from an ecosystem perspective. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57, 649-658. Murty, V. S., Joshi, K. K. and Nair, R. J. (2003a) Silverbellies. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 127-132. Murty, V. S., Joshi, K. K. and Nair, R. J. (2003b) Threadfin Breams. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 120-126. Murty, V. S., Nair, K. V. S., Thomas, P. A., Lazarus, S., Chakraborty, S. K., Raje, S. G., Gopal, C , Zacharia, P. U. and Velayudhan, A. K. (1992) Threadfin breams. In: Monsoon fisheries of the west coast of India: Prospects, problems and management. Bulletin number 45 (eds P. Vedavyasa, V. S. Murty and K. Rengarajan), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 154-168. 118 Muthiah, C , Pillai, N. G. K., Kasim, H. M. and Bhat, U. S. (2003) Seerfishes. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 45-50. Nair, K. V. S., Deshmukh, V. D. and Raje, S. G. (1992) Lizardfishes. In: Monsoon fisheries of the west coast of India: Prospects, problems and management. Bulletin number 45 (eds P. Vedavyasa, V. S. Murty and K. Rengarajan), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 182-196. Nair, K. V. S. and Jayaprakash, A. A. (1983) Clash between purse seine and artisanal fishermen at Cochin. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 49 (April - May), 14-16. Nair, M. K. R. (1998) Indian Marine Fishing Sector- An Overview. In: Kadalekum Kanivukal (Bounties of the Sea) (eds K. Ravindran, K. Srinath, K. K. Kunjipalu and V. Sasikumar), Central Institute of Fisheries Technology, Cochin, pp. 1-6. Nair, M. R. (1987) Central Institute of Fisheries Technology. In: 40 years of research and development in marine fisheries in India. CMFRI, Souvenir issued at the national symposium on research and devlopment in marine fisheries, Mandapam camp, pp. 1-7. Nair, P. N. R. (2000) Carangid resources of India. In: Marine fisheries research and management, (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 317-348. Nair, P. N. R. and Prakasan, D. (2003) Ribbonfishes. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 76-87. Nair, R. V. and Banerji, S. K. (1965) A survey of the statistics of marine fish catch in India from 1950 to 1962. Indian Journal of Fisheries 12 (1), 135-236. Nandakumar, G. and Maheswarudu, G. (2003) Penaeid shrimps. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 176-182. Nawaz, M. K. (1981) The legal regime of fisheries : A case study of India. Derecho pesq, 43-56. NIO (2004) Gateway to Indian Ocean. National Institute of Oceanography http://www.indian-ocean.org/, Government of India. Noble, A., Dhulkhed, M . H., Pillai, N. G. K., Gopakumar, G., Yohannan, T. M. and Kulkami, G. M. (1992) Indian mackerel. In: Monsoon fisheries of the west coast of India: Prospects, problems and management. Bulletin number 45 (eds P. 119 Vedavyasa, V. S. Murty and K. Rengarajan), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 85-91. Odum, W. E. (1975) The detritus-based food web of an estuarine mangrove community,. In: Estuarine research, Vol. 1. Academic Press, New York, (ed L. E. Cronin), pp. 265-286. Okey, T. A. (2001) A 'Straw-Man' ecopath model of the Middle Atlantic Bight continental shelf, United States. In: Fisheries impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Models and Analyses. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Volume 9, Number 4 9 (eds S. Guenette, V. Christensen and D. Pauly), The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia., Vancouver, pp. 151-166. Panikkar, N. K. (1957) Fish and fisheries. In: Progress of science in India, 1938-1950, Zoology, pp. 1-57. Pannikar, N. K. and Jayaram, R. (1966) Biological and oceanographic differences between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal as observed from the Indian region. Proceedings Indian Academy of Sciences 64 (5), 231 -240. Parsons, T. R. (1996) The impact of industrial fisheries on the trophic structure of marine ecosystems. In: Food webs : integration of patterns & dynamics (eds G. A. Polis and K. O. Winemiller), Chapman and Hall, New York, pp. 352-357. Pauly, D. (1994a) Artisanal fishing and environmental conservation. In: On the sex of fish and the gender of scientists : collected essays in fisheries science (ed T. Pitcher), Chapman & Hall, London ; New York, pp. 123-127. Pauly, D. (1994b) Concepts that work some advances in tropical fisheries research. In: On the sex of fish and the gender of scientists : collected essays in fisheries science (ed T. Pitcher), Chapman & Hall, London ; New York, pp. 8-14. Pauly, D. (1994c) On Malthusian overfishing. In: On the sex of fish and the gender of scientists : collected essays in fisheries science (ed T. Pitcher), Chapman & Hall, London ; New York, pp. 112-117. Pauly, D. (1994d) Theory and practice of overfishing. In: On the sex of fish and the gender of scientists : collected essays in fisheries science (ed T. Pitcher), Chapman & Hall, London ; New York, pp. 90-103. Pauly, D. (1995) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10, 430. Pauly, D. (1998) Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. EC Fisheries Cooperation Bulletin 11 (2), 4-7. 120 Pauly, D. (2000) Global changes, fisheries, and the integrity of marine ecosystems: The future has already begun. In: Ecological integrity: Integrating environment, conservation and health (eds D. Pimentel, L. Westra and R. F. Noss), Island Press, Washington D.C., pp. 227-239. Pauly, D. (2004). Darwin's Fishes: An encyclopaedia of Ichthyology, Ecology and Evolution., pp. 1-323. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom. Pauly, D. and Christensen, V. (1995) Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374, 255-257. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R. and Torres, J. F. (1998a) Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279, 860-863. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Froese, R. and Palomares, M. L. (2000a) Fishing down aquatic food webs. American Scientist 88 (1), 46-51. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guenette, S., Pitcher, T. J., Sumaila, U. R., Walters, C. J., Watson, R. and Zeller, D. (2002) Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418, 689-695. Pauly, D., Christensen, V. and Walters, C. (2000b) Ecopath, Ecosim, and Ecospace as tools for evaluating ecosystem impact of fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57, 697-706. Pauly, D. and Froese, R. (2001) Fish stocks. In: Encyclopedia of Biodiversity 2 (ed S. A. Levin), Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 801-814. Pauly, D., Froese, R. and Christensen, V. (1998b) How pervasive is "fishing down marine food webs?: response to Caddy et al. Science 282, 1383a. Pauly, D., Palomares, M. L., Froese, R., Sa-a, P., Vakily, M. , Preikshot, D. and Wallace, S. (2001) Fishing down Canadian aquatic food webs. Canadian journal of fisheries and aquatic sciences 58 (1), 51-62. Pauly, D. and Palomares, M. L. D. (2000) Approaches for dealing with three sources of bias when studying the fishing down marine food web phenomenon. In: Fishing down the Mediterranean food webs? 26-30 July 2000 CIESM workshop series 12, Kerkyra, Greece, pp. 61-66. Pauly, D. and Palomares, M . L. D. (2001) Fishing down marine food webs: an update. In: Waters in Peril (eds L. Bendell-Young and P. Gallaugher), Kluwer Academic Publishers, USA, pp. 47-56. 121 Pauly, D. and Pauly, S. W. (1981). An annotated bibliography of slipmouths (Pisces: Leiognathidae) ICLARM Bibliographies 2, pp. 62 p. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. Pauly, D. and Watson, R. (2004) Background and interpretations of the CBD's marine Trophic Index as a measure of biodiversity, in press Pauly, D. and Zeller, D. (2003) The Global fisheries crisis as a rationale for improving the FAO's database of fisheries statistics. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 11 (6), 1-9. Philipose, V., Scariah, K. S., Venkataraman, G. and Subbaraman, G. (1987). An appraisal of the marine fisheries of West Bengal Special Publication 31, pp. 1-32. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin. Pillai, N. G. K., Ganga, U. and Jayaprakash, A. A. (2003) Indian oil sardine. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 18-24. Pillai, N. G. K. and Pillai, P. P. (2000) Pelagic fisheries resources of India-an overview. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 249-258. Pillai, N. G. K. and Rohit, P. (2003) Lesser sardines. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 25-29. Pillai, P. K. M., Balakrishnan, G., Philipose, V. and Rajendran, V. (2000) An appraisal on the marine fishing craft and gear of the Indian coast. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), CMFRI, Cochin, pp. 190-221. Pillai, P. P. and Gopakumar, G. (2003) Tunas. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 51-59. Pillai, P. P. and Parakal, B. (2000) Pelagic sharks- a perspective, management and conservation. In: Pelagic sharks in the Indian seas- their exploitation, trade, management and conservation. CMFRI Special Publication number 70. (ed P. P. Pillai), CMFRI, Cochin, pp. 74-78. Prasad, B. (1944). Post war development of Indian Fisheries, pp. 14. Manager of Publications, Delhi. Prashad, B. (1936) Animal remains from Harappa. Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India: No. 51, pp. 1-13. 122 Pushkarna, V. (1998) Looking beyond Indus Valley. The Week: 1-8. Puthra, P. and Manoharadoss, R. S. (1996) Constitutents of low value trawl bycatch caught off Veraval. Fishery Technology 33 (2), 121-123. Puthra, P., Remesan, M. P. and Manoharadoss, R. S. (1998) Trends in landings by trawls of five designs off Veraval coast. Fishery Technology 35 (1), 50-54. Radhakrishnan, C. K. (2000) The eggs of marine crab an unexploited resource. Naga (ICLARM quarterly) 23 (3), 4-5. Radhakrishnan, E. V. and Manisseri, M. K. (2003) Lobsters. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 195-202. Raghavan, P. A. and Shanmughnam, P. (1993) Present status of exploitation of marine fishery resources of lakshadweep and strategic for higher productivity. In: Development of marine fisheries for higher productivity and export (eds C. P. Verghese and P. S. Joy), Govt, of India Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical & Engineering Training, Cochin, pp. 70-80. Raghavan, R. (1998) Trends of fisheries development in Tamilnadu state. Fishing chimes 18 (2), 25-29. Rajan, K. V. M. and Meenakumari, B. (1995) Studies on baits for lobsters. Fishery Technology 32 (1), 25-29. Rajan, P. T. (2003) Introduction. In: A field guide to marine food fishes of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (ed J. R. B. Alfred), ZSI, Kolkata, pp. 1-2. Raje, S. G. and Joshi, K. K. (2003) Elasmobranchs. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 92-101. Rajeswary, T. and Hameed, M. S. (1998) Prospects of utilising the stomatopod bycatch for rural development. In: Technological advancements in fisheries (eds M. S. Hameed and B. M. Kurup), Cochin University of Science and Technology, Cochin, pp. 271-278. Rajguru, S. B. (1994) Gujarat. In: Encyclopaedia of India (ed M. Husain), Rima publishing house, New Delhi, pp. 1-54, 85-106. Ramadoss, K. (2003) Gastropods. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 203-210. 123 Rao, G. S. (1988) Prawn fishing by the 'Big Trawlers' along the northeast coast. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 87, 15-29. Rao, K. S. (1967) Food and feeding habits of fishes from trawl catches in the Bay of Bengal with observations on diurnal variations in the nature of the feed. Indian Journal of Fisheries 11 (1), 277-314. Reynolds, J. D., Dulvy, N. K. and Roberts, C. M. (2002) Exploitation and other threats to fish conservation. In: Handbook of Fish Biology and Fisheries 2 (eds P. J. B. Hart and J. D. Reynolds), Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom, pp. 319-341. Rohit, P. and Bennet, P. S. (2000) Lesser sardines resources of India. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 282-295. Rohit, P., Gupta, A. C. and Bhat, U. S. (1993) Increased exploitation of juvenile fish population by bull trawlers during the early post monsoon fishing season of 1992 along the Dakshina Kannada coast, Karnataka. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 122, 9-12. Salgrama, V. (1999) Bycatch utilization on the east coast of India: experiences of the DFID post harvest fisheries project. Report and proceedings of FAO/DFID expert consultation on bycatch, pp. 147-167. Samuel, C. T. (1968a) The garfishes, halfbeaks and flying fishes. In: Marine fisheries in India, S.T. Reddiar & Sons, Cochin, pp. 113-118. Samuel, C. T. (1968b). Marine fisheries in India, pp. 242pp. S.T. Reddiar & Sons, Cochin. Samuel, C. T. (1968c) The snappers, threadfin breams and silverbellies. In: Marine fisheries in India, S.T. Reddiar & Sons, Cochin, pp. 132-135. Sandven, P. (1959). The Indo-Norwegian project in Kerala, pp. 151. Norwegian Foundation for Assistance to Underdeveloped Countries, Oslo. Sathiadas, R. and Hassan, F. (2002) Product Diversification and promotion of value added sea products. Seafood export journal 33 (8-9), 27-42. Sathiadas, R. and Kanagam, A. (2000) Distribution problems and marketing management of marine fisheries in India. In: Marine fisheries research and management, (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 858-875. 124 Sathiadas, R., Narayana, R. and Reghu, R. (1995) Marine fisheries management for sustainable development. Technology transfer series 2, pp. 1-32. Sathiadas, R., Panikkar, K. K. P. and Kanakkan, A. (1994) Traditional fishermen in low income trap- a case study in Thanjavur coast of Tamilnadu. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 135, 5-10. Sathiadhas, R. (1999) Deep sea fishing policy of India needs reorientation towards community participation. Indian society of fisheries professionals 1 (2), 13. Sathiarajan, R. (1987) Integrated fisheries project. In: 40 years of research and development in marine fisheries in India. CMFRI, Souvenir issued at the national symposium on research and development in marine fisheries, Mandapam camp, pp. 36-40. Scariah, K. S., Annam, V. P., Prasad, C. J. and Mani, P. T. (2000a) Marine fisheries in Gujarat. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 223-248. Scariah, K. S., Philipose, V., Dan, S. S., Nair, P. K. and Subbaraman, G. (1987). An appraisal of the marine fisheries of Orissa Special Publication 32, pp. 1-36. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin. Scariah, K. S., Prasad, C. J., Annam, V. P. and Khambadkar, L. L. (2000b) Marine fisheries of Orissa. In: Marine fisheries research and management (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 191-222. Sehara, D. B., Karbhari, J. P. and Sathiadas, R. (1986) A study on the socio-economic conditions of fishermen in some selected villages of Maharashtra and Gujarat coasts. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 69, 1-17. Shanbhogue, S. L. (1973) Stomatopods as a potential resource. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on living resources of the seas around India (Proceedings of the Symposium on living resources of the seas around India, Kochi, 1968). CMFRI, Kochi, pp.592-595 Sheshappa, D. S. (1998) Emerging trends in fishing techniques. In: Symposium on Advances and Priorities in Fisheries Technology, (eds K. K. Balachandran, T. Iyer, P. Madhavan, J. Joseph, P. A. Perigreen, M R Raghunath and M. D. Varghese), Society of Fisheries Technologists (India), Cochin (India), Cochin (India), pp. 405-410. Shiva, V. (1991). Ecology and the politics of survival: conflicts over natural resources in India, pp. 365. United Nations University, New Delhi. 125 Silas, E. G. (1977). Indian fisheries: 1947-1977, pp. 81pp. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin. Silas, E. G., Pillai, P. P., Dhulked, M. FL, Muthiah, C. and Rao, G. S. (1980) Purse seine fishery-imperative need for regulation. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 24, 1-9. Sivakami, S., Vivekanandan, E., Raje, S. G., Shobha, J. K. and Rajkumar, U. (2003) Lizardfishes, Pomfrets and Bullseye. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 141-157. Sivaprakasam, T. E. (1992) Deepsea lobsters and shrimp potential in the Indian EEZ. In: Development of marine fisheries for higher productivity and export: Proceedings (eds C. P. Verghese and P. S. Joy), Government of India, Cochin, pp. 120-127. Sivasubramaniam, K. (1990) Biological aspects of shrimp trawl bycatch. BOBP News 40, 7-10. Smith, T. D. (2002) A history of fisheries and their science and management. In: Handbook of Fish Biology and Fisheries 2 (eds P. J. B. Hart and J. D. Reynolds), Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom, pp. 62-83. Somvanshi, V. S. (2001a) Issues concerning marine fisheries and fisheries management in India. Fish code MCSXLegal: Report of the National workshop on fisheries management (Goa, India, 12-17 Feb., 2001), pp. 21-32. Somvanshi, V. S. (2001b) Problems and prospects of deepsea and far sea fishing. In: Sustainable Indian fisheries (ed T. J. Pandian), National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi, pp. 71-87. Sparre, P., Ursin, E. and Venema, S. C. (1989) Introduction to tropical fish stock assessment. Part 1 - Manual. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 306/1, 337 pp. Sreekrishna, Y. (1987) Central Institute of Fisheries Education. In: 40 years of research and development in marine fisheries in India. CMFRI, Souvenir issued at the national symposium on research and devlopment in marine fisheries, Mandapam camp, pp. 61-66. Srinath, K. (1988) Psycho-social aspects of fishermen with respect to motorization. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 89, 13-15. Srinath, M. (2003) An appraisal of the exploited marine fishery resources of India. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 1-17. 126 Srinath, M., Jacob, V., Kanakkan, A., Mani, P. T. and Karbhari, J. B. (1987). An appraisal of the marine fisheries of Maharashtra Special Publication 37, pp. 1-46. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin. Srivastava, C. B. L. (1999) Indian fisheries. In: A textbook of fishery science and Indian fisheries, (ed C. B. L. Srivastava), Kitab Mahal, Allahabad, pp. 11-47. Srivastava, U. K., Dholakia, B. H., Vathsala, S. and Chidambaram, K. (1991) Fisheries Sector: Review and analysis. In: Fisheries sector of India (eds U. K. Srivastava, B. H. Dholakia, S. Vathsala and K. Chidambaram), pp. 24-59. Stergiou, K. I. and Koulouris, M. (2000) Fishing down marine food webs in Hellenic seas. In: Fishing down the Mediterranean food webs 26-30 July 2000 CIESM workshop series 12, Kerkyra, Greece, pp. 73-79. Subramani, S. (1998) On the comparative catch trend by traditional and motorized craft at Arangamkuppam near Madras. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 154, 9-11. Sudarsan, D. (1987) Fishery Survey of India. In: 40 years of research and development in marine fisheries in India. CMFRI, Souvenir issued at the national symposium on research and devlopment in marine fisheries, Mandapam camp, pp. 30-35. Sudarsan, D. (1992a) Deep sea fisheries. In: Development of marine fisheries for higher productivity nd export: Proceedings (eds C. P. Verghese and P. S. Joy), Government of India, Cochin, pp. 83-101. Sudarsan, D. (1992b) Deepsea and oceanic fishery resources potential in the Indian EEZ. In: Development of marine fisheries for higher productivity nd export: Proceedings (eds C. P. Verghese and P. S. Joy), Government of India, Cochin, pp. 102-107. Sudarsan, D. (1992c) Deepsea and oceanic fishery resources potential in the Indian EEZ. In: Development of marine fisheries for higher productivity and export: Proceedings (eds C. P. Verghese and P. S. Joy), Government of India, Cochin, pp. 102-107. Sujatha, K. (1996) Trash fish catch of the trawl fishery off Visakhapatnam. Journal of Aquatic Biology 11 (1-2), 17-23. Suseelan, C , Nandakumar, G., Sukumaran, K. K., Deshmukh, V. D., Rajan, K. N., Aravindakshan, M. and Sarada, P. T. (1992) Prawns. In: Monsoon fisheries of the west coast of India: Prospects, problems and management. Bulletin number 45 (eds P. Vedavyasa, V. S. Murty and K. Rengarajan), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 205-225. 127 Swaminath, M. (1987) Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical and Engineering Training. In: 40 years of research and development in marine fisheries in India.CMFRI, Souvenir issued at the national symposium on research and development in marine fisheries, Mandapam camp, pp. 67-73. Thirumilu, P., Pillai, P. K. M. , Poovannan, P. and Bose, M. (1994) Specifications of different artisanal and mechanise fishing craft employed in marine fisheries along Tamil Nadu coast. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 128, 8-12. Thomas, S. N. (2000) Shrimp trawling with motorized traditional crafts. Infofish International 1, 60-61. Valtysson, Hrei5ar Por. and Pauly, D. (2003) Fisheries impacts on North Atlantic food webs: long term trends and their implications. In: Competitiveness within the global fisheries: Proceedings of a conference held in Akureyri, Iceland, on April 6-7th 2000 (eds Eyjolfur GuSmundsson and HreiSar Por Valtysson), University of Akureyri, Akureyri, pp. 12-24. Varghese, G. (1991) Status and programmes of marine fisheries development and management in Lakshadweep. In: National symposium on research and development in marine fisheries; Mandapam camp (16-18 September, 1987) Bulletin number 44; Part 3 (eds K. Alagarswami, K. Alagaraja, M. S. Muthu, K. J. Mathew and N. G. menon), CMFRI, Kochi, pp. 561-576. Verghese, C. P. (1996) Economics of industrial fishing vessels operated in upper east coast of India. In: Fisheries a multi billion dollar industry. Aquaculture foundation of India and fisheries technocrafts forum, Madras, pp. 185-200. Vijayakumaran, K. and Haridas, C. (1998) Coastal fisheries management-problems and prospects. In: (Symposium on Advances and Priorities in Fisheries Technology.). K. K. Balachandran, T. Iyer, P. Madhavan, J. Joseph, P. A. Perigreen, M R Raghunath and M. D. Varghese. Society of Fisheries Technologists (India), Cochin (India), Cochin (India), pp.473-477 Vijyakumaran, K. (1999) Need for having a comprehensive deep sea fishing policy in India. Indian society of fisheries professionals 1 (2), 12. Vivekananadan, E., Srinath, M., Pillai, V. N., Immanuel, S. and Kurup, K. N. (2003) Marine fisheries along the southwest coast of India. In: Assessment, Management and future directions for coastal fisheries in Asian countries, (eds G. Silvestre, L. Garces, I. Stobutzki, M. Ahmed, R. A. V. Santos, C. Luna, L. L. Alino, P. Munro, V. Christensen and D. Pauly), World Fish Center, Malaysia, pp. 757-792. 128 Vivekanandan, E. (2003) Marine fisheries and fish biodiversity in India, Madras Research Centre of CMFRI. 2003. Vivekanandan, E., Rajkumar, U., Nair, R. J. and Gandhi, V. (2003a) Goatfishes. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 158-163. Vivekanandan, E., Zacharia, P. U., Khan, M. F. and Nair, R. J. (2003b) Flatfishes. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 164-170. Vivekanandan, E., Zacharia, P. U. and Mahadevaswamy, Ft. S. (2003c) Whitefish. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 171-175. Watson, R., Alder, J., Kitchingman, A. and Pauly, D. (2004) Catching some needed attention. Marine Policy in press. Watson, R. and Pauly, D. (2001) Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch trends. Nature 414, 534-536. Yadav, Y. S. (2001) The code of conduct for responsible fisheries-its application to the management and development of marine fisheries in India. Fish code MCSMegal: Report of the National workshop on fisheries management (Goa, India, 12-17 Feb., 2001), pp. 33-41. Yellen, J. E., Brooks, A. S., Cornelissen, E., Mehlman, M. J. and Stewart, K. (1995) A middle stone-age worked bone industry from Katanda, Upper Semliki Valley, Zaire. Science 268, 553-556. Yohannan, T. M. and Nair, P. N. R. (2002) The resources of the Indian mackerel-characteristics, exploitation and future prospects. In: Management of Scombroid Fisheries (eds N. G. K. Pillai, N. G. Menon, P. P. Pillai and U. Ganga), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 24-32. Yohannan, T. M. and Saidkoya, K. P. (2000) The Indian mackerel. In: Marine fisheries research and management, (eds V. N. Pillai and N. G. Menon), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, pp. 388-404. Yohannan, T. M. and Sivadas, M. (2003) The Indian Mackerel. In: Status of exploited marine fishery resources of India (eds M. M. Joseph and A. A. Jayaprakash), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi, pp. 60-65. Zacharia, P. U., Gupta, A. C. and Mahadevaswamy, H. S. (1995) Exploitation of juveniles of the spinycheek grouper, Epinephelus diacanthus by the multi day 129 trawlers along Dakshina Kannada coast. Marine Fisheries Information Services, Technical and Extension Series 139, 9-12. 130 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0074888/manifest

Comment

Related Items