Demise of the small fry: Exclusion of small-scale fishers in Sri Lanka’s blue growth

There is a huge void in respect of the wellbeing of fishing populations because very little is known about them. The gap between the decision makers and communities remains quite wide, and communities are not invited to the decision-making table – Pic by Shehan Gunasekara 

Despite all efforts made by the Government in the development of the Small-Scale Fisheries (SSF) sub-sector since its strong intervention after independence, one cannot be very happy about the status of Sri Lanka’s SSF as at present. Fishers complain of low catches and incomes and, in a context of inadequate opportunities for alternative employment, many have fallen into the dumps of poverty. Recent interest in blue growth has opened up new avenues of exploiting the oceans for economic growth. However, evidence points to issues related to ecological externalities and marginalisation of small-scale fishing communities. Unfortunately, even the State does not understand the importance of the SSF sub-sector for food security, nutrition and employment of the low income populations of this country and very little attention has been paid in rescuing the small fry from murky waters

By Oscar Amarasinghe and Kaumi Piyasiri

The SSF sub-sector

In SL, as well as globally, small-scale fisheries are threatened more by anthropogenic pressures coming from both inside and outside the communities, and less by natural factors. High rates of resource exploitation, unregulated technological change, increasing fishing pressure, etc. are causing threats to aquatic ecosystems, leading to resource degradation. 

Research results also indicate that harvesting of coastal fish resources in certain coastal waters remains beyond the maximum catch that one could obtain from the fishery in a sustainable manner (MSY) and that the catch per boat (CPUE) is falling. From the point of view of fishers, they complain of too many crafts and fishers and falling catch per boat and incomes.  The question is whether such situations have raised an alarm among the fisheries authorities/decision makers to do something to save the small fry. In respect of the wellbeing of fishing populations, there is a huge void because very little is known about them. The gap between the decision makers and communities remains quite wide, and communities are not invited to the decision-making table. 

Unfortunately, governors see fishing as an activity of ‘catching fish to earn an income’, and their knowledge of fishing communities, the issues confronted by them in their day-to-day life, social development needs, social security protection, levels of poverty and threats posed to them by other coastal resource users, etc. remains very poor. No efforts have been made to invest in studies concerning fishing communities, after the last census of fisheries carried out in 1972.

Blue growth and the SSF sector: The inclusion and exclusion phases

After fully utilising terrestrial resources, man is now turning to the sea to provide for his wellbeing improvements. Even Sri Lanka has attached significant importance to the blue economic growth strategy. However, from what is being heard today, one gets the impression that blue growth is a quite recent phenomenon. True, there is a new revival of the concept. But blue growth started in the 1950s with the onset of the blue revolution in the field of fisheries. 

In Sri Lanka at least those who adopted the new blue revolution technology (mechanised crafts, nylon nets, etc.) were the artisanal fishers, who were able to access new technology through cooperatives, offering group guarantees as collateral with very generous State assistance (up to 50% subsidies). There were no conflicts among technological categories and this ‘blue growth’ was well accepted by the SSF communities. This phase lasted up to 1990, which can be called the ‘inclusion’ phase, where blue growth encompassed the inclusion of SSF communities who benefitted significantly from this expansionist wave.

The entrance of multiday fishing at the beginning of the 1990s led to the infiltration of an outside business class into fisheries, who started exploiting the offshore area up to the edge of the EEZ and further away into high seas. The crew workers were the SSF fishers who worked as labourers, who had to work long fishing trips, confronted with limited space for accommodation, clean water, safety issues and even risk of arrests for poaching, etc.

Evidently, human rights were violated in many instances by the boat owners, but the crew hardly knew what rights they possessed. The Government has so far not ratified the ILO C188 convention that provided protection against most of these issues. This marks the emergence of negative externalities of blue growth or the exclusion phase.

Exclusion of communities from development decision making, absence of any community consultation in implementing development projects, coastal land grabbing by tourism interests, marginaliSation of small-scale fishers were recently highlighted at a meeting of the People’s Tribunal for Blue Economic Growth, held in late August 2020 in Negombo. Fishers have lost their beach seining sites, craft anchorage sites and fish drying sites, first, as a result of climate-induced sea erosion and second, as a result of land grabbing by tourism interests and mega development projects such as the Port City project. 

While the ‘grievance’ argument of the SSF fishers is being strongly voiced today, the other side of the coin is that those grieved fishers have now joined hands with the rejoiced coastal stakeholders to chase their ‘own’, in search of a better life. Some fishers, especially the young entrants, have found employment in the coastal tourism sector – less risky employment with a better pay. 

They often entertain the entry of tourism interests into the coast, unintentionally chasing away their fisher ‘fathers’. Thus, the SSF communities complain that their customary rights to the beach are violated, when those from the same communities are involved in chasing them out; they are involved in both ‘running with the hare and hunting with the hound’.

Who is responsible?

In the context of land tenure issues among multi-stakeholders in the coastal zone and land grabbing by tourism stakeholders, co-management has emerged as a panacea. Yet, there is hardly any understanding as to what it is. At present such co-management bodies are a conglomeration of State and community stakeholders siting together, with the ‘show’ being run by the more powerful State actors. 

There is cross sectoral participation, but quite ineffective because participating institutions have different mandates preventing any effective coordination among them. The community stakeholders are just spectators watching the show without knowing what is happening and without having any knowledge in co-management with no capacity to actively participate. Women and the marginalised groups are completely kept away. 

Fisher community organisations are now in a complete disarray with the establishment of rural fisheries organisations, which crippled the fisheries cooperatives which were doing extremely well in Sri Lanka since independence. 

The Department of Coastal Conservation and Coastal Resources Management has launched a Special Area Management (SAM) process as a mechanism of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) but fisheries are omitted as a component of coastal management, separating the coastal fisheries from the coast. So far, Sri Lanka has never had a National Fisheries Policy, and the current policy (National Fisheries Policy 2018) is only a white paper. 

While Sri Lanka’s advantageous position with its endowment of natural beauty provides ample opportunities for tourism development, this process has to be regulated like other development activities. There is an unprecedented growth in tourism activities along the coast, violating the coastal zone boundaries and violating the rights of fishers. 

Rescuing the small fry

Sri Lanka cannot afford to manage its fisheries in a policy vacuum any longer. The National Fisheries Policy of 2018 is deficient of certain important aspects that affect the small-scale fisheries of the country. A process of implementation of FAO Voluntary Guidelines for securing sustainable small-scale fisheries, which took place in 2018-2019 led by the Sri Lanka Forum for Small Scale Fisheries (SLFSSF), with islandwide stakeholder consultation, led to the development of a small-scale fisheries policy and there is a strong need to combine the two and produce an effective National Fisheries Policy.

As a means of addressing the issue of coastal resource degradation, stocks of coastal fish resources will have to be enhanced and fishing pressure on coastal waters will have to be reduced. Shifting of fishing pressure in coastal waters to less exploited off-shore areas, aquaculture, integrated sustainable tourism, fish processing, and alternative employment need to be undertaken.

There is an urgent need to strengthen fisheries cooperatives and train and build capacities of cooperative officials to participate in development decision making and in co-management. The process of co-management of the coastal area need to be integrated (integration of all sectors), inclusive (inclusive of all stakeholders including women and marginalised groups, participatory (active participation of all) and holistic (looking at the system as a whole).

It is also necessary to build awareness among fishing communities of their rights (human rights), build capacities of women and men in adopting alternative employment, and provide them with affordable access to basic education, health and social security protection. The ILO convention C188 on ‘work in the fishing sector’ needs be ratified to provide the fishing labour in commercial vessels with social security protection, security of employment, medical care, safety, etc. 

The authorities must also make sure that the process of development decision making goes through science-community platforms, meaning that eminent scientists (who possess the best available scientific evidence) and community representatives (the beneficiaries of development) need to be invited to all development decision-making platforms.

[The writers are attached to the Sri Lanka Forum for Small Scale Fisheries (SLFSSF).]