ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOOD OF JHATKA FISHERMEN IN THE TWO UPAZILA OF PIROJPUR DISTRICT

Int. J. Ani. Fish. Sci. 3(6): 339-345, December 2010, website: www.gurpukur.com or www.gscience.net ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOOD OF JHATKA FISHERMEN IN THE TWO UPAZILA OF PIROJPUR DISTRICT MD. JAHIDUL HASAN 1, MD. ZILLUR RAHMAN 2, MD. ABUL HASEN 3 and A. T. M. TOUFIQ MAHMUD 4 ABSTRACT A study was conducted to widen the jhatka (Juvenile hilsa) fisher communities livelihoods during off-peak and ban seasons and the community choices for altering existing livelihood existed so as to understand how those communities and this immense resource could benefit and uplifted from possible technical and organizational interventions. Hilsa are presently commercially exploited from various river system netted in various district of Bangladesh, Nesarabad and Kawkhali upazila under the Pirojpur district are two of them; where study was conducted through interview schedule and focus group (stakeholders) discussion during January 2009 to April 2010. The study revealed that during ban and lean season fisher communities suffer greatly from food crisis and with viewing the conservation means leading them to search for alternative livelihoods. The present study revealed that they are succeed in all aspects of alternative livelihood options they have taken except some imperfection and improperness from various helping organizations and in extension feels contradiction with the level of traditional behaviour. The study exposed that in accordance with the country s Hilsa conservation policy, Government and other Non-Governmental should come up hurry to lift up this resource and conservation measure should be revised considering the community involved. So, a pro-poor strategy must be taken to build sustainable Hilsha fishery and in building links between sustainable livelihoods at the community level that are beneficial to Hilsha fisher communities and Hilsha trading. Keywords: Jhatka, Commercially exploited, Lean season, Alternative livelihood and Hilsa conservation policy. INTRODUCTION Hilsa ilisha, the most important commercial fish in Bangladesh (Chantarasrii, 1994), constitutes the largest single-species fishery of Bangladesh (FAO, 2004). Rahman et al. (1998) reported that Hilsa fishery contributes about 22 to 25% of the total fish production of the country. In the fiscal year 2003-2004 the total Hilsa production was 2, 55,000.00 metric tons (Mt) whereas it was 3, 15,000.00 mt in the year 2004-2005 (FAO, 2006). The value of this extra 60.00 mt is about Tk. 900.00 crore and this was the result of Hilsa production activities named Jhatka rokha kormosuchi. To direct the programme the total Govt. allotment was Tk. 1, 50, 00,000.00 in the year 2003-2004. Jhatka the juveniles of Hilsa from 4-15 cm are widely available during the period from February to May in the foreshore and riverine water of Padma, Meghna and their branches and other deltaic rivers of Bangladesh. According to a report published through Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute (BBS, 2006), over 3700 metric tons of Jatka are caught annually during their nursery season from inland rivers and also mentioned that the peak catch periods are during upstream migration in monsoon and winter (September/October, some minor peaks occur in February, April and June) (Islam, 1987). Presently, according to the law and legislation of the country, fishing is stopped in spawning and Jatka growing season, January to May, (recent phenomenon) fishing nets, which some times are the only means of earning a livelihood, are burnt by the law enforcers that shattered the livelihood of the fishermen. Viewing this phenomenon, the present study was directed to identify the institutional and non-institutional barriers effecting Jatka fishermen livelihood and to provide possible information for the Jatka fishermen livelihood improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study area: The study was carried out throughout the entire fishing area of the Kowkhali and Nesarabad upazila under Pirojpur district of Bangladesh during January 2009 to April 2010. Experimental methods: The data were collected through interview schedule and focus group (stakeholders) discussion. Secondary information (web articles, organisations' reports, journals and 1 Biochemist, 2 Fisheries Technologist, 3 Inspector, Fish Inspection and Quality Control, Department of Fisheries, Khulna and 4 Upazila Fisheries Officer, Department of Fisheries, Sripur, Magura, Bangladesh. US dolor ($) 1 = Taka (Tk) 70 339

official documents) was used to crosscheck, complement or illustrate the primary data obtained through the questionnaire survey and group discussion. Livelihood assessment methods: Since 1997, the Department for International Development (DFID) (DoF/DFID, 2001) has adopted a sustainable livelihood approach as a framework to address the different causes of poverty. Rapid appraisal method suggested by CARE, (2001) was followed to assess the livelihood and alternatives for Hilsa fishermen in the study area. Data analysis: All the collected data were analyzed by computer software. Statistical analyzing software Microsoft-excel was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The survey revealed that a large number of people involved with Hilsa fishing in the study area. The study focused on the socio economic conditions of the most marginalized segment of the population who are involved in Hilsha fishing for their livelihoods. Their level of income fluctuates from time to time depending on the peak and leans seasons. They have little access to other facilities of life such as health and education somewhere there is almost no existent. The numbers of Hilsa fishermen are increasing over the years simply due to the absence of available alternative means of income. Besides the Hilsha fishing, most of the fishermen engaged with other livelihood as a secondary income source. Thus, two-way approaches was used to measure their daily income; (1) daily income from the Hilsa fishing only; and (2) income generated from other income sources. Expenditure mainly depended on net types used for fishing and fishing boat as well as on price of these. The fishermen needed average Tk. 20 to 25 for purchasing own food per head per day. In the present study, results show that Hilsa fisher group consisting of with 2 to 8 members. In combination with the other daily expenditure (bag / basket, tea, cigarette, betel-leaf, boat maintenance, transport and light breakfast) they need extra Tk.12-22 per day per head. Therefore, consequently, lower expenditure cost was reported with two-group member (Tk.32-47/Kg) whereas expenditure per day was presented in the table 1. However, table 2 shows the possible income generation (Tk. /day) in accordance with expenditure variation observed in Hilsa and Jatka fishing community in the two upazila. About 61% of the fishermen reported that they have an income Tk. 2,000.00-2,500.00/ month and 39% have an income Tk.3, 000.00 to 4,500.00 per month. Table 1. Shows the expenditure variation (Tk. /day) required for Hilsa and Jhatka fishing. Expenditure Lowest Highest One time investment 1. Net (For 5 year duration) 12000.00 40000.00 Daily invest 6.58 21.92 2. Boat (For 5 year duration) 3000.00 12000.00 Daily invest 1.64 6.58 Repairing cost 1. Net (For 1 year duration) 2000.00 3000.00 Daily invest 5.48 1.64 2. Boat ( For 1 year duration) 1050.00 2000.00 Daily invest 2.88 5.48 Sub-total common investment 16.58 35.62 Other expenditure 1. Daily food 20.00 25.00 2. Other daily expenditure 12 22 Sub-total per day expenditure 32.00 47.00 1. Grand total expenditure (day) 48.58-67.62 63.58-82.62 2. Avg. grand-total expenditure (day) 58.10 73.1 Present study identified several alternative livelihood strategies already adopted by the Hilsa fishermen. Most of these alternatives have been driven by the Government policy. In general, the following alternatives with financial support have been provided by the Government as: (1) big mesh chandi jal 340

which mesh size is at least 4 inches for fishing big Hilsa, (2) tea and battle-leaf stall, (3) rickshaw van; (4) swing machine and (5) trawler for ferry goods and people. Table 2. Shows the income variation (Tk. /day) in accordance with expenditure variation observed in Hilsa and Jatka fishing community. Peak season Item Hilsha Jatka Lowest (Tk.) Highest (Tk.) Lowest (Tk.) Highest (Tk.) According to highest daily expenditure Expenditure for per Kg. Fish 9.78-12.71 25.43-33.05 18.17-23.61 25.43-33.05 Avg. expenditure for per kg. fish 11.245 29.24 20.89 29.24 Possible income range per kg 58.76-128.76 40.76-110.76 9.11-29.11 0.76-20.76 Average of range 93.76 75.76 19.11 10.76 Average of highest and lowest 84.76 14.94 Average of Hilsha and Jatka 49.85 According to lowest expenditure Expenditure for per kg. fish 7.47-10.40 19.43-27.05 13.88-19.32 19.43-27.05 Avg. expenditure for per kg 8.94 23.24 16.6 23.24 Possible income range per kg fish 61.07-131.07 46.76-116.76 13.4-33.4 6.76-26.76 Average of range 96.07 81.76 23.4 16.76 Average of highest and lowest 88.915 20.08 Average of Hilsha and Jatka 54.50 Average (Hilsha and Jatka) highest and lowest expenditure (Peak season) 52.17 Off peak season According to highest expenditure Expenditure for per kg. fish 15.90-20.66 127.16-165.24 31.79-41.31 127.16-165.24 Avg. expenditure for per 18.28 146.2 36.55 146.2 Possible income range per kg fish 56.72-131.72 (-71.2 to 3.8) (-1.55 to 13.45) (-111.2 to -96.2) Average of range 94.22-33.7 5.95-103.7 Average of highest and lowest 30.26-48.88 Average of Hilsha and Jatka -9.31 According to lowest expenditure Expenditure for per Kg. Fish 12.15-16.91 97.16-135.24 24.29-33.81 97.16-135.24 Avg. expenditure for per Kg 14.53 116.2 29.05 116.2 Possible income range per kg 60.47-135.47 (-41.2 to 33.8) 5.95-20.95 (-81.2 to -66.2) Average of range 97.97-3.7 13.45-73.7 Average of highest and lowest 47.14-30.16 Average of Hilsha and Jatka 8.51 Average (Hilsha and Jatka) highest and lowest expenditure (Off peak season) -0.40 Average (Hilsha and Jatka) highest and lowest expenditure (Peak and off peak season) 25.89 The present study found that the above support was equally provided in the both upazila under a financial allocation of Tk. 1, 50,000.00 per upazila (fiscal year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009). Beside these, the fisher community took some alternative onwards themselves including (1) cow rearing, (2) goat and poultry rearing (4) tree plantation in collaboration with NGOs (5) grocery shop and (6) seasonal fruit and vegetable business. Table 3 and table 4 show the economic analysis of those livelihood strategies. However, Govt. allocation is so limited, supporting only a small portion. It is based on the action plan that aimed to prevent the fisher to fishing during ban season (spawning and juvenile grow out period). 341

Table 3. Shows the Govt. defined alternative livelihood options for Hilsa fishermen and its outcomes. Govt. allocation Nesarabad and Kawkhali Alterative livelihood options No. of beneficial Operating cost or investment (Tk. /day) (Tk./ day) Avg. income (Tk./day) (Tk./ month) Avg. income (Tk./month) Big mesh chandi jal 92 35-45 130-165 147.5 3900-4950 4425 Tea and battle-leaf stall 20 120-250 100-200 150 3000-6000 4500 Rickshaw van 10 65-80 120-170 145 3600-5100 4350 Swing machine 1 200-500 100-200 150 3000-6000 4500 Trawler for ferry goods and people* 2 300-500 250-300 275 7500-9000 8250 Total 125 *One trawler was provided for two people, hence to estimate the income per person; value should be divided by two. From the table 3 it has been observed that every option outputted more or less similar income per month. Drawback is that some of the option were not willing adopt by the fishermen. However, results of the present study concluded and understand that those options could be considered as ideal alternative during fishing ban period. Table 4. Community innovated alternative livelihoods options. Community innovated alternative livelihoods options Nesarabad and Kawkhali Community generated alternative livelihood options No. of adoptive investment Operating cost (day) after a time period or income (day) ( month) Avg. income (month) Cow rearing 12 5000-7000 30-40 4750-6000 (after 4 months) 1188-1500 1344 Goat and poultry rearing 15 5000-7000 20-25 4500-5500 (after 5 months) 900-1100 1000 Tree plantation 23 by NGOs daily labor not demonstrated * 4 Grocery shop 4 3500-5000 150-250 200-250 6000-7500 6750 Seasonal fruit and 3 125-150 30-35 70-80 2100-2400 2250 vegetable business Total outcomes 57 Table 4 representing another alternatives option invented by the fishermen them shelves and supporting NGOs which revealed that income generation by this option is less than the Govt. provided options except grocery shop. By experiencing with the outcome from tree plantation resulted in several areas the predicted income was presented in table 4. It seems to be an effective option because it is less laborious than other but economic outcome is more handsome. However, a detailed investment return analysis of fishermen was presented in the table 5 and table 6. The result shows that highest income comes from Hilsa catch and lowest acquired if only Jatka are caught. In screening the results, it has been found that in peak season they earn average Tk.11723.40 per month (Tk.390.78/day) and average Tk.1575.90 per month (Tk.52.53/ day) from Hilsa and Jhatka catch respectively. Again, according to the catch rate (combination of Hilsa and Jhatka) they mentioned that their income would be average Tk. 13909.20 per month (Tk. 463.64/ day) at the beginning of the peak season. However, an advanced analysis for the income generation throughout the whole peak season shows that their average monthly income is Tk. 6479.03 (Tk. 215.97/ day). 342

Table 5. Iinvestment return analysis of fishermen income comes from Hilsa and Jhatka fishing. Taka Items Day Month Season Day Month Season Only Hilsha Only Jatka Highest 400.14 12004.20 60021.00 60.24 1807.20 9036.00 Lowest 381.42 11442.60 57213.00 44.82 1344.60 6723.00 Avgerage 390.78 11723.40 58617.00 52.53 1575.90 7879.50 Hilsha and Jatka Highest 480.71 14421.30 72106.50 Peaks* Lowest 446.57 13397.10 66985.50 Avgerage 463.64 13909.20 69546.00 When catch is average of Hilsha plus Jatka Highest 224.71 6741.15 33705.75 Lowest 207.27 6218.03 31090.13 Avgerage 215.97 6479.03 32395.13 Off-peaks** If harvest continue through out the year round*** Only Hilsha Only Jatka Highest 80.14 2404.14 7212.42-37.66-1129.88-3389.63 Lowest 51.44 1543.26 4629.78-61.10-1833.00-5499.00 Avgerage 65.79 1973.70 5921.10-49.38-1481.25-4443.75 Hilsha and Jatka Highest 120.38 3611.27 10833.80 Lowest 68.24 2047.26 6141.78 Avg. 94.32 2829.45 8488.35 When catch is average of Hilsha plus Jatka Highest 90.32 2709.74 8129.21 Lowest 64.31 1929.22 5787.67 Average 77.32 2319.48 6958.44 Only Hilsha Only Jatka Highest 210.89 6326.79 50614.32-10.69-320.78-2566.22 Lowest 178.28 5348.43 42787.44-36.15-1084.38-8675.06 Average 194.59 5837.61 46700.88-23.43-702.90-5623.20 Hilsha and Jatka Highest 249.32 7479.61 59836.90 Lowest 191.25 5737.65 45901.18 Average 220.28 6608.31 52866.48 When catch is average of Hilsha plus Jatka Highest 131.34 3940.05 31520.40 Lowest 102.02 3060.74 24485.93 Average 116.69 3500.79 28006.30 Beside these, analysis of their monthly income during the off-peak season shows that they earn average Tk. 1973.70 /month from Hilsa catch and average Tk. 1481.25 month from Jatka. However, if they continue fishing for the whole seasons their average income Tk. 2319.48 per month. Finally, the result shows that they have a highest income when their catch composition consisted with both Hilsha and Jatka. This result also shows that at the same catch rate, if their catch composition consisted with only Hilsa, income will be increased drastically. The fishermen have already experienced this increased catch rate after fishing during ban period over as Jatka fishing was completely stopped during this ban period. Table 6 showed that income from alternative livelihood shows that they have highest average income Tk. 4500.00/month from Govt. options (Tea and battle-leaf stall and swing machine operation). Incase of community innovated options highest average income (Tk. 6750.00/month) comes from grocery shop. In comparison with the income from Hilsa fishing, this income is not so better but could be consider as an alternative income source to compensate in the ban period. However, according to the present survey, overall food security in terms of quantity and availability of food is not as good as other community. They get nourished during the peak season but they suffer seriously from sufficient food 343

during off-peaks. Though, most of the fishermen in the present study area have meal thrice in a day are comprised with low quality food (They mainly take rice with pulses or vegetables). Table 6. Iinvestment return analysis of fishermen income comes from alternative livelihood options. Alternative livelihoods through Govt. allocation Average (Tk./month) Average (Tk./4 month) 1.1 Big mesh chandi jal 4425 17700 1.2 Tea and battle-leaf stall 4500 18000 1.3 Rickshaw van 4350 17400 1.5 Swing machine 4500 18000 1.6 Trawler for ferry goods and people 8250 33000 Community innovation 1.1 Cow rearing 1344 5376 1.2 Goat and poultry rearing 1000 4000 1.3 Tree plantation - - 1.4 Grocery shop 6750 27000 1.5 Seasonal fruit and vegetable business 2250 9000 Hilsa fishermen normally keep some fish for their family consumption. Now days, most of the fishermen are aware about their nutritional requirement but due to the economical illness they are unable to meet their needs. However, the present study identified several livelihood options preferred by the most of the Hilsa fishermen that includes (1) sustainable agriculture (21%), (2) petty trade (27%), (3) large scale poultry and pigeon farming (2%), (4) cattle and goat rearing through co-operation (7%), (5) vegetable cultivation (17%), (6) pen and cage culture in the river where they catch Hilsa (29%), (7) prawn culture (31%), (8) handicrafts (11%), (9) hand made paper bag (32%), (10) rice boiling and selling to the local market (6%), (11) fruit farming eg. guava and banana (14%) and (12) plant nursery (37%). However, after accumulating all the essential data in relation to various types of resources (Social, human, natural, physical) from the study area, all are gone through a set of analyses to formulate a number of strategies in an organized manner, those alternatives have been identified as the best for the rehabilitation of the Hilsa fishermen viewing the phenomenon of the income during ban period. Thus, no further recommendations were made in the present study. In the present study, special emphasis was given for determining the socio-economic status of Hilsa fishermen followed by possible alternative income sources. In recent years government offices and some NGO s encourage them to tree plantation, integrated fish culture, poultry and livestock rearing, for their better livelihood. Proper training can make them able to culture fish in their own pond (if any) or pond leased from others, in the roadside ditches or other public water body and also in the river (cage or pen culture). In this case community based management can be more effective. To conquer the weakness, Government should provide the necessary infrastructural, financial and technical assistance for the improvement of the livelihood of those fishing community. Government should create job opportunities for them by establishment of agriculture based or other industry. and food status are indicators of livelihood status. Livelihood outcomes were analyses in the present study to determine how successful the fishermen in their livelihood strategies. According to Anonymous (2001) reported that these outcomes should be based on normative standards (e.g. nutritional status) or based on criteria identified by the communities. Such outcome measures need to be differentiated and disaggregated across groups, households and individuals into several social and economical factors. On the other hand, Anonymous, (2003) proposed some social protection measures to make the transition to alternative livelihoods which could be applied for Hilsha fisher community, includes: (1) food for education program targeting the children of the poor, (2) food/cash for work and training, (3) VGD cards to the women which all are reflected in the present study from a very close view. In the present study, expected outcomes are partitioned into food security, education, health, shelter, social, environment, safety, nutrition etc. Finally, from the analysis of livelihood outcomes aimed to determine how successful the fishermen in their livelihood strategies. It could be concluded that prevailing livelihood strategies in the present study area is a successful and time oriented strategy. For a better Hilsa conservation practice this options should be strengthening and diversified to the all fishermen. 344

REFERENCES IJAFS: ISSN 1997-2598 Volume 3 Issue 6 December 2010 Anonymous, 2001. Poverty alleviation and livelihood security among the coastal fishing communities Market and credit access issues. NRI Rep. No. 2613, Project-A1004, NRI/DFID. Anonymous, 2003. Potentiality for the Development of a Mollusk Fishery in Coastal Bangladesh, Concept Note (February), SUFER project, DFID, Bangladesh. BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). 2006. Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh, Statistics Division, Ministry of Finance and Planning, Govt. of People s Republic of Bangladesh, p. 766. CARE (Co-operation for American Relief Everywhere). 2001. Golda Project. End of Project Livelihood Assessment: A Qualitative Evaluation. CARE-Bangladesh. Dhaka. August. Chantarasrii, S. 1994. Fisheries Resource Management for Sundarban Reserved Forest. Integrated Resource Development of the Sundarban Reserved Forest. Report-BGD/84/056, UNDP/FAO. DoF (Department of Fisheries)/DFID (Department for International Development). 2001. Feasibility Study for the Shrimp Component of the Fourth Fisheries Project (FFP): Fry Collectors Livelihood Study. Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, Bangladesh. FAO (Food and agricultural Organization). 2004. Hilsa Investigations in Bangladesh, Marine Fishery Resources Management in the Bay of Bengal. REPORTS - BOBP/REP/37, Colombo, Sri Lanka. FAO (Food and agricultural Organization). 2006. Fishery statistics. State of world fisheries production (2005). FAO Fisheries series No. 81/FAO Statistics Series No. 123. Rome. Islam, M. S. 1987. Maturity and spawning of Hilsa shad, Hilsa ilisha, of Bangladesh. p.81-95. In Hilsa Investigations of Bangladesh. Bay of Bengal Programme. BOBP/REP/36. Rahman, M. J., M. G. Mustafa and M. A. Rahman. 1998. Population dynamics and recruitment of Hilsa, Tenualosa ilisha. Workshop on Hilsa Fisheries Research in Bangladesh, Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute, Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research/Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Dhaka, 3-4 March. 345