1. e mail: mohamad.kasim@gmail.com
Mobile: +919003040778
Marine Fisheries Management
H.Mohamad Kasim
Former Principal Scientist & Scientist in Charge
Madras Research Centre of C M F R Institute,
#75, Santhome High Road, Raja Annamalai Puram,
Chennai - 600028

2. Potential yield from EEZ
Realm
Potential
(t)
Production
2010
Scope
Pelagic 2128424 1667546 4,60,878
Demersal 2082653 1406736 6,75,917
Oceanic 208000 -- 2,08,000
Total 4419077 3074282 13,44,795

3. Potenital yield from different
depth zones
Depth Zone Potential (t)
up to 100 m 3837398
100-200 m 259039
200-500 m 114640
Oceanic 208000
Total 4419077

5. DIFFERENTIAL ECOSYSTEMS
Coramandal Coast :
North coast from Arangankuppam to Nagapattinam in Bay of
Bengal. Open sea, surf beaten, most of the time rough, exposed
to cyclone and tsunami
Palk Bay:
Middle portion of the coast between Nagapattinam and
Rameswaram. Almost closed, with 2 openings, one on the north
into Bay of Bengal and another in the south into GOM, Calm,
quiet, shallow, like a sprawling lake, divided by an International
Boundary Line (IBL)between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka.
Gulf of Mannar:
Southern coast from Rameswaram to Kanyakumari, Bioreserve,
National Marine Park, with 21 coral islands between Rameswaram
and Tuticorin, with a highly productive Wedge Bank, with opening
into Palk Bay, Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.

6. TAMILNADU STATE PROFILE
No. of Fishing Villages : 581
No. of Landing Centres: 352
No. of Fishermen Families: 192,152
Fisherfolk Population : 790,408
Estimated production(2008): 429,544 t

7. Table 1. Chronological increase in the marine fishing craft, villages, fishermen
population and fish production during 1948-2000
Year Crafts Villages Populati
on
Fish
produ
ction
Catamarans Canoes Mechanise
d Boats
1948-49* 11262 1942 --- 233 95,735 27,135
1957*** 23161 4716 --- 242 2,36,653 67,542
1961-62 29661 363 2,14,868 1,16,245
1973-
77**
30501 1533 374 2,88,586 2,05,735
1978*** 29744 7340 2919 403 3,37,713 2,12,899
1980** 31851 11492 2627 422 3,95,903 2,17,394
1986*** 28132+
656(OBM)
8439+742
(With
engine)
2432+
82(FRP)
442 4,63,800 2,44,759
2000*** 27272 14498 8009 591 6,79,971 3,93,332
2005** 20082 26627 7711 581 7,90,408 2,81,268
Source: * Govt. of India, ** C.M.F.R.Institute, and ***Tamil Nadu Fisheries Dept.

8. MARINE FISH PRODUCTION IN TAMIL NADU

9. PHASE PERIOD FISH PRODUCTION REMARKS
1 1956-65 MODERATE
GROWTH
Fishing by non-motorised traditional boats and
catamarans. Change in fish catch due to the
introduction of nylon nets. No mechanised fishing.
2 1966-75 CONTINUED
GROWTH
Introduction of trawling and growth in fish
production
3 1976-86 FURTHER
GROWTH WITH
MODERATE
GROWTH RATE
Expansion of fishing area and further growth in fish
production by trawling
4 1987-97 PERIOD OF FASTER
GROWTH
Expansion of traditional and motorised boast;
introduction of motorisation of traditional boats,
emergence of oils sardine as one of the top 10
species and yet to be noticed.
5 1998-
2004
FIRST TIME
DECLINE IN
GROWTH
Irrespective of an increase in the fishing capacity
there is a decline in the fish production. This was
mainly due to the decline in oil sardine and
clupeids
6 2005-
2010
POST TSUNAMI
REVIVAL IN FISH
PRODUCTION
Unexpected growth in oil sardine production. This
was due to targeted fishing for oil sardine. Oil
sardine has emerged as No.1 resource and this

10. Percentage composition of marine fish landings in Tamil
Nadu by Mechnised, Motorised and Non mechanised
sectors during 2000-2008
69.7%
29.2%
1.1%

11. Pelagic finfishes
51%Demersal finfishes
30.3%
Crustaceans
9.2%
Molluscs
3.5%
PERCENTAGE COMPOSI TON OF DI FFERENT RESOURCES

13. COMPOSITION OF DIFFERENT PELAGIC
RESOURCES
Oil sardine
30%
Bombayduck
9%
Mackerels
8%
Ribbonfish
11%
Carangids
9%
Seerfishes
4%
Tunnies
4%
Other sardines
7%
Hilsa shad
3%
Anchovies
6%
Other Clupeids
3%
Others
6%

14. Perches
28%
Croakers
20%Elasmobranchs
9%
Flatfishes
8%
Catfishes
9%
Silverbellies
8%
Lizard fishes
5%
Pomfrets
6%
Goatfishes
2%
Threadfins
2%
Eels
2%
Big-jawed jumper
1%
COMPOSI TI ON OF DEMERSAL FI SHERY
RESOURCES

17. Trawl fisheries

18. Motorised

19. Non motorised

23. MARINE FISH PRODUCTION IN TAMIL NADU BY
THREE SECTORS DURING 2001-2010
• Mechanised boats are contributing the maximum to the
total marine fish production in Tamil Nadu
• Percentage contribution by the mechnised sector
increased from 43.1 to 71.2% with an average of 56%.
• Percentage contribution by the motorised sector
declined from 49.5% in 2006 to 26.1% in 2009 with an
average of 35.6%.
• Fish production by the non-motorised sector declined
from 18.4% in 2001 to 1.1% in 2010 with an average of
8.4%. This is mainly due to the conversion of the
traditional boat to motorisation.

28. TOP TEN FISHERY RESOURCES IN TAMIL NADU DURING
2001-2010
MECHANISED MOTORISED NON-MOTORISED
SPECIES CATCH SPECIES CATCH SPECIES CATCH
Silverbellies 35982 Other sardine 27479 Oil sardine 9914
Oil sardine 24818 Oil sardine 26274 Stolephorus 3755
Penaeid prawn 15086 Mackerel 12586 Other sardine 3432
Other sardine 12059 Other carangid 7668 Crabs 2630
Other carangid 9488 Pig face bream 6557 Other carangid 1212
Other Perches 8581 Crabs 4605 Mackerel 1098
Rays 6086 Seerfish 4070 Other perches 926
Goatfishes 5625 Thryssa 4020 Thryssa 772
Sciaenids 5573 Other clupeid 3928 Silverbellies 708
Other clupeid 5304 Silverbellies 3283 Penaeid prawn 664

29. MARINE FISH PRODUCTION BY THREE SECTORS IN TAMIL
NADU IN 2010 IN PERCENTAGE
DISTRICTS MECHANISED MOTORISE NON-MOTORISED
THIRUVALLUR 0.0 100.0 0.0
CHENNAI 86.6 13.1 0.3
KANCHEEPURAM 1.2 98.3 0.5
VILLUPURAM 0.0 99.9 0.1
CUDDALORE 77.2 22.8 0.0
NAGAIPATTINAM 63.0 37.0 0.0
THANJAVUR 60.2 39.8 0.0
PUDUKKOTTAI 82.6 17.4 0.0
RAMANATHAPURA
M
93.2 4.8 2.0
TUTICORIN 51.1 48.8 0.1
TINNEVELI 0.0 100.0 0.0
KANYAKUMARI 61.0 35.9 3.0
TOTAL 69.1 29.8 1.1

30. DISTRICTWISE MARINE FISH PRODUCTION IN TAMIL
NADU IN 2001 AND 2010 AND THE DIFFERENCE IN TONS
DISTRICTS 2001 2010 DIFFERENCE
THIRUVALLUR 12310 3190 -9120
CHENNAI 28412 37989 9577
KANCHEEPURAM 9102 4256 -4846
VILLUPURAM 7283 17262 9979
CUDDALORE 26450 76938 50488
NAGAIPATTINAM 53303 25459 -27844
THNJAVUR 12974 19434 6460
PUDUKKOTTAI 23682 21478 -2204
RAMANATHAPURAM 51432 133940 82508
TUTICORIN 66527 66772 245
TINNEVELI 9221 12382 3161
KANYAKUMARI 50013 89925 39912
TOTAL 350709 509025 158316

31. POTENTIAL YIELD AND TOTAL ANNUAL FISH
PRODUCTION IN TAMIL NADU
• Potential yield within 200 nautical miles in Tamil Nadu has
been estimated to be 4.25 lakh tons
• Present marine fish production in 2009 was 5.34 lakh tons
and in 2010 it was 5.09 lakh tons.
• It is well known that the Chennai and Palk Bay trawlers
fish in Andhra Pradesh and Sri Lankan waters repectively.
• The catch over and above 4.25 lakh tons may be assumed
to have been from the waters of Andhra and Sri Lanka.
• It is clear that the Tamil Nadu fishers have already crossed
the potential yield of the region and therefore there is no
scope for increasing the fish production from Tamil Nadu
waters.

32. FISHERY
• Continuous growth in TN fisheries since 1950
• 5 fold increase in fish catch over 50 years 3-fold
increase in active fishers
• Continuous expansion of fishing operations to
deeper and distant waters
• Continuous discovery of new grounds and
resources.
• Entire shelf area off TN coast is covered by the TN
fishing fleet and there is no scope for additional
catches from the shelf area

33. CATCH FROM ADJACENT WATERS
• A sections of the TN fleet depend heavily on
fishing in neighbouring waters
• Around 20% of the catch comes from Andhra
and Sri Lanka
Findings ……contd

34. DEEPSEA FISHING
• TN a pioneer in deep sea fishing if defined as
fishing beyond the shelf
• Thoothoor fishermen with a fleet of 500
liners cum gillnetters reign all over the west
coast and land the catch (guesstimate of
20,000-30,000 tonnes) at Cochin
• Chennai gillnetters and a tiny fleet of long
liners in Pondicherry have already started
fishing beyond the shelf on the east coast
Findings ……contd

35. Findings ……contd
IN EXCESS OF POTENTIAL YIELD
• TN fisheries well developed beyond its own geographical
area and fishing in the coastal waters of neighbouring
states as well as in the deepsea beyond State
jurisdictions explains the paradox of TN fish landings
touching a new peak of 5.33 lakh tones in 2009 well
beyond the potential yield estimate of 4.25 lakh tonnes
by CMFRI.
• Landings grew continuously till 1997, had a sharp fall
during the period 1998-2004 and then a sharp increase in
the following period 2005-09 hitting the new peak of
5.33 lakh tonnes.

36. EMERGENCE OF NEW RESOURCE
• There are major structural changes in marine
fishery resources with the emergence of the low
value Oil sardine as the No.1 species contributing
over 20% of the catches.
• Oil sardine catches in the coastal waters and new
catches from deeper waters mask the decline of
many coastal fish resources
• This led to near-total elimination of the non-
motorised fishing with the artisanal fishermen
compelled to motorise to go deeper for more
Findings ……contd

37. OVER CAPITALIZATION
• There is every reason to believe that fish
catch levels are being maintained only by
continuous increases in investment and
operating costs leading to over
capitalization of the fishery
Findings ……contd

38. COMPETITION
• Lack of entry barriers and capacity controls
has led to an intense competition between
sub sectors and between units within each
sub-sector
• In order to keep going this has led to
continuous higher investments to increase
scale and shift towards more efficient gears
Findings ……contd

39. INEQUITY IN RESOURCE SHARING
• Keen competition has also led to an
unfavourable distribution of fish catch
between sub-sectors
• The mechanized sector with just 25% of the
workforce has increased its share from less
than 50% a decade back to over 69.7% in 2010
• Inter-sectoral conflicts and adoption of
banned gears by both mechanized and
motorised boats are considerable
Findings ……contd

40. MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
• The system for fisheries management is fragmented
with the Department of Fisheries having only a
limited control over what happens in the sea.
• The MFRA implementation is only partial, varied and
depends mostly on the cooperation of the fishing
community.
• The MFRA is based on the typical “top-down system
of management” that ignores ‘self-governing
systems’ which are still in place among the fishing
communities
Findings ……contd

41. TRADITIONAL SYSTEM
• The fishing communities’ own systems of
management are still very much in place, only
there is weak coherence between the
decisions taken by different villages and
different groups reducing the efficacy of these
systems.
• DoF and Fishermen Associations having their
own sources of power and often both pulling
in different directions, consequently neither
has adequate control on fishing
Findings ……contd

42. OVER CAPACITY
• All sections of the fishermen have the feel of
the heat of ‘over capacity’ and cut-throat
competition and are interested in finding
radical solutions to various fishery problems.
• The ‘restriction on fleet size and unit capacity’
enforced by the Chennai Mechanized Boat
Owners Associations is just one such indication
• The demand for a “buy-back” programme by
trawl owners in the Palk Bay is another.
Findings ……contd

43. PROSPECTS FOR MANAGEMENT
• The administration is unable to use this opportunity as it
is locked into an unhealthy relationship with the fishing
community through a number of “welfare schemes” that
make the relationship one of “patron-client” rather than
“partners in management”
ECOSYSTEM DEGRADATION
• Threats to the coastal and marine eco-system from non-
fishery activities are on the increase
• These are threatening to overtake ‘over-fishing’ as the
major cause for fish depletion, especially in near shore
waters
Findings ……contd

44. SECTORAL CONFLICT
• The fisheries sector is weak in protecting its
interests vis-à-vis other sectors and this is
leading to considerable distress and unrest in
many parts of the coast
FISHER’ RIGHTS
• The rights of the Fishermen community need
to be recognised/protected and there is an
urgent need to address this issue by the
Administration and appropriate Agencies
Findings ……contd

45. Recommendations
CO-MANAGEMENT
• TN needs to recognise that its hitherto approach of
unregulated growth of fishing capacity and weak
management cannot continue any further.
• This requires a fundamental shift in approach and
this can come only with the support of the fishing
community itself.
• This also requires the development of a system of
“co-management” that works on the basis of
partnership between the fishing community and
DoF with the community institutions playing a major
role in fisheries management

46. • Village level traditional institutions as well as
the self organized boat owners associations
may be used as building blocks for a new multi-
tiered system to manage fisheries in the state.
• Eventually, a four tiered system with Village or
Landing centre based institutions at the base
could emerge.
• Starting with some of the FIMSUL initiated
platforms, ‘co-management’ can be
experimented with as pilots including a ‘state
level platform’ and a ‘Palk Bay platform’.
Recommendations………contd

47. • The structure has to evolve rather than be “set
up” and the transfer of power take place in a
gradual and orderly manner on the basis of
demonstrated abilities to manage fisheries.
• The successful development of co-management
also requires a large awareness and capacity
building programme for the fishing community
and a proper orientation for the DoF staff.
Recommendations………contd

48. Recommendations………contd
LIMITED ACCESS
• An early shift from “open access” to “limited
access” is recommended.
• The key to this would be to restrict the right to
own fishing vessels.
• One option would be to restrict ownership to
families who have been in fishing for at least
one generation (25 years).
• Another option is to restrict ownership to
owner-operators or active fishermen.

49. OVER CAPACITY
• Capacity controls have to be urgently introduced for
the mechanized fleet
• While capacity controls for the artisanal fleet can
evolve on need basis over a period of time.
• Freezing trawl fleet capacity and a strategy to reduce
it is extremely important for the health of the
resources and for the equitable distribution of fishing
opportunities among the members of large fishing
community.
• Such capacity reduction programmes can be
designed in a manner that is not labour displacing.
Recommendations………contd

50. FLEET REDUCTION
• Trawl fleet reduction could be first started on a war
footing in the Palk Bay, where the resolution of trans-
border fishing will be difficult with a large trawl fleet
• A combination of fleet retirement and redeployment
needs to be worked out urgently.
• Given that redeployment may be feasible only for a
section of the fleet, a “buy-back scheme” aiming at
fleet retirement or decommissioning needs urgent
consideration.
• A full-fledged package for the Palk Bay that covers
owners and workers needs to be developed through a
combination of expert inputs and community dialogue
Recommendations………contd

51. GEAR CONTROL
• Important gear controls like the ban on pair
trawls and ring seines need to be implemented by
building community support and should show
firmness in enforcement
Recommendations………contd

52. MANAGEMENT PLANS
• Detailed planning at different levels of the
fishery need to be developed on the concept of
“management plans”—both at geographical /
spatial and resource levels—as instruments
under the “co-management system”
• Management plans can also be used to address
the current lack of coherence between
Fisheries and other Departments like
Environment and Forests to ensure better
performance
Recommendations………contd

53. DEEPSEA FISHING
• Deep sea fishing on the entire west coast of
India is a monopoly of Kanyakumari fishermen
• Deep sea fishing in the Bay of Bengal offers a
good opportunity for the north coastal
districts
• TN & P fishermen having ventured beyond the
shelf, it is likely that in the next few years TN
fishermen will dominate the deep sea fishing
on the east coast also
Recommendations………contd

54. Potential yield of Oceanic
resources
Oceanic Resource Potential (t)
Yellowfin tuna 80,000
Skipjack tuna 99,000
Bigeye tuna 500
Billfishes 5,900
Pelagic sharks 20,800
Other species (Barracuda,
Dolphin fish, Wahoo etc.)
1,800
Total 208,000

55. DEEPSEA FISHING………..Contd
• While deep sea fishing has good potential for TN
fishermen, some caution is required while
developing it.
• Since the deep sea resources like sharks, tunas
and bill fishes are trasboundary International
resources in the Indian Ocean targeted by 30
countries and the IOTC having already declared
the Tuna resources optimally fished, there are
obvious limits to the size of fleet that can be
sustained.
Recommendations………contd

56. DEEPSEA FISHING……………Contd
• All Indian states also have ambitious plans for
developing their own deep sea fleet.
• Poaching by foreign vessels and the operation
of industrial scale vessels under the LOP
scheme also limit what is available for a new
fleet.
• Skill, aptitude and willingness to stay at sea for
weeks together make deep sea fishing
suitable only for those fishermen who possess
all these attributes.

57. DEEPSEA FISHING……………Contd
• Given that the Thoothoor fleet of 500 boats, which
has the entire west coast of India for its arena, seems
to have hit a ceiling, it may not be safe to assume
that a larger fleet can be sustained on the east coast
of India.
• Deep sea fishing needs careful development and
should not be seen as an easy solution to the
problems of over capacity in coastal waters.
• TN also needs to lobby in Delhi for the scrapping of
the LOP scheme to protect local interests.

58. Recommendations………contd
CONFLICT RESOLVING
• Various mechanisms need to be developed to protect
fishing interests in the ongoing competition with other
sectors for coastal & marine space and resources
• These could include a high level mechanism under the
Chief Secretary that monitors and reviews all activities
and projects that affect fishing.
• Ensuring a proper representation for the fishing
community and other fisheries stakeholders in various
decision making bodies, notably the SCZMA, State
Pollution Control Board, etc., will go a long way in
protecting fishing and fishing communities

59. OVER FISHING
• The Scientist for CMFRI have assessed that in
Tamil Nadu waters 65% of the commercially
important varieties are exposed to overfishing.
• Approximately 20% of the resources have been
fished at the optimum level
• The balance 15% of the resources alone are
exposed to very near to optimum level of
fishing.

60. CHANGES IN THE FISHERY
•Sustained fishing and environmental changes have lead to decline of certain
fishery resources and emergence of different other resource.
•Long living, predatory large species with slow growth rate, occupying the top
slot in food web and with low fecundity have either dwindled or vanished. Ex:
sharks, larger sciaenids, rays, larger perchers, catfish etc.
•Conversely smaller, short lived species with faster growth rate and prolific
breeding and high fecundity have started emerging as dominant fishery.
Example: oil sardine
•Owing to constant sweeping of the sea bottom by mechanised trawlers and
traditional “thallumadi” (bag net) the benthic fauna have been severely affected
and there was no sufficient scope for the proper revival of the bottom fauna.
Consequently some of the demersal fishery resources have decline in due
course and time
•Inappropriate fishing like pair trawling and ring seine operations have lead to
reduction in the benefit sharing of the fishery resources, as only a very few
fishermen were benefited more and many were deprived of the resource
•Absence of top level predators has lead to the proliferation of the prey
resources resulting in the increase of commercially less valuable fishery
resources like oil sardine.

61. Remarks
•Tamilnadu Fisheries Department may develop linkages
with the Research Institutions to make use of the salient
findings from the data collected on the fishery biology
of different component species of various exploited
fishery resources by translating in Tamil for fishermen
to enable them to adopt responsible fisheries.
•Nearly 80% of the fish production comes from inshore
waters, where due to over supply and overexploitation it
is becoming more and more uneconomical for the
fishing craft to operate. It is very essential to undertake
biological resource enhancement activities such as the
deployment of artificial reefs and sea ranching of
commercially important species.

62. Captive breeding of endangered species such as the sea cucumbers, dugong, soft
and hard corals, sea horses, pipe fishes etc. may be attempted to improve the
population size with an aim to remove them from Schedule I.
Eco-Tourism: An excellent artificial reef habitat may be established near
Chennai by introducing different marine living resources with special reference
to corals and ornamental fishes for popularising the eco-tourism. This can be
used by students for education, tourists for snorkeling, SCUBA diving, sport
fishing with angles (hooks & line), trap fishing for live ornamental fishes,
underwater sight seeing with the help of glass-bottom boats etc.
Palk Bay with uniform shallow water mass well protected from cyclone and
tsunami, with limited shipping channel/corridor may be promoted as
“MARICULTURE PARK” and this should aim at reducing the prevailing higher
fishing pressure as an alternative livelihood for the fishermen.
Tamilnadu Government’s proposal for a marine water leasing policy will open a
vast avenue for mariculture and the available mariculture technologies should
be provided as bankable projects for the endusers.

63. Therefore, our present
responsibility is that we are at a
junxture to make a vital
decisions on how “our fishery
resources” and “our livelihoods”
should be made use of and
managed.