Thompson et al. (2016)

Fisheries Research 183 (2016) 410–423
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Fisheries Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fishres
Evaluation of the ecological effectiveness and social appropriateness
of fishing regulations in the Bangladesh Sundarbans using a new
multi-disciplinary assessment framework
Benjamin S. Thompsona,∗
, Annabelle J. Bladonb
, Zubair H. Fahadc
, Samiul Mohsanind
,
Heather J. Koldeweye,f
a
National University of Singapore, Department of Geography, 1 Arts Link, 117570, Singapore
b
Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PY, UK
c
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), Bangladesh Country Office, House#16, Road# 2/3 Banani, Dhaka 1213, Bangladesh
d
Nature Conservation Management (NACOM), House 20-21, Flat C5 & D2, Block F, Road 12, Niketan, Gulshan 1, Dhaka 1212, Bangladesh
e
Conservation Programmes, Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, NW1 4RY London, UK
f
Centre for Ecology & Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Cornwall TR10 9FE, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 10 December 2015
Received in revised form 4 July 2016
Accepted 5 July 2016
Handled by A.E. Punt
Keywords:
Catch analysis
Compliance
Conservation
Fish
Fisheries management
Gear
a b s t r a c t
Fisheries research is hindered by a paucity of multi-disciplinary tools for broadly assessing the
societal appropriateness and ecological effectiveness of fishing regulations. This study presents a multi-
disciplinary assessment framework that combines ecological, spatial, and social research methods
to reveal the knowledge, opinions, activities, and impacts of fishers. The framework is applied to a
multi-gear, multi-species, data-poor coastal fishery in the Bangladesh Sundarbans to demonstrate the
complementarity of the methods, commensurability of the data, and how results can be interpreted to
provide a broad initial overview of the fishery in a standardized manner that can guide future research
and management. Data were obtained for 26 catches across five different gear types, 62 finfish species,
20 fishing grounds that were mapped, and 67 respondents across four villages regarding their awareness,
acceptability, and compliance (AAC) of eight existing and seven proposed fishing regulations. AAC scores
varied starkly for different regulations, and all proposed regulations scored lower on acceptability than
any existing regulation. A number of recommendations are made to improve specific gear and species
regulations; for example, protecting the locally endangered species Scatophagus argus (currently under
no fishing regulation) through a ban on the long-shore net that heavily impacts the species, rather than a
ban on the species itself. Broader management recommendations are also made including spatially tar-
geted enforcement, awareness raising, and capacity building approaches. The positives and limitations
of the framework are discussed. The framework is particularly applicable to small-scale fisheries in the
developing world, and is useful as a pilot study.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The on-going depletion of fisheries jeopardizes human food
security, resilience of fishing communities, and livelihood options
for current and future generations (Lam and Pitcher, 2012), as well
as impacting marine species, habitats, and ecosystems beyond the
targeted species (Hobday et al., 2011). To reduce these threats, fish-
ing regulations are drafted and enforced to control among other
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Benjamin.thompson@u.nus.edu, bst88@live.com
(B.S. Thompson).
things: the area and time of usage; size, sex and species cap-
tured; gear use; and fishing effort (Walters and Martell, 2004).
Given the inherent complexity, dynamics, and spatial variability
within marine and coastal ecosystems (Chuenpagdee and Jensoft,
2009), more needs to be known about the ecology and spatiality
of fisheries in relation to their governance – particularly regard-
ing compliance with fishing regulations (Hauck, 2008; Catedrilla
et al., 2012). Compliance is strongly influenced by a fisher’s aware-
ness and acceptance of regulations (Thomas et al., 2015). ‘Effective’
regulations produce desired ecological and social outcomes for the
sustainability of the fishery. ‘Appropriate’ regulations are consid-
ered by fishers to be legitimate, fair, accountable, and necessary
for the sustainability of the fishing grounds and their livelihoods
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.07.010
0165-7836/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisheries Research 183 (2016) 410–423 411
Table 1
Important criteria for fishery assessment frameworks.
Criterion Reasoning
Comprehensive Should provide thorough information as regards the scope of the framework
Flexible Applicable to all types of fishery, irrespective of size, fishing method, species
Objective Based predominantly on empirical data that has been collected in an impartial manner
(especially important for social research)
Pragmatic Sensible methods that can − if necessary − be tailored to the capacity and context of
the location
Replicable Easy to train field staff should personnel change; can form part of a long-term
monitoring programme
Quick to generate information Should be able to yield sufficient data for inferences to be made in a short period of
time
Maximize stakeholder participation Including stakeholders (e.g. as para-taxonomists) can save time and labour costs
Cost effective Make use of existing knowledge, information and data within realistic limits of time
and resources
Scientifically sound methodologies Defensible and based on established methods, that demonstrate a precautionary
approach to uncertainty
Transparent Comprehensive details given on methods and assumptions that have been made
Simple and understandable Easy for stakeholders to grasp both the methods and results
Based on: Borja et al. (2008); Daw (2008); Garces et al. (2010); Hobday et al. (2011); Pecl et al. (2014).
(Pomeroy et al., 2015). Individual regulations may differ in terms
of their effectiveness and appropriateness according to a range of
factors such as: local fishing experience, area of residency, satis-
faction with the state of the fishery, satisfaction with the enforcing
institution, the severity and certainty of punishment, the risk of
being caught, and the potential gains of rule breaking (Catedrilla
et al., 2012; Hauck, 2008; Pomeroy et al., 2015; Thomas et al., 2015).
Non-compliance can be ‘unintentional’ if an individual is unaware
of the rules, or ‘uninformed’ if an individual is not aware of the
consequences of rule breaking (Read et al., 2011). Assuming full
awareness and understanding of the rules, there is also the possi-
bility of ‘wilful non-compliance’, when a fisher makes a judgment
to commit an offence (Read et al., 2011).
The demand for fish is expected to keep increasing to meet the
protein demands of a rapidly increasing human population (FAO,
2014). In 2011, at least 28.8% of the world’s fish stocks were over-
exploited or depleted, and 61.3% were fully exploited (FAO, 2014).
Fisheries scientists continue to develop new methodologies to elicit
such figures, and to inform fisheries management around the world,
but conventional research methodologies that focus on fisheries
biology and stock assessments are often costly, time-consuming,
and technocratic (Garces et al., 2010; Pomeroy, 2016; Tesfamichael
and Pitcher, 2006). Consequently, there have been calls for simpli-
fied assessment frameworks that are less technocratic, more cost
and time effective, and that can enable more stakeholders to engage
in fisheries research, such as the fishers themselves (e.g., Froese,
2004; Martell and Froese, 2013; Thorpe et al., 2016). Also advocated
is a focus on small-scale, multi-species, data-poor fisheries in devel-
oping countries (Chuenpagdee, 2011; Cisse et al., 2014; Erisman
et al., 2014). Many existing frameworks focus on the status of the
fishery or fishing community in isolation; for example, an exclusive
focus on ecological data to make stock assessments and calcu-
late maximum sustainable yields is common (see Carruthers et al.,
2014). Furthermore, despite exceptions (e.g., de la Torre-Castro and
Lindstrom, 2010; Hadjimichael et al., 2013), in many cases, fishers’
views on fishing regulations are seldom placed in broader ecologi-
cal and spatial contexts (e.g., McClanahan et al. 2009, 2013; Thomas
et al., 2015).
Accordingly, multi-disciplinary fishery assessment frameworks
have been strongly advocated in recent years – especially those
that generate quantitative data (Garces et al., 2010; Cisse et al.,
2014; Erisman et al., 2014). A multi-disciplinary approach draws
information from numerous disciplines in an attempt to broaden
understandings of complex situations and identify solutions. Cur-
rent methodologies seldom integrate multiple elements into a
single evaluation of an aquatic system (Borja et al., 2008). One of
the few multi-disciplinary fishery frameworks is RAPFISH (Pitcher
et al., 2013), although this predominantly relies upon qualitative
field indicators, expert opinion, and subjective scoring rather than
on primary quantitative data – for example on biomass, fishing
effort, or spatial scale – that are often expensive and difficult to
obtain in countries that have limited fisheries research capacity
(Tesfamichael and Pitcher, 2006). These and other recommended
features of fishery assessment frameworks are listed in Table 1.
Based on the above, this study presents a novel framework for
assessing ‘Fishing Regulation Effectiveness and Appropriateness’
(FREA) that combines ecological, spatial, and social methods to gen-
erate a complementary array of quantitative and qualitative data.
FREA provides a broad initial overview that can serve well as a pilot
study or student project, and as a means to gain broad insights into
a data-poor fishery in a standardized manner that conforms to the
criteria listed in Table 1. Although informing fisheries management
in the form of, for instance, calculating maximum sustainable yield
is beyond FREA, its results offer key inferences on the ecological
effectiveness and societal appropriateness of fishing regulations.
Furthermore, while the primary aim of the ecological methods is
to generate data on gear selectivity and catch composition that
can be used to assess the fishing regulations e.g., gear bans and
species size limits, in gathering such ecological data, the frame-
work also provides a low-resolution snapshot of fishery status (i.e.,
species presence and relative abundance). Use of FREA can enable
the following research questions to be answered (Fig. 1):
• How socially appropriate are the existing fishing regulations?
• How ecologically effective are the existing fishing regulations?
• How socially appropriate are the proposed fishing regulations?
• What should be the particulars of the proposed fishing regula-
tions?
In this paper, FREA is applied to a multi-gear, multi-species fish-
ery in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Bangladesh was ranked 47th
out of 53 of the most active fishing countries in the world based
on its compliance with the UN Code of Conduct for Responsi-
ble Fisheries (Pitcher et al., 2009). Nevertheless, the sustainability
of fishery resources is crucial since fish accounts for 56% of the
population’s animal protein intake (FAO, 2014), and 10% of the pop-
ulation currently depend on fisheries for their livelihoods (Hussain,
2010). Bangladesh exhibits complex systems of customary rights

412 B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisheries Research 183 (2016) 410–423
Fig. 1. Map showing the location of the Sundarbans within Bangladesh, the four range boundaries of the Sundarbans Reserve Forest (SRF), and locations of the four villages
in the FREA application.

in coastal areas, which are poorly documented (Dastidar, 2009).
The country implements what Imperial and Yandle (2005) would
define as a ‘bureaucracy-based’ institutional arrangement of fish-
eries management, where the focus is on developing regulations
that increase fish production at sustainable levels. However, little is
known about the ecological effectiveness and societal appropriate-
ness of these regulations,or opinions on proposed ones. Regulations
are appropriate if fishers are aware of them, accept them (as fair and
beneficial to the ecosystem and sustainability of their livelihood),
and comply with them (henceforth termed, AAC). Despite a lack
of recent empirical evidence (see below), in the Sundarbans, it is
widely held that stocks are in decline, largely due to high fishing
pressure, destructive and non-selective gears, and poison fishing
using pesticides (Hoq, 2007; IPAC, 2010). Furthermore, despite
a growing coastal population the number of fishing licenses has
remained fixed since the 1980s, leaving many unlicensed fishers
little option but to fish illegally (IPAC, 2010). Ultimately, this work
aims to (1) present a multi-disciplinary research framework that
provides an initial assessment of fishery regulations; and (2) apply
the framework to a coastal fishery in the Bangladesh Sundarbans,
demonstrating how the methods complement each other and how
results can be interpreted to provide an overview of the successes,
failures, and future options for Sundarbans fishing regulations.
2. Demonstration site
Some 65% of the 10,000 km2 Sundarbans – the largest man-
grove forest on Earth – is found in Bangladesh (FAO, 2003). The
Bangladesh Sundarbans was declared the Sundarbans Reserved
Forest (SRF) in 1875, and three areas of the forest are designated
wildlife sanctuaries in which the extraction of vegetation and ter-
restrial and aquatic wildlife is banned (Islam and Wahab, 2005).
Together these sanctuaries cover 23% of the SRF and were col-
lectively designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1997. A
moratorium on timber extraction has been imposed on the remain-
ing 77% of the SRF, but fishing, recreation, and non-timber forest
product extraction are allowed – controlled through permits, fees
and forest patrols. The SRF provides crucial habitat for a number
of rare and charismatic animals such as the Bengal tiger (Barlow
et al., 2008), Irrawaddy dolphin (Smith et al., 2010), and sawfish
(Pristidae)(Hossain et al., 2015). It is split into four ranges; from
West to East these are: Satkhira, Khulna, Chandpai, and Sarankhola
(Fig. 1).
The SRF also sustains a large fishery of local and national
importance (Bladon et al., 2014); for example, fisheries account
for nearly 7% of Bangladesh’s export earnings (DoF, 2008). Two
government agencies are responsible for fisheries management
in the SRF: national regulations are implemented by the Depart-
ment of Fisheries (DoF), but it is the Forestry Department (FD) that
has responsibility for enforcing those laws in the SRF and up to
20 km offshore (Hoq, 2007). Infighting between these two agen-
cies, overlapping bureaucracy, insufficient capacity, and corruption
have been cited as reasons for ineffective enforcement (Hoq, 2007;
Hossain et al., 2015; Islam, 2003). To make matters worse, anec-
dotal evidence suggests the presence of dacoites, a group of pirates
(people undertaking illegal activities at sea) that rob fishers of their
catch and other possessions.
The inshore, estuarine and coastal fisheries of the SRF are pre-
dominantly artisanal, with gears deployed along the coast and
within natural canals called ‘khals’ that run through the mangrove
forest. Major gears targeting finfish include: standard set bag net
(behundi or bendi jal), narrow set bag net (kol jal), long-shore net
(charpata jal), creek net (khalpata jal), cast net (khepla jal), and long-
lines (borshi). Another notable gear is the post-larvae set bag net
(net jal) that targets shrimp fry; approximately 120,000 people fish
using this gear in the Bangladesh Sundarbans, which involves walk-
ing along the riverbanks with hand-held nets (Hoq, 2008). Very
little recent research has focused on the ecological impacts of fish-
ing gears other than the post-larvae set bag net (e.g. Hoq et al.,
2006).
Indeed, no detailed studies on the ecological status of the
Sundarbans fisheries have been carried out since the mid-1990s
(Chantarasri, 1998; Smith, 1995). Since then, the bulk of the lit-
erature on Sundarbans fisheries has consisted primarily of review
documents. For example, IPAC (2010) review the drivers of fisheries
resource exploitation and assert that amendments should be made
to existing fisheries policies and laws; the study is primarily a litera-
ture review supplemented with (unspecified) ‘discussion meetings’
and field visits. Hoq (2007) provides an alternative synthesis that
includes coarse secondary data on Sundarbans fisheries produc-
tion, a thorough overview of fishing regulations, and a review of the
impacts of shrimp farming and post-larvae collection. In addition to
these works, a limited amount of primary data has been gathered on
discrete topics such as gear usage (Hoq, 2008), shrimp post-larvae
abundance (Hoq et al., 2006), and the social impacts of post-larvae
fishing (Ahmed et al., 2010). Social studies have focused on fisher
livelihoods (e.g., Islam and Chuenpagdee, 2013), as opposed to
eliciting data on fisher AAC towards existing and proposed fish-
ing legislation. Multi-disciplinary research to inform management
plans and conservation strategies for the Bangladesh Sundarbans
fisheries is strongly recommended (Islam and Wahab, 2005). Ulti-
mately, the current state of knowledge has to be gleaned from a
limited number of discrete studies published over the last decade.
The findings of these studies however, can be used to cross-check
those of FREA. These points, plus the apparent threat to fishery
sustainability makes the Bangladesh Sundarbans a suitable site in
which to apply FREA: there is a clear need to understand the views
that fishers hold towards fishing regulations, and gather primary
quantitative data from which clearer research and management
directions can be identified.
3. Methods
Prior to commencing the main fieldwork, primary and sec-
ondary background research was conducted along with a scoping
visit, outlined below. This is followed by description of the eco-
logical, spatial, and social research methods that make up the
main fieldwork of FREA. In conceptualising the research frame-
work, regulations are broadly categorised as1: ‘species’, ‘gear’, and
‘locational’ (see Fig. 2).
3.1. Primary and secondary background research
Background information was elicited for secondary (literature)
and then primary (interview) sources. Relevant published and
grey literature (e.g. university theses, government reports, NGO
reports etc.) was examined primarily to identify and categorise
both existing and proposed fishing regulations (see Table 2). These
documents also provided background information on past research
and helped identify key-informants and potential focal villages in
which to conduct the fieldwork. Existing regulations were iden-
tified through legal documents such as National Acts and Fishing
Codes. A formal letter to the relevant government authority was
required to acquire an official and up-to-date list of fishing regula-
1
A fourth component would be ‘time’, e.g. seasonal bans. However, since FREA
only produces a snapshot at a given point in time, the time component is removed
from the conceptualisation. It is made explicit however, that the framework can −
and indeed should − be repeated to account for seasonality or to compile a data set
over time that allows trends to be identified.

Fig. 2. Conceptualisation of ‘Fishing Regulation Effectiveness and Acceptability’
(FREA) Framework showing the two overarching aims of fishing regulations (out-
side text), main method types that gather data to inform those components (black
bold text), several individual methods (dark purple text), three regulation categories
(pink text), and two regulation sets (orange text). The framework operates in a top-
bottom direction since the background research phase is a pre-requisite to all that
follows, while social, ecological, and spatial elements are later conducted in tandem
(depicted by the three-way yin-yang). Lower crescent depicts data interpretation
and final recommendation phase. (For interpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
tions. Proposed regulations were identified through the literature
and semi-structured interviews that were conduced with relevant
members of government agencies responsible for enacting and
enforcing fishing regulations, as well as NGOs and academics (based
on Pomeroy et al., 2015) (see Table S1). Interviews were conducted
at the start and end of fieldwork, with the former helping in design-
ing the AAC questionnaire (see below), as well as eliciting sensitive
information that may not have been published. The latter can be
used to verify findings, and double as an opportunity to present
preliminary results to the decision makers that can use them, such
as government officials.
3.2. Scoping visit
Following the background research, but before starting the main
fieldwork, a scoping visit was conducted to (a) obtain informa-
tion regarding the types and timings of fishing activities, and (b)
select four focal villages for the main fieldwork. Fishing informa-
tion was elicited through discussions with villagers, depot (landing
site) managers, and village heads. Fishing calendars were drawn
up to inform fieldwork logistics, such as to show in what season
different gears are used. In the case of the Sundarbans, fishers plan
fishing trips according to the lunar cycle, maximising their efforts
during the highest tides. Fishing trips typically begin three days
before and continue until three days after the new and full moon,
meaning that a week of fishing is followed by a week of no fishing.
The suitability of each village for conducting FREA was considered
according to a range of criteria (partly informed by Garces et al.,
2010):
• Be well known across the region for its fishing activities
• Not be adjacent to other focal villages (for good spatial compari-
son)
• Contain or be located near to a large fishing depot where catches
are landed
• Have been visited during the familiarization visit and considered
to be safe and accessible
• Clear demonstration of willingness to participate in the research
from the village chief and community
• Good links between the community and the in-country
research/conservation organization
Field methods were tested in four villages: two from Satkhira
range (Harinagar and Munshiganj), and two from Khulna range
(Jorshing and Kalabogi) (Fig. 1). This decision led to a broad geo-
graphical overview and allowed potential comparisons within
villages, between villages within a range, and between ranges. The
authors conducted all fieldwork – occasionally with help from one
or two research assistants – between January and February 2012.
3.3. Ecological considerations
Some researchers use indirect methods to elicit catch data such
as logbooks (e.g. Hutubessy et al., 2014) and creel surveys – where
fishers estimate their catches during interviews (e.g. Lockwood,
2000). However, direct catch analysis generates more precise data
(Methot and Wetzel, 2013). The direct methods outlined here
attempt to minimize time, cost, and effort, which are often cited
as disadvantages to such direct approaches. Fishers willing to be
involved were identified through contact with village depot own-
ers (landing site managers). Participating fishers were selected on
the basis of a number of criteria:
• Be known to a depot owner or village head (ideally both)
• Be able to spare time that day, to come to the boat for briefing
• Be able to voluntarily spare some time during the morning, before
landing the catch in the village, to allow adequate analysis time
on the research boat
• Be going fishing for one day/night only
• Be partaking in only one fishing episode per day (and if they fished
first in one area and then another, catches were kept separate)
• Be using a gear for which data was required
• Be able to provide contact details, as they would be borrowing a
GPS receiver
• Be able to prove during the briefing that they were able and moti-
vated to use the GPS
Once identified, fishers were invited to the research vessel (or
another quiet location) where details of their next fishing opera-
tion were taken (e.g. gear specifics, likely duration, potential catch
weight), and a rendezvous time and place was arranged for delivery
of the catch. Arrival times were staggered as much as much as possi-
ble to avoid overstretching the research team during catch analysis.
Per diem compensation or in-kind payments for time/revenue lost
during analysis was given since fishers arrived at the research boat
en route to the depot where they were eager to sell their catch
first. Upon arrival, each catch was sorted to species level. The total
catch weight for all individuals of each species was then noted.
Subsequently, each individual of each species was then weighed
and total length measured, allowing length-weight coefficients to
be determined. While ideally every individual should be weighed
and measured, in situations where the catch was particularly large
and/or where time was limited, the total weight and total num-
ber of individuals of each species was taken, and then weight and
length measurements were taken for a random subsample of 20
individuals of each species. If a species could not be identified, a
sample was retained for identification.
A large number of species were typically caught from tropi-
cal multi-species, multi-gear fisheries. As such, a number of focal
species were selected for in-depth analysis based on a high fre-
quency of occurrence (across catches of different gears) and/or a
high number of individuals. In-depth analysis included using esti-
mates of length at sexual maturity that was obtained from the

Table 2
Existing and proposed fishing regulations for the SRF (adapted from Hoq, 2007).
Regulation Description Legislation or source
Existing
E1. Restricted khals 18 canals (khals) closed permanently to allow
fish breeding
Khal Closure Regulation (1989)
E2. Protected sanctuaries Fishing is permanently prohibited in three
wildlife sanctuaries of SRF: Sundarbans East
(Bagerhat), Sundarbans West (Satkhira) and
Sundarbans South (Khulna).
Wildlife Sanctuary Regulations (1999)
E3. Fish closed season Fishing in SRF closed to P. pangasius, P. canius,
L. calcarifer, M. rosenbergii and S. serrata from
1st May to 30th June to allow breeding. It is
illegal to catch, process, and sell hilsa smaller
than 25 cm during the closed season
(November-June).
Closed Season Regulation (2000) and Protection
and Conservation of Fish Act (1950)
E4. Crab closed season Closure of SRF to crab fishing from December
to February to allow breeding.
Collection and Export of Live Crab Regulation
(1995)
E5. Gear bans Illegal to use fixed engine fishing gears (set bag
net, post-larvae set bag net, shore net, canal
gillnet) in SRF
Hunting and Fishing Rules (1959)
E6. Poison ban Illegal to use poison and explosives in SRF Hunting and Fishing Rules (1959)
E7. Dewatering khal ban Illegal to dam or bale water in a canal of SRF Hunting and Fishing Rules (1959)
E8. Blocking khal ban It is illegal to block a khal with a net or string a
rope transversely across a khal.
Imposed by FD (Hoq, 2007)
Proposed
P1. More protected areas Implies increasing the area of protection
beyond the 23% of SRF currently
Chantarasri (1998)
P2. Fish size limit For example:
• 30 cm for Lates calcarifer
• 10 cm for Johnius argentatus
• 23 cm for Tenualosa ilisha
Chantarasri (1998) and Hoq (2007)
P3. Fish catch limit Maintenance of annual harvest limit for
various species, initially T. ilisha, all catfishes
and mud crab
Chantarasri (1998)
P4. Mesh size limit The only legal mesh size for all gill nets, lift
nets, shore seines and set bag nets is 5 cm.
Hoq (2007)
P5. More gear bans Cast nets, gill nets, and longlines. Excludes
consideration of set-bag net targeting shrimp
fry (see P6)
Hoq (2007)
P6. Shrimp fry ban Restriction of shrimp fry catch to boundary
rivers only
Chantarasri (1998)
P7. Small fish release Release of small fishes back to the water
caught in shrimp fry collection nets
Chantarasri (1998)
online database, FishBase (Froese and Pauly, 2011) to estimate the
percentage of individuals caught by each gear type that may have
not reached sexual maturity (akin to Froese, 2004). In any catch,
individuals will be extracted before they have reached sexual matu-
rity, meaning they will not have had a chance to spawn and restock
the waterways. The more this happens, the less sustainable the
method of fishing is, and the more susceptible the stock is to col-
lapse.
3.4. Spatial considerations
Spatial research methods involved mapping fishing grounds
using GPS receivers and conducting basic GIS analysis to illustrate
where specific gears were deployed. Since the catches that were
analysed came from these mapped fishing operations, there was
strong commensurability between the location of gear deployment,
type of gear, and catch composition. A member of the research
team explained to participating fishers how to use the ‘track’ fea-
ture of a GPS receiver. Terminology was simplified and similarities
between the receiver and a mobile phone were made to put the
participants’ minds at ease. The GPS receiver was off when the
fishers leave for their fishing trip, was turned on upon arrival at
their fishing grounds, and turned off upon leaving. Data were ana-
lysed in ArcView. Maps were created depicting colour-coded gear
deployments and the village that each fishing trip had left from.
This approach differs from often-used map-based interviews where
informants record fishing grounds on individual hard copy maps
(Daw, 2008; Hall and Close, 2007). With the falling cost and easy-
of-use of many GPS receivers, the method outlined here is no more
time consuming and yields more precise data. To some extent the
number of catches that can be analysed each day depends on the
number of GPS receivers that are available. However, this is a minor
issue since if many fishers with the same gear travel to the same
grounds in convoy, only one receiver need be provided. This single
track can then proxy for all proximal operations.
3.5. Social considerations
A questionnaire was designed to elicit AAC data from fishers.
Respondents were selected through a random household sample
that was made in each of the four focal villages, and attention was
given to the gears used by each fisher to ensure the sample was
representative of village-wide gear use at the time of fieldwork.
Interviews were conducted face-to-face, one-to-one, and followed
best ethical practices (see Hammett et al., 2015). After respon-
dent details were recorded (e.g., age, village of residence, number
of years fishing, gears used), phase one asked respondents about
their awareness of fisheries regulations. Responses were scored on
a Likert scale of 1–5 according to how much the respondent knew,
akin to the approach used by McClanahan et al. (2009) and Thomas

Fig. 3. Frequency of occurrence of fish species in each catch. N = 26. Species identified to genus level have been grouped with those identified in the same genus, e.g., Eleotris
fusca and Eleotris sp. are both denoted Eleotris sp.
et al. (2015). Scoring was based on set criteria that must be fulfilled
(i.e., specific terms stated by the respondent). An example for the
khal closure law is as follows: if villagers could name more than
half of the khals where fishing was prohibited, they were awarded
an awareness score of 5; less than half but more than two, 4; one
or two khals, 3; failure to name any khals but knowledge of the
law, 2; vague knowledge of the law, 1; no knowledge, 0. For all
scoring criteria, see Table S2. Hence, if for a given regulation the
mean score for all respondents were 5, there would be unanimous
detailed awareness of the regulation, while if the mean score were 0
then no respondents would have any knowledge that the regulation
existed.
Phase two asked if respondents accepted each regulation. At this
point, the full details (from Table 2) of each regulation were dis-
closed. No criteria were required since respondents were free to
select a number between 1 (strongly disapprove) and 5 (strongly
approve) based on their personal opinion of the regulation. Phase
three asked about compliance. The scale was similar (1 = frequent
non-compliance; 5 = zero non-compliance), but a ‘don’t know’
option was included so that respondents did not have to explic-
itly state they broke the law. A ‘don’t know’ was scored as a 2.
Respondents could make an informed retrospective consideration
as to what extent they might have complied with a regulation or
not. Phase four described the proposed regulations (according to
Table 2) and then followed the same protocol as phase two. Upon
completion, respondents were invited to talk more freely about
fishing-related issues. It is acknowledged that respondents could
lie and say a higher number for phases two, three and four, but this
problem is inherent with this type of survey. No indications were
observed that respondents felt uncomfortable discussing compli-
ance; respondents had been assured of complete anonymity, and
those that did not opt for the ‘don’t know’ option were generally
very open to explaining the reasons for their non-compliance –
wilful or otherwise – as discussed later.
4. Results
This section presents data that can be collected through use of
FREA. Since the assessment framework focuses on breadth rather
than depth, some of these data are based on fairly small sample
sizes. Nevertheless, many of the results from the demonstration
site still allow useful inferences to be made about fisheries regula-
tions in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Given the large variety of data
collected, only certain examples are included (see Supplementary
material for more). Eight existing laws and seven proposed laws
were identified (Table 2) from the background research and used
to inform the AAC questionnaire.
4.1. Ecological considerations
Data were obtained from 26 catches across five different gear
types: set bag net (6); shore net (13); creek net/canal gillnet (4);
cast net (2); narrow set bag net (1). All operations involved inshore
fishing using a non-mechanised dingi boat containing 2–3 fishers.
Mesh sizes ranged from 0.5–2 cm. Fishing duration varied between
120 and 960 min, but most were around 300 min. Travel times from
the village of residence varied from 30 to 150 min. In every case,
one gear was deployed once. In total 62 species were recorded.
In some circumstances identification could only be carried out to
genus level. For a list of those identified to species level and the
specific catches they were found in see Table S3. Most species had
a low frequency of occurrence i.e. found in <5 of the 26 catches
(Fig. 3). Glossogobius giurus was the most ubiquitous species, found
in 22 of 26 catches, followed by Liza parsia, found in 20 of 26. Butis
melanostigma, Toxotes chatareus, Stigmatogobius sadanundio, Ilisha
megaloptera and Scatophagus argus were also found in a relatively
high number of catches (>50%).
Most species were also found in low total numbers i.e. <50
individuals across the 26 catches. Only eight species were found
in numbers of >100 (L. parsia, G. giurus, Acanthropagrus latus, I.
Megaloptera, S. argus, S. sadanundio, Anadontostoma chacunda and
B. melanostigma). L. parsia (1652) and G.giurus (725) were found in
the highest numbers (Fig. 4).
Frequency of occurrence is predominantly related to distribu-
tion, and total numbers to abundance, yet results for both may be
indicative of the gears used. It was on this basis that nine focal
species were selected for further analysis. A subjective assessment
was made on the basis of both frequency of occurrence and total
numbers, with a species selected for further analysis if it was found
in either >50% of the catches or in total numbers of >100. It is
acknowledged that these species are not the only ones of inter-
est, but that they are key species used to demonstrate how larger

Fig. 4. Number of individuals of each species across all catches. N = 26. Species identified to genus level have been grouped with those identified in the same genus, e.g.,
Eleotris fusca and Eleotris sp. are both denoted Eleotris sp.
Fig. 5. Size distribution of Liza parsia caught using (top L-R) standard set bag net, long-shore net, creek net, (bottom L-R) cast net, narrow set bag net. Red line indicates the
length at sexual maturity, at 10.6 cm (SE 7.9–14.0), obtained using the life history tool on FishBase. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
datasets could be analysed. Using the nine focal species as exam-
ples, some conclusions can be drawn about the selectivity of each
gear type. One example is provided here, for L. parsia (Fig. 5). Results
for the other eight focal species can be found in the Supplementary
material (Table S4).
The size distributions of L. parsia caught using standard set bag
net, long-shore net, creek net and cast net were fairly similar:
between 6 and 16 cm in length, with a peak between 8 and 10 cm.
However, when compared to narrow set bag net, these gears appear
to be catching large proportions of small individuals. For example,
72.7% of creek net catch and 77.5% of cast net catch were below the
estimated length at sexual maturity, compared to 11.8% of individ-
uals caught using narrow set bag net. Although this indicates that
narrow set bag net tends to catch more sexually mature L. parsia
than the other gears do, it is important to note that the sample
size for narrow set bag net is very small because few fishers were

using it during the time of fieldwork. Finally, if sample sizes are suf-
ficient, inter-gear catch variability can be explored by comparing
the number of individuals of each species that are caught by dif-
ferent operations deploying the same gear type. This is possible for
long-shore net (n = 13), using the nine focal species as an example
(Fig. S1).
4.2. Spatial considerations
Fishers were usually willing to take the GPS receivers, were
very careful with them, and fully understood how to operate them
on every occasion; there were no problems with misunderstand-
ings, battery life, loss or damage. Some 20 gear deployments were
mapped and examples can be seen in Fig. 6. Despite small datasets,
the potential of the method is evident and some patterns emerge.
All gears are deployed very close to shore. Creek net is typically
deployed at the channel mouth, while long-shore net is often
deployed along the coastline or further into the channels of the
mangrove forest.
4.3. Social considerations
AAC data were elicited from 67 respondents across four villages;
age range 22–70 yrs; fishing experience 3–55 yrs. There was consid-
erable variation among the mean awareness and compliance scores
for the existing regulations, while the acceptability level was more
consistent. For the proposed regulations however, the acceptability
scores also showed substantial variation, and all proposed regula-
tions were considered less acceptable than all existing regulations
(Fig. 7).
The awareness-level differs starkly for different existing reg-
ulations. Khal closures, crab closed seasons, gear bans, and the
illegalities of poison fishing were all fairly well known (>3). How-
ever, knowledge of protected sanctuaries, finfish closed seasons,
and laws against dewatering and blocking khals were very low
(<2). Dewatering and blocking khals only scored ∼1.3 for aware-
ness. However, upon learning of the rationale for the regulation,
many villagers thought it was a good idea to keep some khals free
of fishing (acceptability scores of 3.9 and 3.6, respectively).
The acceptability scores for existing regulations were all rela-
tively high (>3.6); few existing laws were disputed. The ban on
poison fishing had the highest acceptability score (4.4) and indeed
through discussions with respondents it emerged that there was
negative stigma attached to breaking this regulation. It is worth
noting that the correlation between high (low) awareness and high
(low) acceptability is quite indistinct, suggesting that the former
is not indicative of the latter. Compliance scores for the existing
regulations varied between 4 for poison fishing and 2.1 for block-
ing khals and sanctuaries. In the latter case, results suggest this
is due to low levels of awareness (1.4); for example, one respon-
dent with a low compliance score thought the sanctuaries no longer
belonged to Bangladesh and had been sold to another country or
private investor.
5. Discussion
5.1. The Bangladesh case study
5.1.1. How socially appropriate are the existing fishing
regulations?
Acceptability scores were often higher than awareness scores
suggesting that many regulations – particularly the protected sanc-
tuaries, finfish closed seasons, and laws against dewatering and
blocking khals – need greater publicising in order to improve com-
pliance. For example, providing a list or map of the banned khals on
village notice boards, and erecting signs at khal entrances would be
simple, cost-effective actions to improve awareness. Besides low
awareness, another reason for low compliance was the perceived
lack of enforcement. Generally, once respondents are informed
about the sanctuary regulation, results suggest that they accept
the rationale. Hence, the law is potentially efficient, but would
again benefit from outreach and awareness-raising efforts. Mass
awareness campaigns have been used effectively in the Indian Sun-
darbans (Sarkar and Bhattacharya, 2003). Such outreach should
also involve an education component since our qualitative data
(from informal discussions with fishers) suggests that fishers sel-
dom acknowledge the relationship between their harvest practices
and fish abundance and bycatch mortality − similar findings form
the Indian Sundarbans have been reported (e.g. Philcox et al., 2010).
Fishers are generally aware that certain fisheries are closed for
periods of the year and understand why the closed season benefits
species recoveries and improves their future catches. Yet, compli-
ance with this regulation is low (2.4) since fishers do not want
to lose out if others break this law, while some respondents per-
ceive the chance of facing a sanction to be low enough to take
the risk. More monitoring and enforcement as well as checks for
banned species in catches landed at depots might be a way to tar-
get wrongdoing. Meanwhile, though a number of specific gear bans
are known, respondents were insistent that enforcing the ban on
the post larvae set bag net would be disproportionately beneficial
for sustaining fish stocks – compared to the laws on khals, closed
seasons, and sanctuaries. While fishers may be using post larvae set
bag nets as a scapegoat to avoid admitting to the flaws of their gears
of choice, the ecological devastation caused by this particular fish-
ing gear (e.g., very high bycatch) is highlighted in the literature,
supporting their perceptions (e.g. Hoq et al., 2006). Compliance
with gear bans is low (2.8), possibly because many fishers use post
larvae set bag net opportunistically during the peak post-larvae
season. Since this hand-held gear is operated manually along the
riverbanks, greater enforcement patrols along the riverbanks may
be warranted, rather than applying such efforts offshore which is
what was cited as the priority in interviews with the FD.
A substantial spatial difference exists regarding awareness of
the poison fishing regulation. The average awareness score for
Khulna range is 4 while for Satkhira range it is 2.5. The former range
includes data from Kalabogi, which is notorious for the activity.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that people know the activ-
ity occurs, and that wrongdoers can be fined and imprisoned by
the FD – clearly demonstrating to all others in the village that the
activity is illegal. Anecdotal findings suggest that virtually no fish-
ers in Satkhira range use poison, which could suggest that with no
engagement, nor bad publicity (e.g. residents being imprisoned),
Satkhira residents are somewhat unfamiliar with the activity. Fish-
ers in Kalabogi were candid, claiming they don’t want to use poison,
but are desperate to catch more to feed the family so they bribe the
FD. However, the income settings in these two villages are similar,
so the need to fish to feed family members will likely be the same
in Satkhira. Thus, despite this purported defence of their actions, it
could be stipulated that Kalabogi respondents may be largely driven
to fish using poison by extra greed.
5.1.2. How ecologically effective are the existing fishing
regulations?
While the demonstration data set of 26 catches is quite small,
this subsection demonstrates the method’s potential worth in mak-
ing a quick assessment of the ecological impact of certain gears.
For clarity, the focus here is firstly on long-shore net, for which
13 catches were analysed, followed by a broader discussion of the
difficulties of multi-fisheries management, with a focus on L. parzia.
S. argus had a high frequency of occurrence (Fig. 3), was found
in high numbers (Fig. 4), but was caught almost solely using long-
shore nets – a gear used only along the shore (Table S3). However,

Fig. 6. GPS-mapped ﬁshing grounds for operations emanating from Harinagar (Satkhira range) and Kalabogi (Khulna range). One longline 600 hooks long was also mapped
but no catch data was obtained.
the long-shore net had a far higher sample size than the other gears
(Table 3), which likely made S. argus appear more abundant than it
probably is. S. argus is locally endangered (Hoq, 2007), and therefore
these results infer that rather than being an abundant species, it is
more likely to be subject to heavy ﬁshing pressure from long-shore
nets and in decline as a result. No species is caught uniformly by
the long-shore net, the closest are B. melanstigma and L. parsia, of
which individuals appear in 9 of the 13 catches, and S. argus in 10
of the 13. On the other hand, I. megaloptera was only caught in any
mentionable amount by one of the 13 long-shore net operations
(Fig. S1). Given that this species was the fourth most abundant in
terms of number of individuals across all gears surveyed, it follows
that it was almost consistently present in catches of the other gears
(Fig. 3), which suggests that long-shore net does not select for this
species to the same level as the other gears. Meanwhile, narrow set
bag nets generally caught many longer, mature individuals; while

Fig. 7. Mean awareness, acceptability, and compliance scores from 67 fishers towards eight existing and seven proposed fishing regulations relevant to the Bangladesh
Sundarbans. Error bars denote standard error.
this suggests the narrow set bag net could be a more sustainable
gear type, it is also possible that the large old spawners could need
protecting the most, depending on the species, and hence further
research is needed given the small sample size.
In multi-species, multi-gear fisheries, fishers can often adapt
their practices to comply with regulations to some degree e.g.
through fishing different areas, depths, seasons, times of day, and by
switching or modifying gear – as has been seen in Australia (Klaer
and Smith, 2012). However, the degree of adaptability afforded to
fishers depends on circumstances. For example, the results of FREA
suggest that fishing mortality by each gear type was moderate to
high, so given this is a multi-species fishery the cumulative fish-
ing impact from all gears may be unsustainable. L. parsia is one of
the most valuable species in Bangladesh (IPAC, 2010). In terms of
size distribution the impact on the species is similar by all gears
deployed in the SRF (except narrow set bag net) (Fig. 5). This infers
that a species ban would be difficult to implement effectively since
the degree to which fishers can avoid targeting L. paria is very
small, i.e. switching from one gear to another in a bid to comply
may ultimately prove futile. However, gear-specific bans may also
be ineffective, since the species is found ubiquitously in all gears.
This example further highlights the complexities and difficulties of
managing multi-species fisheries (Moutopoulos et al., 2013).
5.1.3. How socially appropriate are the proposed fishing
regulations?
Every proposed regulation was considered less acceptable
(all <3.6) than any existing regulation. This could suggest that either
some form of bias led respondents to overstate their acceptabil-
ity of existing regulations, or simply that the prospect of having
their fishing activities further restricted was generally rebuffed.
This result could be put down to ‘status quo bias’, a concept in which
respondents favor current situations over new ones (Samuelson
and Zeckhauser, 1988). Since they consider new regulations as
potentially detrimental to their livelihoods, convincing fishers of
the benefits can be difficult (Hadjimichael et al., 2013). There is
clear support for some regulations over others. For example, gear
bans appear to be more popular than restricting smaller mesh sizes
and setting catch limits, although this could be due to the ease of
remembering that certain gears are banned compared to remem-
bering specific details about mesh size. As stated, we recorded
specifics and the reasons why. It is widely considered that shrimp
post larvae nets are devastating fish numbers, because so many
finfish fry are caught as bycatch. Actually, some of these nets are
banned but without enforcement, which suggests that any policy
recommendations will have to involve an improvement in moni-
toring for compliance.
Overall, additional regulations were not favoured by fishers
because more laws mean more opportunities for them to be fined.
Fishers stated that, because of this, while additional laws could
help the ecosystem, there would be limited improvements to fisher
livelihoods, and they may even worsen. The particulars of fines
are not well documented in the literature. Fishing violations are
listed on the Bangladesh Boat License Certificate, but specific fine
amounts are not given. IPAC (2010) found that fishers reported
paying at least four fines per year, and that fines are seldom propor-
tionate to the type of violation committed. It seems that, alongside
the poverty and vulnerability faced by Bangladeshi coastal fishers,
what drives them to evade the law is the corruption within enforce-
ment authorities (Islam, 2003) and the knock-on resentment that
this instils. It has been suggested that fishers are more inclined to
non-comply with regulations to recover expenses incurred through
fines, which creates a “vicious circle of overexploitation and corrup-
tion” (Islam and Chuenpagdee, 2013).
5.1.4. What should be the particulars of the proposed regulations?
Gear bans were some of the most acceptable fishing regulations,
indicating scope for an increased focus on gear bans, which are rel-
atively easy to enforce compared with, say, size limits and species
bans. S. argus, for instance, which despite being locally endangered
(Hoq, 2007) is currently under no fishing regulation, would be eas-
ier to protect through a ban on long-shore nets than through a ban
on the species itself. S. argus breeds in the sea and migrates to fresh-
water to feed and grow, making it vulnerable to easy targeting with
this gear during migrations through the Sundarbans. Other expla-
nations for these observations exist such as S. argus happening to
be particularly abundant at the time of sampling – although field-
work was conducted outside of the species’ spawning season of
April-August. Although the narrow set bag net appears to be more
selective towards fish that are longer in size than other gears, this

could affect some species adversely, particularly during spawning
seasons.
Khal restrictions and protected sanctuaries were also accept-
able, though the prospect of increasing protected area coverage less
so. Restricted khals may be easier to build awareness about and to
monitor and enforce than protected sanctuaries. However both of
these approaches require robust science and constant monitoring
to ensure that protection of that area will have an ecological impact.
Furthermore, establishing new closed areas will likely stretch the
already limited enforcement capabilities of the FD, so it would per-
haps be more efficient to focus efforts on those protected areas that
already exist.
Size limits and small fish release regulations were also rela-
tively acceptable, but to a lesser extent. Small fish release might
be another way to protect S. argus, but setting an overall size limit
for all species would mean some sexually mature small fish would
be released unnecessarily, and by setting a limit for S. argus only at
its size of sexual maturity, this creates sorting work for the fisher.
Size limits through bans on the least selective gears would be a less
complex way forward. There is, however, a mounting literature dis-
puting the assumptions underlying the selective fishing paradigm,
particularly in broad, adaptive and low-tech fisheries like those in
the Sundarbans (e.g., Kolding and van Zwieten, 2011). Small fish
play an important role in food security in developing countries, and
when multi-species interactions are considered, size selectivity can
actually reduce total yields.
Catch limits were the least acceptable regulation, and one that
does not hold much promise in Bangladesh since it would likely
cause a shift in landings from depots to unofficial landing sites.
In our view, catch limits are not well suited to artisanal develop-
ing world fisheries, where food security is paramount. Measures
controlling fishing effort tend to be more controversial than those
focused on gear and fish size (McClanahan and Mangi, 2004). Catch
limits require specific monitoring and enforcement at landings sites
(and preferably on the water too) which simply isn’t feasible in the
Bangladesh Sundarbans right now given its large scale (i.e., large
number of official landing sites) and the limited enforcement capac-
ity of the FD. Even if these capacities were improved and catch limits
were enforced at major landings sites, fishers could easily land in
different areas to evade the authorities.
Ultimately, the greatest priority is to build technical, human,
and financial capacity for enforcement, and eradicate corruption
within enforcement authorities. New laws will have little impact,
no matter how appropriate, without enforcement. It should be
noted, of course, that this does not have to come from the top down.
Self-monitoring through some kind of co-management is usually
more effective in institutional contexts such as this. Stronger col-
laboration between the FD and other governmental agencies and
non-governmental organisations could be key to bringing about
any changes.
5.2. Positives of the fishing regulation effectiveness and
appropriateness (FREA) assessment framework
FREA is suitable for a number of purposes e.g.: (a) as a pilot sur-
vey to a broader research project, with pilots typically being more
readily funded since they require smaller amounts of money; (b)
a potential student project – the timespan and cost fits with most
western Masters projects that involve fieldwork abroad; (c) scien-
tists new to fisheries research and coastal management that may
have limited financial capacity, methodological know-how and/or
guidance. FREA meets the assessment framework criteria listed in
Table 1. The framework is quite ‘flexible’ since it could be applied
to a small artisanal fishery, lake and estuarine fisheries, or larger
coastal fisheries such as the Sundarbans. It is probably unsuitable
for larger offshore fisheries since the catches landed will be much
larger. It is also ‘comprehensive’ enabling a broad overview of the
fishery to be grasped, and ‘objective’ being based on empirical data.
FREA is also ‘cost-effective’ since equipment costs are minimal;
the only significant expenditures are scales for weighing catches, ID
guides, and GPS receivers. Most research organisations, and even
small NGOs have at least a few GPS receivers and these could be
pooled. Regardless, receiver prices are falling and equally, some GIS
software is now freely available for straightforward tasks such as
mapping tracks, e.g., Google Earth and QGIS. Similarly, ID books are
cheap and Internet resources are available for free e.g., FishBase. One
major cost consideration is manpower; face-to-face surveys can be
very expensive to carry out due to high labour cost, and we note that
online surveys could be an option in places where fishers poses the
technical capacity and have Internet access. Given the size of the
Sundarbans,for this demonstrationa researchboat was requiredfor
mobility. It aided the research by offering an isolated place to anal-
yse catches and brief participating fishers. In most circumstances
however, it is possible that boat hire costs can be avoided, either
by (a) going direct to the to the landings site – although this could
draw unwanted attention, or preferably (b) arranging a rendezvous
point near to the landing site and analyzing the catches there. These
latter points allude to the ‘pragmatic’ nature of the framework since
it can be tailored to local conditions.
With adequate preparation, FREA can be completed within a
few weeks of fieldwork. Some things can begin before arrival in
the field such as the literature review, arranging interviews with
key-informants, organizing logistics, and acquiring equipment.
Moreover, numerous catches can be compared simultaneously or
within the same morning. Furthermore, with clear instruction the
fishers themselves can conduct accurate GPS mapping. Battery life
and data storage when tracking are generally good, but if not,
receivers are returned on a daily cycle allowing daily data uploads
and battery replacements. While not necessarily a rapid frame-
work, FREA does minimize time for collecting a multiple types of
primary data and in this regard we consider it ‘quick to generate
information’. FREA is also ‘simple’ to perform with ‘transparent’
accounts of ‘scientifically sound methodologies’. While social sur-
veys can be difficult to perform, clear and transparent guidelines
and scoring protocols have been provided (see Supplementary
information). GIS skills are required, but it would be expected that
someone within a typical environmental science research orga-
nization could perform this. Tracks can be uploaded to Google
Earth easily. With catch ID it can initially take time for researchers
unfamiliar with the species to ‘get their eye in’ – however, this pro-
cess speeds up after a few attempts. From our experiences, fishers
themselves were keen to help sort catches, which demonstrates
‘stakeholder participation’. Finally, FREA is highly ‘replicable’ and
can form part of a longer-term monitoring study.
5.3. Limitations of the fishing regulation effectiveness and
appropriateness (FREA) assessment framework
As with any new framework, there were several challenges, not
all of which were limitations of the methodological design. These
are outlined here, with some recommendations on how they can
be minimized. Firstly, it is important to assert that the main pur-
pose of FREA is to broadly assess fishing regulations; it does not
purport to offer a thorough assessment of fishery status.2 How-
ever, FREA can be repeated to form part of a long-term monitoring
programme, meaning its usefulness as an ecological monitoring
approach could increase over time. In general however, since FREA
2
Similarly it does not consider market price fluctuations, fish consumption, and
number of fishers in the fishery − all of these things are external to the main purpose
of FREA.

creates a snapshot in time, it could be used within a few months/a
year of regulation implementation – depending on the objective of
the regulation; e.g., to see whether a new fishing gear ban is known
about and accepted, or whether the mandatory use of a bycatch
reduction device is having an effect on catches. During scoping,
annual fishing calendars can be created during focus groups with
fishers to show in what season different gears are used and inform
multi-season monitoring.
The number of available GPS receivers limited the number of
fishing grounds that could be mapped. However, more GPS distri-
bution means more catches to analyse the following day. As alluded
to earlier, it is important not to over-burden the research team or
else the quality of the catch analysis may suffer. All fishers want to
rush to the depot to sell their catch when it is freshest and when
the most customers are present − this limitation cannot be built
into the methodology. It is acknowledged that not all fishers may
be willing to reveal details of their fishing locations. However, fish-
ers are given the option of whether or not to participate in this
activity and our experience in Bangladesh suggests the main rea-
son for non-participation was fear for the safety of the GPS receiver
as explained below.
Spatial patterns are difficult to infer from the demonstration site,
given the small number of mapped tracks. However, further use of
this previously untested method is advocated since it was success-
ful in terms of implementation, and it is clear that with more routes,
previously unknown distributions of different fishing gears, effort,
and possibly species assemblages, can be uncovered. Meanwhile, to
expand the social survey, respondents could be asked about the pre-
dicted compliance level for the proposed regulations (i.e., adding
another bar to P1-P7 in Fig. 7), which could test whether expected
compliance is positively correlated with acceptability levels.
The reliance on locals for information about fishing dates
can create miscommunications, meaning research days could be
missed. To prevent this, it is recommended that such informa-
tion is verified with other groups of fishers, depot managers, and
the lunar calendar. Meanwhile, the potential reliance on govern-
ment authorities for legislative documents and research permits
can delay the start. Hence, it is recommended that such people
be contacted in advance to secure these important documents.
FREA does not give strict consideration to governability (e.g., the
capacity of the FD to enforce fishing regulations, which is appar-
ently poor − Islam, 2003), although coarse inferences can be made
through information elicited during the primary and secondary
background research, and guidance to incorporate this can be found
in Chuenpagdee and Jensoft (2009).
There are a number of external factors that cannot be directly
countered by any methodological means. The first is the weather:
bad weather means no fishing. The monsoon, for instance, is a lim-
itation to all research activities in the Sundarbans. While this is an
extreme example, it is recommended that annual weather data are
consulted, and fieldwork scheduled accordingly, to avoid wasted
days in the field. A second external factor in Bangladesh was dacoite
activity, which hindered progress at one time during which fishers
were unwilling to take GPS receivers through fear they would be
stolen by the dacoites. Indeed, some fishers decide not go fishing at
all during times of high dacoite presence. While specific to this loca-
tion, similar problems may exist elsewhere. Despite the above, the
flexible nature of FREA does allow these issues to be countered indi-
rectly, since the background research and social research methods
can still be conducted on days of no fishing.
6. Conclusion
A novel framework is presented that assesses the societal appro-
priateness and ecological effectiveness of fishing regulations. The
framework is multi-disciplinary, uniquely combining ecological,
spatial, and social research methods to reveal the knowledge,
opinions, activities, and impacts of fishers. The framework is
applied to a fishery in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Ultimately,
these fishers support the rationale of existing laws, but may be
driven to non-compliance by their hardship, which is exacer-
bated by the presence of dacoites and corrupt law enforcement
agencies. For the same reasons, proposed laws are viewed unfa-
vorably. Findings from FREA allow a number of suggestions for
improving specific gear and species regulations to be made. In
addition, broader management recommendations were suggested
including spatially-targeted enforcement, awareness-raising, and
capacity-building approaches. The broader merits and limitations
of the framework are made explicit. The framework is particularly
applicable to data-poor fisheries in developing countries such as
Bangladesh, but might need further adaptation in other nations. The
tool can help academics, practitioners, and government agencies,
and is particularly useful as step-by-step guide for inexperienced
fisheries researchers.
Acknowledgments
We thank A. Hossain, R. Hassan, R. Azam of WildTeam for help
in the field, and P. Lahann, A. Islam, A. Barlow, and C. Greenwood
Barlow of WildTeam for logistical and managerial support. H. Islam
is acknowledged for help with GIS. We are grateful to the comments
of two anonymous reviewers and T. Davies, who made insightful
comments that have improved this manuscript. Fieldwork funding
came from a private donor that wishes to remain anonymous.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,
in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.07.
010.
References
Ahmed, N., Troell, M., Allison, E.H., Muir, J.F., 2010. Prawn postlarvae fishing in
coastal Bangladesh: challenges for sustainable livelihoods. Mar. Policy 34,
218–227.
Barlow, A.C.D., Ahmed, M.I.U., Rahman, M.M., Howlader, A., Smith, A.C., Smith,
J.L.D., 2008. Linking monitoring and intervention for improved management of
tigers in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2031–2040.
Bladon, A.J., Short, K.M., Mohammed, E.Y., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2014. Payments for
ecosystem services in developing world fisheries. Fish Fish., http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/faf.12095 (Epub ahead of print).
Borja, A., Bricker, S.B., Dauer, D.M., Demetriades, N.T., Ferreira, J.G., Forbes, A.T.,
Hutchings, P., Jia, X., Kenchington, R., Marques, J.C., Zhu, C., 2008. Overview of
integrative tools and methods in assessing ecological integrity in estuarine and
coastal systems worldwide. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 1519–1537.
Carruthers, T.R., Punt, A.E., Walters, C.J., MacCall, A., McAllister, M.K., Dick, E.J.,
Cope, J., 2014. Evaluating methods for setting catch limits in data-limited
fisheries. Fish. Res. 153, 48–68.
Catedrilla, L.C., Espectato, L.N., Serofia, G.D., Jimenez, C.N., 2012. Fisheries law
enforcement and compliance in District 1, Iloilo Province, Philippines. Ocean
Coastal Manage. 60, 31–37.
Chantarasri, S., 1998. Fisheries resources management for the sundarbans reserved
forest. In: Integrated Resource Development of the Sundarbans Reserved
Forest, Bangladesh (BGD/84/056). FAO/UNDP, Khulna, Bangladesh http://www.
fao.org/docrep/field/383933.htm.
Chuenpagdee, R., Jensoft, S., 2009. Governability assessment for fisheries and
coastal systems: a reality check. Hum. Ecol. 37, 109–120.
Chuenpagdee, R. (Ed.), 2011. World Small-Scale Fisheries Contemporary Visions.
Eburon Delft, Netherlands, p. 400.
Cisse, A.A., Blanchard, F., Guyader, O., 2014. Sustainability of tropical small-scale
fisheries: integrated assessment in French Guiana. Mar. Policy 44, 397–405.
Dastidar, R., 2009. Capitalist Development and Technological Innovation in
Open-Water Fisheries: Impacts on Traditional ‘Water-Slave’ Fishing
Communities of Southeastern Bangladesh. PhD Thesis. Chittagong University,
Bangladesh, pp. 329.
Daw, T.M., 2008. Spatial distribution of effort by artisanal fishers Exploring
economic factors affecting the lobster fisheries of the Corn Islands, Nicaragua.
Fish. Res. 90, 17–25.

de la Torre-Castro, M., Lindstrom, L., 2010. Fishing institutions Addressing
regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive elements to enhance fisheries
management. Mar. Pol. 34, 77–84.
DoF (Department of Fisheries), 2008. Matshya Pakkhya Saranika. Department of
Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Erisman, B.E., Apel, A.M., MacCall, A.D., Román, M.J., Fujita, R., 2014. The influence
of gear selectivity and spawning behavior on a data-poor assessment of a
spawning aggregation fishery. Fish. Res. 159, 75–87.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 2003. FAO Global
Mangrove Area Estimate. FAO, Rome.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2014. The State of
World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Opportunities and Challenges. FAO,
Bangkok, pp. 243.
Froese, R., Pauly, D. (Eds.), 2011. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication
www.fishbase.org.
Froese, R., 2004. Keep it simple: three indicators to deal with overfishing. Fish Fish.
5, 86–91.
Garces, L.R., Pido, M.D., Pomeroy, R.S., Koeshendrajana, S., Prisantoso, B.I., Fatan,
N.A., Adhuri, D., Raiful, T., Rizal, S., Tewfik, A., Dey, M., 2010. Rapid assessment
of community needs and fisheries status in tsunami-affected communities in
Aceh Province, Indonesia. Ocean Coastal Manage. 53, 69–79.
Hadjimichael, M., Kaiser, M.J., Edwards-Jones, G., 2013. The impact of regulatory
obligations on fishers’ income: identifying perceptions using a market-testing
tool. Fish. Res. 137, 129–140.
Hall, G.B., Close, C.H., 2007. Local knowledge assessment for a small-scale fishery
using geographic information systems. Fish. Res. 83, 11–22.
Hammett, D., Twyman, C., Graham, M., 2015. Research And Fieldwork in
Development. Routledge, pp. 352.
Hauck, M., 2008. Rethinking small-scale fisheries compliance. Mar. Pol. 32,
635–642.
Hobday, A.J., Smith, A.D.M., Stobutzki, I., Bulman, C., Daley, R., Dambacher, J., Deng,
R., Dowdney, J., Fuller, M., Furlani, D., Griffiths, S.P., Johnson, D., Kenyon, R.,
Knuckey, I.A., Ling, S.D., Pitcher, R., Sainsbury, K.J., Sporcic, M., Smith, T.,
Walker, T., Wayte, S., Webb, H., Williams, A., Wise, B.S., Zhou, S., 2011.
Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing. Fish. Res. 108, 372–384.
Hoq, M.E., Wahab, M.A., Islam, M.N., 2006. Hydrographic status of Sundarbans
mangrove, Bangladesh with special reference to post-larvae and juveniles fish
and shrimp abundance. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 14, 79–93.
Hoq, M.E., 2007. An analysis of fisheries exploitation and management practices in
Sundarbans mangrove ecosystem, Bangladesh. Ocean Coastal Manage. 50,
411–427.
Hoq, M.E., 2008. Sundarbans Mangrove: Fish and Fisheries Ecology, Resources,
Productivity and Management Perspectives. Graphic Media, Dhaka,
Bangladesh, pp. 271.
Hossain, M.A., Thompson, B.S., Chowdury, G.W., Mohsanin, S., Fahad, Z.H.,
Koldewey, H.J., Islam, M.A., 2015. Sawfish exploitation and status in
Bangladesh. Aquat. Conserv. 25, 781–799.
Hussain, M.G., 2010. Freshwater fishes of Bangladesh Fisheries, biodiversity and
habitat. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manage. 13, 85–93.
Hutubessy, B.G., Mosse, J.W., van Zwieten, P.A.M., Hayward, P., 2014. Towards an
ecosystem approach to small island fisheries: a preliminary study of a balanced
fishery in Kotania Bay (Seram Island, Indonesia). J. Mar. Island. Cult. 3, 98–105.
IPAC (Integrated Protected Area Co-management), 2010. Study on the
Conservation and Management of Fisheries Resources of the Sundarbans.
USAID (United States Agency for International Development), Dhaka,
Bangladesh http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf docs/pnaed073.pdf.
Imperial, M.T., Yandle, T., 2005. Taking institutions seriously: using the IAD
framework to analyze fisheries policy. Soc. Nat. Resour. 18, 493–509.
Islam, M.M., Chuenpagdee, R., 2013. Negotiating risk and poverty in mangrove
fishing communities of the Bangladesh Sundarbans. MAST 12, 7.
Islam, S., Wahab, A., 2005. A review on the present status and management of
mangrove wetland habitat resources in Bangladesh with emphasis on
mangrove fisheries and aquaculture. Hydrobiologia 542, 165–190.
Islam, S., 2003. Perspectives of the coastal and marine fisheries of the Bay of
Bengal, Bangladesh. Ocean Coastal Manage. 46, 736–796.
Klaer, N.L., Smith, D.C., 2012. Determining primary and companion species in a
multi-species fishery: implications for TAC setting. Mar. Policy 36, 606–612.
Kolding, J., van Zwieten, P., 2011. The tragedy of our legacy: how do global
management discourses affect small-scale fisheries in the South? Forum Dev.
Stud. 83 (3), 267–297.
Lam, M.E., Pitcher, T.J., 2012. The ethical dimensions of fisheries. Curr. Opin.
Environ. Sustainability 4, 364–373.
Lockwood, S.J., 2000. The effect of fishing on marine ecosystem and communities.
Aquat. Conserv. 10, 226–227.
Martell, S., Froese, R., 2013. A simple method for estimating MSY from catch and
resilience. Fish Fish. 14, 504–514.
McClanahan, T.R., Mangi, S.C., 2004. Gear-based management of a tropical artisanal
fishery based on species selectivity and capture size. Fish. Manage. Ecol. 11,
51–60.
McClanahan, T.R., Cinner, J.E., Kamukuru, A.T., Abunge, C., Ndagala, J., 2009.
Management preferences, perceived benefits and conflicts among resource
users and managers in the Mafia Island Marine Park, Tanzania. Environ.
Conserv. 35, 340–350.
McClanahan, T.R., Cinner, J.E., Abunge, C., 2013. Identifying management
preferences, institutional organisational rules, and their capacity to improve
fisheries management in Pemba, Mozambique. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 35, 47–56.
Methot Jr., R.D., Wetzel, C.R., 2013. Stock synthesis: a biological and statistical
framework for fish stock assessment and fishery management. Fish. Res. 142,
86–89.
Moutopoulos, D.K., Libralato, S.L., Solidoro, S., Stergiou, K.I., 2013. Toward an
ecosystem approach to Fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea:
multi-gear/multi-species implications from an ecosystem model of the Greek
Ionian Sea. J. Mar. Syst. 113–114, 13–28.
Pecl, G.T., Ward, T.M., Doubleday, Z.A., Clarke, S., Day, J., Dixon, C., Frusher, S.,
Gibbs, P., Hobday, A.J., Hutchinson, N., Jennings, S., Jones, K., Li, X., Spooner, D.,
Stoklosa, R., 2014. Rapid assessment of fisheries species sensitivity to climate
change. Clim. Change 127, 505–520.
Philcox, N., Knowler, D., Haider, W., 2010. Eliciting stakeholder preferences: an
application of qualitative and quantitative methods to shrimp aquaculture in
the Indian Sundarbans. Ocean Coastal Manage. 53, 123–134.
Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D., Short, K., Varkey, D., Pramod, G., 2009. An evaluation of
progress in implementing ecosystem-based management of fisheries in 33
countries. Mar. Pol. 33, 223–232.
Pitcher, T.J., Lam, M.E., Ainsworth, C., Martindale, A., Nakamura, K., Perry, R.I., Ward,
T., 2013. Improvements to Rapfish: a rapid evaluation technique for fisheries
integrating ecological and human dimensions. J. Fish Biol. 83, 865–889.
Pomeroy, R., Parks, J., Reaugh-Flower, K., Guidote, M., Govan, H., Atkinson, S., 2015.
Status and priority capacity needs for local compliance and
community-supported enforcement of marine resource rules and regulations
in the coral triangle region. Coastal Manage. 43, 301–328.
Pomeroy, R., 2016. A research framework for traditional fisheries: revisited. Mar.
Pol. 70, 153–163.
Read, A.D., West, R.I., Haste, M., Jordan, A., 2011. Optimizing voluntary compliance
in marine protected areas: a comparison of recreational fisher and
enforcement officer perspectives using multi-criteria analysis. J. Environ.
Manage. 92, 2558–2567.
Samuelson, W., Zeckhauser, R., 1988. Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk
Uncertainty 1, 7–59.
Sarkar, S.K., Bhattacharya, A.K., 2003. Conservation of biodiversity of the coastal
resources of Sundarbans, Northeast India: an integrated approach through
environmental education. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 47 (1–6), 260–264.
Smith, B.D., Diyan, M.A.A., Mansur, R.M., Mansur, E.F., Ahmed, B., 2010.
Identification and channel characteristics of cetacean hotspots in waterways in
eastern Sundarbans mangrove forest, Bangladesh. Oryx 44, 241–247.
Smith, T.J., 1995. Integrated Resource Development of the Sundarbans Reserved
Forest, Bangladesh (Further Analysis of Fisheries Data, BGD/84/056,
FAO/UNDP). FAO/UNDP, Khulna, Bangladesh.
Tesfamichael, D., Pitcher, T.J., 2006. Multidisciplinary evaluation of the
sustainability of Red Sea fisheries using Rapfish. Fish. Res. 78, 227–235.
Thomas, A.S., Milfont, T.L., Gavin, M.C., 2015. What determines fishers’ knowledge
of and attitudes towards regulations? A case study from the Marlborough
Sounds, New Zealand. Mar. Policy 51, 547–554.
Thorpe, R.B., Dolder, P.J., Reeves, S., Robison, P., Jennings, S., 2016. Assessing fishery
and ecological consequences of alternate management options for multispecies
fisheries. ICES J. Mar. Sci., http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw028.
Walters, C.J., Martell, S.D., 2004. Fisheries Ecology and Management. Princeton
University Press, Princeton (New Jersey), pp. 399.

Thompson et al. (2016)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Thompson et al. (2016)

Similar to Thompson et al. (2016) (20)

Thompson et al. (2016)