NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCESDEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIESMASTER THESIS 30/60 CREDITS 2007
A Participatory Approach to Fisheries Management and Ecological-Social Resilience Analysis among Coastal Communities in Batticaloa, Sri Lanka
Kalpana Calatharan
A Participatory Approach to Fisheries Management and Ecological- Social Resilience Analysis among Coastal Communities in Batticaloa,
Sri Lanka
Kalpana Calatharan
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Degree of Master of Science (Management of Natural Resources and
Sustainable Agriculture)
Submitted to:
The Norwegian University of Life sciences
Department of International Environment and Development studies June, 2007
The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is the international gateway for the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB).
Eight departments, associated research institutions and the Norwegian College of Veterinary Medicine in Oslo. Established in 1986, Noragric’s contribution to international development lies in the interface between research, education (Bachelor, Master and PhD programmes) and assignments.
The Noragric Master theses are the final theses submitted by students in order to fulfil the requirements under the Noragric Master programme “Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture” (MNRSA), “Development Studies”
and other Master programmes.
The findings in this thesis do not necessarily reflect the views of Noragric. Extracts from this publication may only be reproduced after prior consultation with the author and on condition that the source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation contact Noragric.
© Kalpana Calatharan, June 2007 Email: [email protected]
Noragric
Department of International Environment and Development Studies P.O. Box 5003
N-1432 Ås Norway
Tel.: +47 64 96 52 00 Fax: +47 64 96 52 01
Internet: http://www.umb.no/noragric
DECLARATION
I, Kalpana Calatharan, do hereby declare to the Senate of the Norwegian University of Life sciences that this thesis is my own original research work, unless where it is acknowledged, and it has never been submitted for any award in any other University or academic institution.
Signature……….. Date………..
DEDICATION
To my beloved husband Calatharan, my parents and my lovely sister’s family
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION………... …………..ii
DEDICATION……….iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……….iv
LIST OF FIGURES……….vi
LIST OF TABLES………..viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS………ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……….x
ABSTRACT………...xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION………01
1.1 Fisheries sector in Sri Lanka………01
1.2 The Civil War………...04
1.3 The tsunami………..05
1.4 Batticaloa District, Eastern Province, Sri Lanka………..08
1.5 Study objectives………08
1.6 Analytical approaches………..09
1.6.1 Resilience and vulnerability………09
1.6.2 The livelihood approach………..14
1.6.3 Participatory Fish stock assessment component………..15
2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS……….17
2.1 Study area……….17
2.2 Sampling sites………...19
2.3 Sampling Design and Procedure………...21
2.4 Data collection and data analysis………..22
2.4.1 Social demographic data………....22
2.4.2 Fish species identification……….22
2.4.3 Socio-ecological resilience and livelihood analysis ……….22
2.4.4 ParFish stock assessment………...23
2.5 Secondary sources of data and information……….24
2.6 Limitations to the study………...24
3.0 RESULTS………25
3.1 Fish production and socio-ecological resilience……….25
3.1.1 Fish species identified………...25
3.1.2 Fish production in Batticaloa ………27
3.1.3 Socio-ecological resilience………30
3.2 Livelihood analysis ………32
3.2.1 Socio-economic characteristics of fishers and their households………...32
3.2.2 Livelihood analysis before and after the tsunami………..33
3.3 ParFish Analysis……….41
4.0 DISCUSSION………..55
4.1 Social-ecological resilience and livelihoods in coastal ecosystem in Batticaloa…….55
4.1.1 Fish species identified and fisheries production………..62
4.1.2 Linked social-ecological resilience and vulnerability ………64
4.2 ParFish stock assessment………..66
4.3 Institutions and management regime in coastal ecosystem in Batticaloa……….67
5.0 CONCLUSIOS AND RECOMMENDATIONS………..70
6.0 REFERENCES……….73
7.0 APPENDICES………..77 Appendix 1 Social demographic data
Appendix 2 ParFish: Catch and effort data sheet
Appendix 3 Livelihood analysis interview
Appendix 4 ParFish: Basic information to compile Appendix 5 ParFish: Stock assessment interview Appendix 6 ParFish preference interview
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Coastal area impacted by tsunami of 26th December 2004………..06
Figure 2 The heuristic model of adaptive cycle. Adopted from Resiliance Allaince, 2006 at http://www.resalliance.org/570.php...13
Figure 3 The ParFish approach (Jiddawi and Walmsley, 2004)……….16
Figure 4 Monsoon seasons in Sri Lanka………18
Figure 5 Batticaloa coastline and bathymetry………..20
Figure 6 Total fish production in Batticaloa District (Source: DFAR)………..28
Figure 7 Sri Lanka’s total fish production of marine fish (FAO, FishStat 2007)…………..30
Figure 8 Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) projection graph for cast net………..41
Figure 9 Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) projection graph for drift net……….42
Figure 10 Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) projection graph for bottom-set long-line……...42
Figure 11 Current state graph for cast net……….43
Figure 12 Current state graph for drift net………...44
Figure 13 Current state graph for bottom-set long-line………...44
Figure 14 Unexploited Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) graph for cast net………45
Figure 15 Unexploited Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) graph for drift net………...46
Figure 16 Unexploited Catch-Per-Unit-Effort (CPUE) graph for bottom-set long-line……46
Figure 17 Fishing mortality at Maximum Sustainable Yield graph for cast net………47
Figure 18 Fishing mortality at Maximum Sustainable Yield graph for drift net…………...48
Figure 19 Fishing mortality at Maximum Sustainable Yield graph for bottom-set long-line net………...48
Figure 21 Relative fishing mortality at MSY graph for drift net……….50
Figure 22 Relative fishing mortality at MSY graph for bottom-set long-line……….50
Figure 23 Fishing mortality at optimum graph for cast net……….51
Figure 24 Fishing mortality at optimum graph for drift net………52
Figure 25 Fishing mortality at optimum graph for bottom-set long-line………52
Figure 26 Relative fishing mortality at optimum graph for cast net………...53
Figure 27 Relative fishing mortality at optimum graph for drift net………..54
Figure 28 Relative fishing mortality at optimum graph for bottom-set long-line…………..54
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Fishing vessels destroyed or damaged by the tsunami (MFAR, 2004)…………..07 Table 2 A framework for analysis of fisheries livelihood (based upon Ellis, 2000)………15 Table 3: The most common fish species caught offshore from Batticaloa………...25 Table 4: The most common fish species caught in the Batticaloa lagoon………25 Table 5: Seasonal gear used pattern in Batticaloa sea………...26 Table 6: Catch Per Unit Effort for different marine fish species in Batticaloa based upon interviews………27 Table 7: Age and level of education of fishers (n=56………..32 Table 8: Occupation and status of fishers (n=56)………...33
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS
CPUE -Catch Per Unit Effort
DFAR -Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources DS -Divisional Secretariat
EC -Entitlement Card
FAO -Food and Agriculture Organization FCS -Fisheries Co-operative Societies
GS -Grama Seva
INGO -International Non Governmental Organization LTTE - Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
MFAR -Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources MSY -Maximum Sustainable Yield
NGO -Non Governmental Organization SES - Socio-Ecological System STF -Sri Lankan Task Force
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Firstly it is my great pleasure to express my special thanks to Professor Ian Bryceson, my supervisor, for his guidance, encouragement and productive criticisms throughout the entire research work. My sincere thanks to Dr.P. Vinobaba, for his guidance and supervision during the field work.
I express my sincere thanks to Dr. Paul medly, Marine Resources Assessment Group Ltd, London. He helped me to tackle Parfish software problem and my data analysis, which enable me to complete my work on time.
I am deeply indebted to The University of Life Sciences (UMB) for funding my studies, which has made the whole program possible and finally elevated my academic status to master degree level.
I thank Mr. Navan for assisting me to arrange meeting with the Fisheries Co-operative Society members and other fisherfolk. I would like to thank Mr. Thomingo George, Director, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Batticaloa and Mr. Araseratnam, National Institute of Fisheries and Nautical Engineering, Batticaloa. They were very helpful in providing access to relevant literatures and information about fisheries in Batticaloa.
I’m grateful to the fishers from Mauhthuvam, Navalady and Kallady for their active participation and for delivering valuable information that was necessary for my research. I impressed by their hospitality, the generosity and their effort to create a good working environment in the field.
The entire work would not have been completed without cooperation from my family. A special thanks to my loving husband for his patience and for encouraging me to complete this study. A special thanks also goes to my mother who helped me in several ways during my field work.
Lastly I extend my sincere appreciation to all those who in one way or another made this work possible. Thanks!
ABSTRACT
In Batticaloa, the tsunami of 26th December 2004 violently struck the coastal communities and ecosystems which had already been negatively affected by 20 years of civil war. This study analysed the socio-ecological resilience of coastal communities and ecosystem, and it incorporated a livelihood approach towards understanding the strategies of fisherfolk confronted by fluctuating fisheries resources before and after the tsunami. This study also used the ParFish approach (participatory fish stock assessment) to understand more about the fisheries in some selected villages in Batticaloa District. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews and questionnaire surveys of households engaged in fishing. ParFish data was collected through interviews of fisherfolk. The conceptual framework for socio-ecological resilience and the adaptive cycle combined with livelihood framework were combined as tools for resilience and livelihood analysis. ParFish software was used to analyse fish stock assessment data. This study reveals that the civil war impacted the fishery and fishers’ livelihoods by restricting access to coastal resources: war deprived the livelihoods of fishing communities and ultimately rendered them more vulnerable to an external shock like the tsunami. The social resilience of coastal communities was subsequently further eroded by the tsunami due to the loss of lives, livelihoods assets and subsequent displacement. The conflict or peace situation appears to affect fish catches more noticeably in Batticaloa than the rest of Sri Lanka. After the tsunami, inappropriate relocation of fishing communities had negative effects on their livelihoods, oversupply of fishing vessels and gears, and new entrants increased the pressure on inshore resources. After the tsunami, provision of poor quality of fishing crafts limited fishing effort in both distance and time. Social resilience of coastal communities was affected negatively by the buffer zone policy through changing property rights and inequality in access to resources. ParFish approach emphasizes the need for further analysis using long-term catch and effort data and conducting trials. The paper concludes with recommendations for the Government to invest in human capital through skills development and social capital by strengthening social networks and trust, to identify new livelihood activities based on the availability of resources in new locations and market potentials.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Fisheries sector in Sri Lanka
In 2004, the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Sri Lanka recorded 1,350 fishing villages, inhabited by 126,819 households with 148,167 people actively engaged in fishing (MFAR, 2004). The total number of people depending on fisheries as their source of income was 547,523 and the total fishery-associated population was estimated at one million (MFAR, 2004). The fishing fleet comprised 30,024 boats of which about 15,819 were non-mechanized traditional boats. Approximately 1,600 multi-day vessels were used for deep-sea fishing.
Sri Lanka’s annual fish production was around 286,000 tons, of which 253,190 came from marine fisheries. Fisheries resources contribute 2.7% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (MFAR, 2004). Fishing is thus a major source of employment and income in Sri Lanka.
In Sri Lanka, the following features identify small-scale fisheries:
a) fishing fleet comprised of outboard motor craft, non-motorized traditional craft and traditional stationary fishing gear
b) fishing operations carried out within a day and limited to coastal waters (40 km), lagoons, rivers and freshwater bodies
c) foreign components as well as modern technical inputs are minimal d) the fishing operations are controlled by seasonal changes
e) operations depend largely on family labor and a high level of owner participation f) the most important fishing gear used is drift-net
The large-scale fishing operations in Sri Lanka embody the following features:
a) fishing fleet comprised of multi-day boats, which are propelled by inboard engines
b) fishing operations generally continue from 10 to 45 days, beyond 40 km from the shore
c) fishing generally is not affected by seasonal changes and the quantity of fish production is fairly high
d) foreign component in production input is high. The use of modern equipment and technology is also high
e) operations are capital intensive, but the owner’s participation in the fishing operation is negligible
f) the important fishing gear in use is primarily drift-net, long line and troll line.
The majority of the important fisheries are found in the Northern and Eastern regions of Sri Lanka where there is a majority of Tamil population.
Women’s participation in active fishing is minimal since the gender distribution of the fisherfolk is predominately males (99.3%) (Samaranayanke, 2003). The women are treated as unpaid labourers, while child-caring, housekeeping and family management activities are totally entrusted to them. Some women take part in fish collection, fish processing, net-mending and fish marketing.
The fisheries policy in Sri Lanka has four main objectives (Samarayanke, 2003);
a) sustainable development of fisheries b) increase in employment opportunities
c) socioeconomic improvement of fishing communities d) earning of foreign exchange.
The policy of almost all fisheries projects in Sri Lanka has been to maximize the fisheries resource utilization for direct extractive purposes rather than for sustainable resource management (Wijayaratne, and Maldeniya, 2003). This short-range orientation has increased the effectiveness of fishing operations through the application of advanced technologies in fish capture, leading to a shift from the traditional fishing methods to the adoption of modern fishing gear.
In the late 1950s, a rapid development in fisheries began with the introduction of modern crafts and methods (Joseph 1983). The riches part of the fishing sector has invested in new fishing gear such as purse seine and ring net in pelagic fisheries and bottom long- line and trammel nets in demersal fisheries (Wijayaratne, and Maldeniya, 2003). This type of gear is beyond the capital resources of the majority of small-scale fishers. There is therefore inequitable distribution of income from fishing, leading to increased conflicts between fishers in small-scale traditional fisheries and those in large-scale modern fisheries (Fernando 1984). However, improvement in technology has led to marginal increases in catch per unit effort (CPUE), but also to the over-exploitation of coastal resources (Samarayanke, 2003)
In Sri Lanka, destructive fishing methods, over exploitation and habitat destruction are major problems in natural resource management (Rajasuriya, 1996). According to the new Fisheries Act (Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Act No. 2 of 2001): most of these regulations are relevant and reasonably specific as means to promote sustainability and equitability, the main problem is the inability of the authorities to enforce the law.
Environmentally sensitive aquatic habitats such as sea grass beds, coral reefs and mangroves are being destoyed due to over exploitation and environmentally unfriendly resource utilization practices (Kulatunga and Fernando, 2001). These activities in turn severely deplete the resources in lagoons and as well as in the sea and cause a number of socio – economic and environmental problems (Rajasuriya, 1996). Destruction of critical habitats could lead to reduced coastal fish stocks. Aquatic pollution is another prominent problem (Fernando, 1996): pollution by agrochemicals washed by drainage water into lagoons poses a serious problem to its biotic resources. The ownership of lagoons rests with the state while their use is open to the public.
In Sri Lanka, the major problems in fisheries are the lack of proper management systems and polices. Traditional customary systems of rights have been eroded. The government has been attempting to mange these resources through the "command-and-control" or
"top-down" approach. This approach has been most successful in jurisdictions with well–
recognized property regimes, ample management resources and political commitment to
the program (Scura et al., 1992). But these conditions do not exist in many parts of the Sri Lanka. Lack of agreement about systems use priorities, lack of management resources, inadequate enforcement procedures and political will are common problems. Top-down management instruments tend to be insufficiently responsive to trends and shocks. This conventional approach ignores feed-back signals from social-ecological changes.
Management that tries to prevent change, through rigid control systems that suppress disturbances and remove diversity thereby erodes resilience and lead to a shift from desirable to undesirable ecosystem (Olsson, 2003). “Poverty forces people to opportunistically search for employment, employ unsustainable methods of farming and fishing, and resist management from fear of income loss” (Christie and White, 1997). At present, community–based approaches are given high priority (Samarayanke, 2003) and focus on communities and defined resource user groups. This approach attempts to encourage more community direction and the resource users in a given village to participate in the planning and management, to incorporate livelihood improvement efforts and to reduce activities that degrade or deplete coastal resources.
1.2 The Civil War
Since 1983, Sri Lanka has been affected by an ‘ethnic’ conflict which escalated into civil war. At first sight, the case of war is the claim of the Tamil minority for an independent homeland in the northeast of the Island. In the northeast, competing claims and disputes over land exist between the Tamil and the Sinhalese, the Muslims and the Tamils as well as the Sinhalese and the Muslims (Korf, 2004). On one side of this conflict are the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a rebel Fighting for ‘Tamil Eelam’ (home- land) on the other, government, politically dominated by the Sinhalese majority, seeking to the integrity of the ‘Sri Lanka’ nation. Sri Lanka might better be characterized as a
‘conflict cocktail’ rather than suggesting a one-dimensional, clear-cut political divide at the core of the violent clashes. Social and political cleavages occur at various levels, and many contestations over territories and resources go well beyond simple dichotomies of the type ‘Tamil-Sinhalese’.
The civil war has created a situation in which the civil population has had to find a way of surviving in the context of a dramatic increase in risk and uncertainty, political instability, violence, and economic decline (Korf, 2004). Households thus have to cope with and adapt to a high risk level which decreases economic opportunities and influence investment choices. Households adopt a number of livelihood strategies in the cases of those who are poor and forced to remain in the war zones in order to cope with political instability and economic degradation. The political geography of war and Fighting creates ‘no-go zones’. These often include local commons, such as forests, lagoons and marine resources that become places of increased military contest (Korf and Fünfgeld, 2004).
Civil and guerilla warfare, which are rising significantly in scope and scale world wide, mostly take place in wider rural spaces, which are a strategic retreat for Fighters. These areas often are at the same time significant open access or common pool resources on which a large part of population, especially the poor, depend for their survival.
In the East of Sri Lanka, war has impact on changing access rights and resource use patterns in larger lagoon system. During the war, the lagoon was part of military contested terrain; this produced severe access restrictions and security problems for resource users. After the signing of a ceasefire agreement in 2002, access to lagoon was re-opened, and a larger number of customary and new users began exploiting lagoon resources, which led to increasing tension between inter-intra community and over exploitation of lagoon resources (Korf and Fünfgeld, 2004).
1.3 The tsunami
The tsunami disaster on 26 December 2004 caused great damage to life, property, economic, environmental and livelihoods in various countries. The earthquake, which measured 9.0 in magnitude, set off tsunamis that built up speeds of as much as 800 km h1, then battered the coasts of Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Indonesia, the Maldives, Myanmar and Malaysia as 15m high walls of water, devouring everything and everyone in their paths.
The tsunami struck a relatively thin but long coastal area stretching over 1000km, or two- thirds of Sri Lanka’s coastline. The damage stretched from Jaffna in the North down entire Eastern and Southern coast and covered the west coast as far North of Colombo as Chilaw.
Figure1: Coastal area impacted by tsunami of 26th December, 2004
The most severely affected economic sector was fisheries. The number of deaths and missing persons in fishing families were around 5000 fishers. MFAR (2005) estimated that about 50 percent of the marine fishing was completely destroyed rendering over 100,000 fishers, 80,000 traders and 20,000 workers in ancillary services jobless. The total population affected by the loss of livelihoods that includes fishers, fish traders, other workers and their dependents was over 80,000. 16,101 craft were completely destroyed,
seines were damaged. Approximately 16,500 engines were damaged or destroyed. A total of 16,434 fisher houses were destroyed and damaged. Large number of fisher families were displaced and lost their means of livelihood. The damage caused to fishery harbours and other infrastructure facilities, government service facilities, coast conservation structures, was estimated at USD 275 million and repair and replacement cost of the damaged fishing fleet at USD 60 million.
The extent of damage caused by the tsunami led to a drastic disruption of local livelihoods in the informal sector and within the fisheries sector. The informal sector consists of small-scale fisherfolk, wage labourer/ daily workers who constitute the largest workforce in commercial fisheries and vulnerable groups such as women and children in the affected fisheries communities.
Foreign and local donor assistance was sought not only for reconstruction programmes but also for rebuilding. Immediate assistance to the fishery sector was for replacement of damaged or destroyed crafts and settlement for displaced fisher families. It was also reported over supply of damaged fishing equipments. A very high regional disparity was observed in the provision of assistance, whereby northern and eastern provinces were ma
District Number of vessels destroyed or damaged by the Tsunami
Ampara(Kalmunai) 1,673
Batticaloa 3,801
Colombo 284
Galle 1,253
Gampaha (Negombo) 293
Hambantota (Tangalle) 1,597
Jaffna 2,279
Kalutara 592
Kilinochchi 186
Mannar 109
Matara 1,367
Mullaitivu 1,815
Puttalam (Chilaw) 42
Trincomalee 5,261
Total 20,552
1.4 Batticaloa District, Eastern Province, Sri Lanka
The fisheries communities of Batticaloa depend on both on marine and lagoon fish resources. The fishing sector is mainly a small-scale household-based livelihood.
Batticaloa District has 1,303 hectares of mangroves, 2,196 hectares of salt marshes, and 136,822 hectares of lagoon area associated with estuarine basins (Vinobaba, 2006).
Due to the prevailing conflict and political problems in the country, information on fisheries activities in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka is scarce and incomplete. There is no proper management regime for the coastal or off-shore fisheries. One of the major constraints for the management of fisheries in the Batticaloa is the lack of data on the available resource and the correct level of exploitation. There are also information gaps on basic aspects of the lagoon and sea as an ecosystem and on the social relations and administrative systems governing its utilization. The lack of information pertaining to resources and the levels of exploitation, technology and socio-economic aspects of the small-scale fisheries has hindered the planning and development of an effective management scheme. There have been no studies carried out in the past 20 years and the Eastern province is excluded from the fisheries survey analysis. There have been no studies focusing on how the ecosystem can be managed to cope with disturbances as a result of ecological, social and economic changes and hence the long term resilience of the coastal ecosystem.
On 26th December 2004 the tsunami violently struck the coastal areas of Sri Lanka, and Batticaloa was hit especially hard. Thousands of people lost lives and their assets, and fishing communities were particularly impacted.
1.5 Study objectives
1. To analyze the socio-ecological resilience of coastal fishing communities and the coastal ecosystem. This study hopes to contribute to the understanding of processes before and after the tsunami of 2004, and conditions necessary for building resilience of coastal ecosystems and communities.
2. To apply the sustainable livelihoods approach towards understanding the strategies of fisherfolk confronted by fluctuating fisheries resources. A livelihoods analysis should identify people’s access to resources, their objectives for the resources to which they have access, the desirable (and undesirable) properties of resources for particular activities, skills, knowledge levels (support networks, infrastructure) and services (interests, motivations, circumstances), what people can achieve, and the effect of polices and other factors which influence all of these. I therefore assessed:
o The livelihood patterns and strategies of fisherfolk and households, and how these have changed over time;
o The particular livelihood features and constraints of the poor fisherfolk, as distinguished from the richer fisherfolk;
o The institutional context of livelihoods at village level, considering factors that both inhibit and facilitate livelihood choices and options for the poor;
o Community natural resource management and its interactions with the livelihood strategies and access to resources of the poor fisherfolk.
3. To assess both lagoon and sea fisheries in some selected villages Batticaloa District using the ParFish approach (Medley et al., 2005).
1.6 Analytical approaches
1.6.1 Resilience and vulnerability
Holling (1973) introduced the concept of resilience as a way to understand nonlinear dynamics of ecosystem processes such as how ecosystem maintain themselves in the face of perturbations and change (Gunderson, 2000). According to the Resilience Alliance (www.resalliance.org), resilience it has three defining characteristics; (1) the amount of change the system can undergo and still retain the same controls on function and structure, (2) the degree to which the system is capable of self-organization, (3) the ability to build and increase the capacity for learning and adaptation
Disturbance can be either natural such as forest fires, floods, and tsunami or caused by human activities such as resource use and pollution. When a social or ecological system
loses its resilience, it becomes vulnerable to change that it previously could have absorbed. “Loss of resilience means loss of ecosystem structures and functions that are crucial for buffering disturbances and maintaining the capacity of ecosystems to produce goods and services on which social and economic development depends” (Folke et al., 2002).
Social vulnerability is the exposure of communities to stress as a result of environmental changes and it encompasses disruption to livelihoods and loss of security. For natural ecosystems, vulnerability occurs when species of individual or communities are stressed as a result of environmental change and where thresholds of potentially irreversible changes are experienced. Social and ecological vulnerability, and outcomes of extreme events of disasters are influenced by build-up or erosion of resilience before and after the disasters (Adger et al., 2005). Resilience increases the capacity to cope with stress and reduce future harm.
Ecosystem resilience is “the capacity of an ecosystem to tolerate disturbance without collapsing into a qualitatively different state that is controlled by a different set of processes". When the ecosystem is resilient enough, it can withstand shocks and rebuild itself when necessary. Social resilience is “as the ability of groups or community to cope with external stresses and disturbances as a result of social, political and environmental change” (Adger, 2000).
Ecosystem response to resource use, and the people's response to change in ecosystem, makeup coupled dynamic systems that exhibit adaptive behaviour (Berkes et al., 2003), with regard to self-organization and learning.
Hazards in coastal areas become disasters through erosion of resilience by environmental change and by human action (Turner et al., 2003 in Adger, 2005). Coastal ecosystems are impacted and altered because human populations are concentrated along coasts. These populations are exposed to hazards like coastal flooding, tsunamis, hurricanes and
resilience by removing response diversity, removing whole functional groups of species or removing whole trophic levels through resource exploitation; impacting on ecosystems by emissions of waste and pollutants, land-use change and climate change; and altering the magnitude, frequency, and duration of disturbance regimes and erode resilience. The combination of those pressures can make ecosystems more vulnerable to changes that previously could be absorbed (Folke et al., 2004). As a result ecosystems may suddenly shift from desired to less desired states in their capacity to generate ecosystem services.
According to Berkes et al., 2003 social-ecological resilience appear to be related to living with; (a) disturbance, which is an essential force in social and ecological change, (b) diversity, both social and ecological, which provides the source for adaptive responses, the ecological resilience relates to functioning of the system, for example coastal and estuarine ecosystems are highly resilient because of their high levels of functional diversity (c) ecological knowledge, which informs institutions and management practices, and (d) self-organization, which use the memory of the system for renewal process. Some social-ecological systems build resilience through the experience of disturbance, provided that there is memory in the system in the form of both ecological and social sources for reorganization (Berkes and Folke, 2002). Social resilience is institutionally determined.
Social resilience can be examined through proxy indicators such as institutional change and economic structure, and demographic changes like mobility and migration. Social- ecological resilience is determined in part by the livelihood security of an individual or group. Security involves entitlements, access to resource, the distribution of which is a key element of environmental justice.
Adaptive capacity is a component of resilience which reflects the learning aspect of system behaviour in response to perturbations (Gunderson, 2000). Adaptive capacity is the ability of a social-ecological system to cope with novel situations without losing options for the future. The capacity of ecosystems to regenerate following disturbances depends on source of resilience that operates at multiple scales (Berkes et al., 2003). In ecological system genetic diversity, biological diversity and the heterogeneity of landscape mosaic are related to adaptive capacity (Carpenter et al., 2001). In social
systems, the existence of institutions, networks that learn and store knowledge and experience, create flexibility in problem solving and balance power among interest groups play an important role in adaptive capacity (Berkes et al., 2002). Institutions are central component that linking social and ecological resilience. The adaptive capacity of society is constrained by the resilience of their institutions and the natural systems on which they depend. Reduced social capital, declines in funding infrastructure, poorly implemented resource management plans increase social-economic exposure leading to increasing vulnerability in the system. The resilient the system, vulnerability of institutions and societies is greater to cope and adapt to change (Adger, 2000). Building adaptive capacity reduce vulnerability.
Holling (1986 in Olsson, 2003) proposed a heuristic model of cyclic change in ecosystem called the adaptive renewal cycle. According to adaptive cycle, dynamical systems such as ecosystems, societies, corporations, economics, nations and socio-ecological system (SES) do not tend to sthe or equilibrium state instead they pass through the following four characteristic phases; rapid growth and exploitation (r), conservation (K), collapse or release (“ creative destruction” Ω), and renewal and reorganization (α). Adaptive cycle had relatively long periods of slow accumulation and transformation of resource (from r to K), with shorter periods of Ω and α that create opportunity for innovation.
During the slow sequence from exploitation to conservation, connectedness and stability increase and capital accumulated. During the K period the system’s connectedness increases, and becomes over-connected and rigid. Therefore the system resilience decreases and becomes more susceptible to disturbances. When disturbances occur the accumulated capital is suddenly released and trajectories move to release phase (Ω). It is succeeded by the novelty period of the α phase and innovation may occur. During the reorganization period connectedness or controllability is low and resilience is high (Holling, 2001). The four phases of adaptive cycle are crucial in managing social – ecological system. Adaptive cycle focuses attention upon processes of destruction and reorganization, which are often neglected in favour of growth and conservation. It
provides a more complete view of system dynamics that links together system organization, resilience and dynamics (Resilience Alliance, 2006).
Figure 2: The heuristic model of adaptive cycle. Adopted from Resiliance Allaince, 2006 at http://www.resalliance.org/570.php
Adaptive management deals with the unpredictable interactions in social-ecological system. It is emphasizing the importance of feed-backs from the environment in shaping policy, followed by further systematic experimentation to shape subsequent policy (Berkes and Folke, 1998). Successful management requires monitoring and ecological understanding, institutional capacity to respond to environmental feed back (Folke et al., 2002) and the political will and perception to make such management possible. Adaptive management uses management as a tool not only to change the system, but as a tool to learn about the system (Resilience Alliance, 2006). Successful knowledge and resource management systems will allow disturbances to enter on a scale which does not disrupt the structure and functional performance of the ecosystems and the services it provides.
Conventional management often fails to respond to feedback from ecosystem instead tend to block them and ignores the release and reorganization phase of adaptive cycles.
Such management erodes ecosystem resilience and become threaten for existence of many social and economic activities (Berkes and Folke 2002).
1.6.2 The livelihood approach
A livelihood is defined "the assets (natural, physical, human, financial and social capital), the activities, and the access to these (mediated by institutions and social relations) that together determined the living gained by the individual or household“ (Allison and Ellis, 2001). The livelihood approach contributes towards understanding the capability of fishers to cope with crises such as floods, tsunami, or disease out-breaks and seeks “to identify what the poor have rather than what do not have”. The livelihood approach can help to understanding of fishers’ adaptive capacity in to the policy arena of small-scale fisheries management.
Internal coping capability is determined by assets (land, food stores, savings, and support from kin or community, or government safety net policies) and different asset holding pattern make big differences in the ability of fishers to withstand shocks (Swift, 1989 in Allison and Ellis, 2001).
The approach identifies the significant important of assets and activities to which they are put. This approach help to remove access constraints to assets and activities that complement existing patterns and identifying ways of making livelihood as whole more able to cope with adverse trends in fisheries and sudden shock like tsunami.
Vulnerability is a key concept in the livelihood approach. Access to both assets and activities influence by either internal factors such as policy and institutional context of livelihoods (social relations, institutions and organizations) or by external factors comprising trends and shocks. Assets permit people to build livelihood strategies and these are composed of portfolio activities based on natural resource or others. The key to sustainable fisheries management and development is to facilitate fisherfolk to find their own means out of poverty by building their capabilities and existing capital (Allison and Ellis, 2001).
In order to investigate the process of livelihoods in the fishing community, I have developed a framework adapted from Ellis (2000).
Livelihood flat form
Access modifies by
In context of
Resulting in
Composed of
With effects on
Assets
Natural capital Lagoon, sea, fish stock
Physical capital fishing gears (boats and nets), land, combine fishing with farming Human Capital Health, education, people
Social capital Kinship networks, associations Financial Capital Savings, credits
Social relations Gender
Class Age Ethnicity Institutions Rules and customs Land and sea tenure
Markets in practice Organization NGOs Local
administration State agencies
Trends -Population Relocation -Buffer-zone policy -Migration Shocks Tsunami Ethnic war Floods cyclone
Livelihood strategies
NR based activities Fishing: sea- lagoon Cultivation (food and non- food)
Livestock Non-farm NR Non-NR based activities Rural trade Remittance Other services Other transfers
Livelihood security Income level Income stability Seasonality Degrees of risk Environmental Sustainability Lagoon Sea Fish stocks Biodiversity
Table 2: A framework for analysis of fisheries livelihood (based upon Ellis, 2000)
1.6.3 Participatory Fish stock assessment component
The key objectives of "ParFish" (Participatory Fish stock assessment) are to involve resource users in order to understand more about fishery resources and to develop management actions based on this knowledge; to encourage engagement of stakeholders to identify and implement management options. The approach thereby incorporates local knowledge into the stock assessment and analyzes the resource users’ preferences for different management outcomes. “ParFish” is a rapid and participatory approach to stock assessment that assists fishers and other stakeholders to enter a cycle of learning, evaluation, management planning and implementation. The ParFish approach covers six stages that take the user from set objectives through carrying out the data collection and
stock assessment and the interpretation and communication of the results to participatory management planning. For my study I was undertaken the first three stages of stock assessment component of ParFish due to limited duration of study. The “ParFish”
participatory fish stock assessment approach (Medley et al.,2005) was adopted as ParFish is unique in its ability to incorporate the local knowledge of fishers and other key stakeholders in estimating fish stock size, catch and effort, fish stock behaviour, and status of fish stock now in the past and in the future.
Figure 3: The ParFish approach (Jiddawi and Walmsley, 2004)
2.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1 Study area
The study was carried out in Batticaloa District, which is situated in central part of Eastern Province of Sri Lanka. The district is bounded to the east by the Bay of Bengal, to the north by Verugal Aru and Trincomalee district, to the south by Ampara district and to the west by Polonnaruwa district.
The population of Batticaloa District was estimated to be 545,477 in 2005 (Government statistical abstract, 2005). It covers a land area of 2633 km2 and contains internal waterways of 299 km2. The district accounts for 3.0% of the country’s total land area.
The district’s population density is 207 persons km-2and a particularly high density of population exists at Kattankudy Divisional Secretariat (DS) division and lower density of population at Koralaipathu North DS division. The main language spoken is Tamil.
Religious beliefs are Hinduism (66.3%), Muslim (23.9%), Christianity (6.0%) and Buddhism (2.7%).
The daytime air temperature in Batticaloa ranges from 25ºC to 33ºC, varying with the season. The summer season in Batticaloa runs from March to November. The annual rainfall varies from 864mm to 3051mm (Meteorology Department, Batticaloa) distribution of which has slight variation throughout the district. Rain occurs during the two monsoon periods, namely, South-west and North-east. During the North-east monsoon (December to February) the eastern part of Sri Lanka receives about 200mm to 1200mm of rain. The inter-monsoon period following the Northeast monsoon (March to April) receives less rainfall.
January
February
March
April
May June July
August September
October November
December
South-w est monsoon
Inter monsoon North-east monsoon Inter
monsoon
Figure 4: Monsoon seasons in Sri Lanka
Batticaloa District is characterized by flat land not exceeding 8 m in height above sea level. It consists of undulating plains and alluvial flats watered by rivers from the mountain zone of Uva and the central province. The eastern coast of the district is sandy soil and the western part is clay soil. The land bordering the lagoon is alluvial soil.
Batticaloa District is singularly unfortunate in being the only Dry Zone district which does not have any perennial river flowing through it. All the streams that end in the lagoon and sea have their source in the Dry Zone itself and consequently while they run in spate through the Northeast monsoon, they dwindle into a mere trickle of water by about July and August. This is the fate of Mahilavatuvan, Mundanai Aru and the Madhuru oya rivers which feed large reservoirs via Unnichai in Batticaloa.
Batticaloa lagoon, Panichankerni lagoon and Valaichenai lagoon are the three subsystems that contribute to the lagoon super-system of the locality. The lagoon transverse through the entire district and extend 73.5 km from Verugal (in the North) to Batticaloa town and also extend further from Batticaloa town 35.2 km to Thuraineelavanai (in the South).
The major part of the population is distributed in the narrow strip between the sea and the lagoon. The land to the west of the lagoon is sparsely populated and 90% of the paddy lands are found in this area. Fishing is important to livelihoods, both in the lagoon and along the coast. The lagoon is famous for its crabs, prawns and in the past for its
“singing” fish.
The people of Batticaloa District are engaged in agriculture while fishing occupies the second place as a livelihood income source. Other occupations include industrial jobs, trade, services, handicrafts and employment in government, corporations and private establishments. The district has about 30,000 agriculture families and 19,281 fishing families (Statistical Hand Book, Department of Fishery and Aquatic Resources, 2006).
Saltwater extends about 56 km into the lagoon, thus forming a good fishing environment.
The long seacoast with suitable bays at long intervals coupled with their rivers and the estuaries, the long lagoon and the innumerable tanks and water holes provide suitable habitats for fishery resources.
2.2 Sampling sites
Six study sites were chosen in three villages;
1) Palameenmadu in Muhathuvaram village 2) Thiraimadu in Muhathuvaram village 3) Matikali in Muhathuvaram village
4) Swiss Tamil village in Muhathuvaram village 5) Navalady village
6) Thirusendur in Kallady village
Figure 5. Batticaloa coastline and bathymetry
The first, the second and the third sites were in Muhathuvaram village which is located about 3 km from Batticaloa town. They are divided under two Grama Sevakar (GS) divisions located in close proximity to both the sea and to Batticaloa lagoon. The majority of people have lived there since birth and they have traditionally depended upon fishing and harvesting natural resources both for subsistence and varying degrees of commodity production. Other people are engaged in trade or are employed in government and the private sector. There are numerous part-time fishers, and even government
The fourth site is called Swiss Tamil Village. This village is populated by people who were displaced after the tsunami of 26th December 2004. They were living in temporary shelters. This site was previously occupied with Palmera forest. The Swiss Tamil village consisted of about 500 families. These coastal communities were highly dependent on coastal fisheries for livelihoods and food security. They had been allocated new land area called Kokuvil for construction of houses in replacing lost or damaged houses by tsunami. The Majority of interviewed fishers were carried out fishing in both sea and lagoon. Fewer fishers fished in the lagoon alone.
The fifth site is Navalady which is located about 5 km from Batticaloa town. This fishing village was heavily affected by tsunami. Aside from losing fishers, family members and housing, the fishing community also lost their livelihood assets. This village is largely surrounded by the Batticaloa lagoon and the sea. Most of the people are completely dependent upon fishing as their main source of livelihood. Currently there are about 100 families are resettled in Navalady who were displaced after tsunami. International and national non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) assist these affected communities to rebuild their assets and restart their livelihood activities. Moreover, there have also been efforts to improve the living standard in Navalady by assisting in the construction of schools, clinics, roads, drinking water wells and other infrastructure facilities.
The sixth site is Thirusendur, located in Kallady village, which is located 4 km away from Batticaloa town. The people of this village have fished in Kallady Sea and Batticaloa lagoon.
Primary and secondary data and information were obtained to accomplish the objectives.
Methodology consisted of both quantitative and qualitative research methods.
2.3 Sampling Design and Procedure
The sample was selected using non-probability sampling technique. Essentially, this implies that some units in the population were more likely to be selected than others rather than selected using random selection method (Bryman, 2004). Snowball sampling
strategy was used to select the respondents from three fishing villages. With this approach to sampling, I made initial contact with the ones who were readily available at fish landing sites or at the auction centre and then use these persons to establish contacts with other relevant persons.
2.4 Data collection methods and data analysis 2.4.1 Social demographic data
A questionnaire survey was conducted to obtain quantitative and qualitative household information. A questionnaire consisted of closed- ended questions that present the respondent with a set of possible answers to choose from. The variables collected included age, occupation, family size, and status of fishers (see Appendix1).
Demographic data was analyzed using descriptive statistical procedures.
2.4.2 Fish species identification
Fish catch composition, individual fish species characteristics and respective sizes and weight of individual fish (in the case of larger fish) and total catch per boat per day were recorded (see Appendix 2). The landing sites Muhathuvam sea, Kallady sea and the Batticaloa lagoon were selected for this biological study.
2.4.3 Socio-ecological resilience and livelihood analysis
Two analytical approaches are chosen for this aspects of study. The conceptual framework of resilience (Berkes and Folke 1998, Resilience Alliance 2006) and a livelihood approach developed by Allison and Ellis (2001). Elements of livelihood approach are combined with the concept of socio–ecological resilience. These two approaches are interlinked each other to understand the ecological and social system and processes. Therefore these help to identify the effects of change on both resilience and vulnerability of fisherfolk under external stress and disturbances.
Focus group discussions were conducted to obtain information about socio-ecological resilience and livelihood of fishing communities. In each village one focus group
discussion was carried out, each group had 6 to 8 people (Bryman, 2004). Interviews were also carried out with some key informants.
The issues focused upon in these aspects were (See Appendix 3) o Livelihood resilience and vulnerability
- Individual or household assets. The activities in which households can engage with a given asset profile
- Mediating processes (Institution, regulation)
- Impact of tsunami on fishing (migration, fishing practices before and after tsunami, equipment replacement after tsunami)
o Credit and projects to support fisheries
o Community management system in the fishery o Ownership, control in access to fishery resource
2.4.4 ParFish stock assessment
In order to carry out the fish stock assessment, background information about the fishery was collected through key informant interviews with Director of Fishery, District Fishery Office, Batticaloa, and older fishers. The interviews were focused on the fishery, the fishery management system, general background to the area, and the management context (see Appendix 4).
ParFish participatory fish-stock assessments were carried out in 3 villages (Muhathuvaram (four sites; Palameenmadu, Thiraimadu, Matikali, and Swiss Tamil Village), Navalady and Kalady (Thirusendur). The stock assessment interviews (see Appendix 5) were carried out with 56 households (fishers). Twenty driftnet fishers, twenty bottom-set long-line fishers, 13 cast-net fishers and three Kirri vallai fishers were interviewed.
Fisher preferences were collected through a specially designed interview (Preference Interview) that determines whether fishers are risk-taking or risk-averse and what level of catch per unit effort is most preferred by them. The scenario cards were used to represent catch and effort per unit time. Preference interviews also captured information about
individual fisher discount rates (i.e. the extent to which having something today is more valuable than having it at a later date). Fisher preferences were weighted according to the importance of each fisher. The importance weighting factor was based on the number of dependents the fisher has, or the dependency on the fishery as a proportion of his income (see Appendix 6). ParFish software was used to analyze the data.
2.5 Secondary sources of data and information
Secondary information included those furnished by the Department of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (DFAR). The statistical division of the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (MFAR) provided a host of data on various field of fisheries (District Fisheries Office and FAO FishStat).
2.6 Limitations to the study
There exists relatively little published literature on the history of fishing and coastal processes in Batticaloa. Therefore my results relied heavily upon interviews. Information could therefore not be corroborated with other studies.
The civil conflict in Sri Lanka put limitations to the study. Selected villages were unsafe to travel throughout the fieldwork. Due to time constraints, data collection was only carried only for three months period.
The principal problem which affected the completion of this study was an unexpected blockage of the ParFish software caused by new security updates in the Microsoft Windows XP operating system during February 2007. I was then obliged to contact Dr.
Paul Medley, the main author and software-developer of ParFish, so that he produced a series of “fixes” for the software, but without being able to solve the main issues. Dr.
Paul Medley kindly assisted in reviewing my data, but it was difficult for me to know how the data was actually handled.
3. RESULTS
3.1 Fish production and socio-ecological resilience 3.1.1 Fish species identified
Fishers stated that no difference was observed in the species caught, or the size of fish, before and after the tsunami. But in the lagoon, some fish species such as Chanos chanos, Mugil sp., Arius sp. and Nematalosa sp. have declined in catches. Tables 3 and 4 show the most common fish species caught in the coastal waters of Batticaloa.
Local Name English/ Common Name Scientific Name
Killwalla Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares
Balaya Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis
Arakula Narrow-barred Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus commersoni Cheela Indo-pacific king mackerel Scomberomorus guttatus
Koppara Black marlin Makaira indica
Adallu Mangrove red snapper Lutjanus argentimaculatus
Villameen Spangled emperor Lethrinus nebulosus
Villameen Orange-striped emperor Lethrinus obsoletus
Ada-thirukai Cowtail stingray Pastinachus seplen
Jeela Pickhandle barracuda Sphyraena jello
Pareh Blacktip trevally Caranx hebri
Chooparai Yellowstripe scad Selaroides leptolepis
Chalai Gold stripe sardinella Sardinella gibosa
Choodai White sardinella Sardinella albella
Kalava Malabar grouper Ephinephelus malabaricus
Kadal-virral Cobia Rachycentron canadum
Kumla Striped bonito Sarda orientalis
Kumla Indian mackerel Rastrelliger kanagurta
Nethali Anchovy Stolephorus commersonnii
Thalapath Sail fish Istiophorus platypterus
Shuriamin Kawakawa Euthynus affinis
Suraa Silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis
Table 3: The most common fish species caught offshore from Batticaloa
Local Name English/ Common Name Scientific Name
Karel Splendid ponyfish Leiognathus splendens
Pullithirukai Honeycomb stingray Himantura uranak
Eriyal Crocodile flathead Cociella crocodila
Jeela Pickhandle barracuda Sphyraena jello
Thirali Orb fish Ephippus orbis
Mannali Flathead mullet Mugil cephalus
Koimeen Bloch’s gizzard shad Nematalosa nasus
Chethal Greenchromide/ Pearl spot Ertroplus surantenis
Chethal Orange chromide Etroplus maculatus
Adallu Red snapper Lutjanus argentimaculatus
Ottymeen Epaulette surgeonfish Acanthurus nigricauda
Mampala ottymeen Mata surgeon fish Acanthurus mata
Chelvan Tilapia Oreochromis mossambicus
Keduwa Barramundi Lates calcarifer
Kelluthi Catfish Arius sp
Palai meen Milk fish Chanos chanos
Mannali Mullet Liza sp
Table 4: The most common fish species caught in the Batticaloa lagoon
Fishers adopted specific fishing practices according to fish behaviour and migratory patterns. Fishers said that they were using different types of gears in different seasons of the year (Table 5). In the lagoon, fishers used primarily cast net and the drift gill nets in permitted areas.
Gear Type Seasons
Line fishing January- July
Mural net/ Needle fish net March-April
Drift net April-September
Kirri / Herring net January-September
Beach seine September-November
Thirukai/ skate net November-January
Fish species Catch Per Unit Effort (kg/day)
Sail fish/ Thalapath 68
King fish/ Arakula 75
Trevally/ Pareh 107
Skipjack tuna/ Balaya 187
Black marlin/ Koppara 71
Skate/ Thirukai 125
Sardinella/ Kirri 100
Table 6: Catch Per Unit Effort for different marine fish species in Batticaloa based upon interviews
3.1.2 Fish production in Batticaloa
The total annual production of fish in Batticaloa showed changes over the past fourteen years (1993-2006) as depicted in Figure 6. The household interviews revealed that most people (91%) perceived that catch rates had declined over past years for several reasons.
Fishers revealed that during civil war access to fishery resources particularly lagoon was restricted by creation of ‘no-go-zone’ by Sri Lankan Army. Fishers said that in the sea, the Sri Lankan Army frequently suspected them to be LTTE collaborators, and they had to undergo regular checks, interrogations and harassment. In 2002, a cease-fire agreement (Memorandum of Understanding) was signed between the Sri Lankan Government and the LTTE. The lagoon and its resources were opened again for fishers.
Larger numbers of customary and new users began exploiting the lagoon resources.
Total fish catch in Batticaloa
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Catch (tons)
Figure 6: Total fish production in Batticaloa District (Source: DFAR)
Interviews revealed that the fishing sector rapidly became a major small-scale, household–based livelihood opportunity in Batticaloa District. For new users, fishing suddenly provided new economic opportunities. Fishing had been seen as a major fallback option for those who had lost their assets or the access to it during the war. New users often used unsustainable fishing methods and introduced destructive fishing practices as they lacked fishing knowledge.
Interviews revealed that by 2004, serious signs of environmental damage were felt by the lagoon fishers. Pollution from increased paddy cultivation, wastes from shrimp farming, slaughterhouses and rice mills, effluents from the municipal sewage have all led to rapid deterioration of the lagoon’s water quality and fish catches have been declining.
Interviews and field observation also revealed that mangroves were destroyed for several reasons such as extraction of timber and firewood by local people, conversion of mangrove land into paddy field and cleared by the Sri Lankan Army for security reason.
Fishers considered the mangroves as the “womb” of sea. Some fishers also caught fish in mangrove areas using cast net and trammel nets during high tide periods.
In 2005, the fish catch declined dramatically following the tsunami. Fishers responded that their catches had declined to half compared to previous year. Interviews with fishers, fisheries officials, and other environmentalists revealed that significant damage had been caused to the marine ecosystem in the fishing grounds. Many coral reefs lost their structure and biota, and mechanical damage had partly reduced them to rubble, which was evidenced by large coral rocks washed up on the shores. There had also been siltation and contamination by runoff from land, with large quantities of wastes and pollutants, debris, silt, soil and organic matter. Near-shore fisheries (90% of fishers depend on near-shore coastal resources in Batticaloa) were seriously disturbed and covered with debris such as wooden logs, rusted iron structures, dead and broken vegetable matter, sludge, barbed wires, cement pillars preventing the laying the nets.
Lagoon fishers reported that no significant fish mortality had occurred, suggesting limited damage to the lagoon from salt water intrusion after the tsunami. Batticaloa lagoon was however affected by the large deposition of organic and inorganic debris. After the tsunami piles of debris were disposed along the beaches and lagoon. In Batticaloa no serious attempt had been made to assess the damage to marine ecosystem. In 2006, fish production increased significantly compared to 2005.
National level fish catches increased steadily from 1993 to 1999. 2000 to 2002 experienced declining catches. 2003 to 2004 there was some increased in catches. After the tsunami 2004, national fish catches declined drastically (Figure 7).