top of page

A Fisherman Out of Water: A Case Study of the Environmental and Social Considerations of Bangladesh’s Hilsa Shad Conservation Scheme

Aditi Sengupta

Abstract 


The hilsa shad (Tenulosa ilisha) comprises Bangladesh’s largest single-species fishery, constituting 11 per cent of total catch and about 1.5 per cent of the country’s GDP, and employing 4 to 5 million people directly or indirectly. However, due to a significant decline in the catch figures from 2003, the hilsa shad has been subject to a government conservation program. While the establishment of a sanctuary is often suggested as an effective strategy for ecological restoration, the social aspects of such attempts are often overlooked. A large section of hilsa fishermen was found to be poor in terms of socioeconomic capital such as monthly income, housing conditions, and assets ownership. Particularly, these households suffer seasonal food insecurity during the banned period of fishing in the sanctuaries. This case-based academic paper aims to focus on the environmental impact of Bangladesh’s conservation scheme as well as the socio-economic impact on the fishermen and hopes to analyze where the government scheme might have failed its people. 





Introduction 


The growing concern that our global ecological support system is endangered is forcing policymakers to realize that decisions made on the basis of narrow, short-term goals can result in disastrous consequences globally and in the long run. The realization that previous economic models have failed to cater to the increasing ecological problems have forced policy makers to find alternative ways of conserving natural resources without sacrificing economic development (Costanza, Daly & Bartholomew, 1993). The United Nations introduced the Millennium Developmental Goals (MDGs) and the Sustainable Developmental Goals (SDGs) in the years 2000 and 2015 respectfully. Both the MDGs and SDGs focused to combat several social issues faced by society and emphasized on the environment (MDG, Goal 7) and life below water (SDG, Goal 14). However, the MDGs were considered to be somewhat of a failure as the targets of the goals were not achieved by 2015, their deadline. While most of the world focused on poverty and education, the lack of focus on the environment based goals deteriorated. Species declined overall in numbers and distribution, implying they were increasingly threatened with extinction (United Nations, 2015). The present status of the environment has to greatly improve to be able to meet the SDGs targets in 2030. This growing concern led many countries to focus more on environmental concerns. 


Overexploitation of the world's fisheries is the subject of much recent concern (FAO, 1999, Pauly et al. 2002, Hilborn et al. 2003, Allan, et al., 2005). Although the global production of fish and fishery products continues to grow, the harvest from capture fisheries has stagnated over the last decade. The number of overfished stocks has tripled in the last 50 years and currently 33 percent of the fisheries are fished beyond their sustainable measures, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. The damage done by overfishing is beyond environmental damage, fishing and the activities related to it — packing, transport and retailing— are extremely important at all scales, especially in developing countries where fishing is a crucial source of livelihood. Small-scale commercial and subsistence fishing often provides the employment of last resort when more lucrative labor opportunities cannot be found (Kura et al. 2004). 


Several countries such as Iceland, New Zealand and the United States are now effectively managing their fisheries. There are multiple methods to control overfishing practices, such as the removal of subsidies, increasing consumer awareness, and most importantly- government regulation. The Government of Bangladesh requested the initiation of the Bay of Bengal Program’s (BOBP) project “Marine Fishery Resources Management in the Bay of Bengal.” The project conducted a series of investigations on the hilsa shad (Tenulosa ilisha) during 1985-86. This project was of particular importance as the hilsa shad constitutes of the 11 percent of the total catch of the country, contribute nearly 1.5 percent to the GDP of the country, and employ nearly half a million people in fishing and related activities (FAO 2014, Department of Fisheries [DoF], 2013). Due to a significant drop in the catch figures of 2003, the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock of Bangladesh adopted a Fisheries Policy and introduced a PES scheme to conserve and sustainably manage hilsa shad fish populations (DoF, 2013). Payment for ecosystem services (PES) is an environmental management approach that offers cash payments or other compensation to encourage the conservation and restoration of ecosystems. The policy also aimed at poverty reduction, co-management and conservation of resources , while creating an enabling environment for management and development.


2003 onwards the government introduced multiple conservation practices to ensure a target population for hilsa. These measures included closing some areas to fishing, restrictions on fishing gear, restrictions on the fishing season and regulations on fishing vessels (Islam, Mohammed, & Ali, 2016). These measures were also introduced to better the socioeconomic conditions of the hilsa fishermen, who are majorly from low-income households (DOF). Under the PES scheme, the fishermen were provided with direct incentives, such as food and alternate opportunities to generate income, during the fishing ban period. While the catch figures began to increase after the scheme, it was also considered to be ineffective. Siddique (2009) reported that the supporters of the conservation measures considered it to be an efficient method to augment fish production, while those in opposition to it point to the socioeconomic losses to the fishermen of the region.


This paper analyses the economic impact and the socioeconomic impact of the hilsa shad conservation scheme introduced by the Government of Bangladesh. This paper aims to evaluate the environmental impact through studying the catch figures of the hilsa shad during the years of the scheme, and then suggest ways of increasing Bangladesh’s sustainable practices without affecting the socioeconomic conditions of the fishermen adversely. To do so, the paper first examines the concept and economic impact of overfishing. It then examines to what extent Bangladesh has been able to combat the issue, where the scheme is lagging by examining to what extent the fishermen are affected and makes recommendations for improvements. This research can also be used to understand how policymakers must considers all factors before implementing schemes, and can also be used to provide solutions to similar ecosystems with similar aspects.


Theoretical Background 


According to a report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO] (2018), the fraction of fish stocks that are within biologically sustainable levels has exhibited a decreasing trend, from 90.0 percent in 1974 to 66.9 percent in 2015. The proportion of fish that lie within the sustainable levels has reduced from 90 percent in 1974 to nearly 70 percent in 2015. In contrast, the proportion of fish at unsustainable levels has increased from 10 percent in 1974 to nearly 33 percent in 2015. 


The Millennium Developmental Goals (MDGs) and the Sustainable Developmental Goals (SDGs) were introduced with the aim to combat numerous socioeconomic issues. While most countries focused on targets directly relating to health, education and poverty, the lack of importance given to the environmental targets deteriorated the situation. As per the Millennium Developmental Goals Report: 2015 (United Nations, 2015), overexploitation of marine fish stocks led to declines in the percentage of stocks within safe biological limits, down from 90 per cent in 1974 to 71 per cent in 2011. Overfishing is defined by the depletion of the stock of a fish (in a body of water) due to unwarranted fishing. According to Jackson (2001), the practice of overfishing predates all other human disturbances such as pollution. Sustained overfishing may lead to critical dispensation, where the fish population is no longer to sustain itself which can lead to an ecosystem shift. 


In order to understand the environmental and socioeconomic effects of an overfishing conservation scheme, it is imperative to understand the background of overfishing, its causes and types, methods of mitigations and barriers to the same. 


Types of Overfishing 


According to Shakouri (2010) there are three types of recognized overfishing- growth overfishing, recruit overfishing and ecosystem overfishing. Growth overfishing is when fishes are harvested at an average size that is smaller than the size that would produce maximum yield per recruit. Recruit Overfishing the adult population of the species, i.e. the spawning biomass population is depleted to a level where the species is no longer capable to reproduce enough to replenish itself. Ecosystem overfishing is when the balance of the ecosystem is altered due to overfishing, causing a change in the equilibrium of the ecosystem (Pauly, 1983).


Acceptable levels 


The notion of overfishing depends on how the “acceptable level” of fishing is defined. Caddy & Bazigos  (1985) developed a framework for determining whether a species of fish is in the need of conservation. Inspired by traffic lights, Caddy uses the colors red, yellow and green to illustrate the states of a fish in relation to optimal (green) and precautionary (yellow) states. The basis of this judgement is biomass indicators, or fishing mortality figures such as catch figures.


Keeping this in mind, there are two ways to define the acceptable level- biological and bioeconomic terms. Biological overfishing occurs when the stock of the species has a negative marginal growth, and bioeconomic overfishing occurs when the catch exceeds the maximum economic yield, where the resource rent is maximum (Pauly, Silvestre, & Smith, 1989).


Methods to Mitigation


Froese et al. (2018) developed a model of Harvest Control Rule (HCR) for predicting the acceptable levels of fishing. The management has some control in determining the the harvest rates and ultimately in deciding strategies to predict stock and long-term maximizing yields. As a precautionary approach, many countries have started to adopt HCR principles and the Traffic Light Convention scheme, which is based on a set of fixed rules. 


The United Nations also introduced the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea: Part V ("The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Part V") in articles 61, 62 and 65. Article 65 ensures all costal zones to maintain the living resources in their special-economic zones by preventing the action of overfishing. Article 62 provides that coastal zones should promote optimal use of resources without prejudice to Article 61. And Article 65 provides general rights to the coastal states to prohibit, limit and regulate the exploitation of marine mammals. 


Another take on overfishing, is that it can be considered as a tragedy of commons. In his article titled Fisheries are Classic Example of the "Tragedy of the Commons" Daniel K. Benjamin supports the notion that privatization can help to solve the overfishing problem. A similar argument is also provided  by Grafton, Squires and Fox (2000) who say, “research on the British Columbia halibut fishery, where the commons has been at least partly privatized, substantial ecological and economic benefits have resulted. There is less damage to fish stocks, the fishing is safer, and fewer resources are needed to achieve a given harvest” (Grafton, Squires, & Fox, 2000).


Government regulations through imposing quotas, banning areas from fishing (no-fish zones), and closed seasons are some of the various measures adopted. However, these measures may not be as efficient as one would hope. A model of interaction between fishermen and fish showed that when an area is closed to fishers, but there are no catch regulations such as individual transferable quotas, fish catches are temporarily increased but overall fish biomass is reduced, resulting in the opposite outcome from the one desired for fisheries (Moustakas, Silvert, & Dimitromanolakis, 2006). Countries such as Thailand and Bangladesh have adopted similar models of imposing no-fish zones and closed seasons. 


The Growth of Aquacultures, especially post 1990s, can be attributed as a reason of a large fall in the numbers of overfishing. According to the FAO, the aquaculture production rates have continued to grow in the years 1950-2010, while the wild capture rates have remained steady.  


In Bangladesh, the farmed fish market grew by a factor of 25 in three decades, this growth caused the real price of farmed fish to drop by nine percent from 2000 to 2010 (World Bank, 2018), at the same time that wild fish were becoming scarcer and more expensive. Consumption of farmed fish by poorer households – who are particularly sensitive to changes in food prices – increased rapidly over this period, more than offsetting a decline in the quantity of wild fish eaten. 


Finally, an increase in awareness of consumers has lead to a change in their behavior. Sustainable seafood is a concept that has gained momentum in the recent years, and an increasing number of people are advocating for environmentally-sustainable methods of fishing, and all willing to pay a higher price for a sustainably sourced product. 


Barriers of Mitigation 


The biggest barrier against the practice of overfishing, not surprisingly, comes from the fishing industry. According to Bolster and Magra (2013) they have the biggest financial incentive to oppose such measures. This leads to extensive lobbying by the fishing industry, which is intended to block government policy. Moreover, on areas of territorial dispute, such as the Cod War between United Kingdom and Iceland in the North Atlantic, it becomes difficult to regulate illegal fishing. The estimated size of illegal catch ranges from 11 to 26 million tones, which approximately represents 14-33% of the world’s reported catch ("World Ocean Review", 2013). In developing countries, most of the illegal fishing is done by poor families, who are largely dependent on fishing and lose their source of income due to impositions of bans. 


Gap In Literature


While there is ample  literature citing the positive consequences of measures against overfishing, and the effect of the same on the socioeconomic status of fishermen, most of the literature does not provide any information on the converse, i.e. change on the socioeconomic status of the fishermen vis-à-vis the conservation strategies. The impact of poor fisheries management, especially in developing countries, is mostly felt by the poor families residing in the coastal zones. These families are heavily reliant on fishing or related activities as a source of income. 

The paper will now attempt to evaluate the effect of hilsa-shad conservation strategies, imposed by the Government of Bangladesh, on the fishermen of the regions. Further, it will provide suggestions to improve the situation and recommendations for further research.    


Methodology  


The paper uses a case study approach in understanding the effect of hilsa-shad conservation strategies on the fishermen in Bangladesh. A case study approach helps the researcher to “examine the data within a specific context” (Zainal, 2007). It makes the understanding of complex issues easier. Bangladesh was chosen as a case to understand the importance of efficient management of conservation strategies, as well as to emphasize the need to follow up on the people who are actually impacted by said strategies. The nation of Bangladesh is heavily dependent on the fishing industry, and the hilsa-shad itself contributes to nearly 1.5 percent of the GDP of the country (DoF, 2013). 

The study is purely relies on secondary research. The information from relevant research papers is gathered to understand the effects of the conservation strategies. 

Further, relevant statistics and papers that explain the socioeconomic statuses of the fishermen  have been studied to gauge the strategies’ performance and identify its shortcomings. 


 Case Study


The case study analyses the conservation policy of Bangladesh and the socioeconomics effect of the same on the fishermen and their families of the region in order to evaluate whether the conservation policy was a holistically effective or not. Bangladesh was chosen as the subject of the case study due  to an overlooming treat of extinction of various species of fish, as a result of various malpractices around the globe. Countries will be forced to adopt various conservation policies in the future, and analyzing a current policy will be beneficial to policymakers, so as to avoid repetition of mistakes. 

This study evaluates the effectiveness of Bangladesh’s conservation scheme for the Tenulosa ilisha (hilsa shad). The paper assesses the conservation scheme on the following parameters- 

  1. Impact on the catch figures of the hilsa shad

  2. Impact on the income of the fishermen of the region 

  3. Impact on the food security and health of the fishermen of the region 

The first parameter measures the impact of the conversation policy on the catch figures and sale figures of the hilsa shad. This is necessary to evaluate whether the policy had a positive, negative, or any effect at all on the overfishing issue. Figure 1 illustrates the total harvest of the hilsa shad from both marine and inland sectors between the years 1987 and 2007. It can be seen that the catch figures dropped significantly in 2003, which influenced the Bangaleshi government to adopt a conservation policy. The figures also shows that post the conversation policy, the total harvest of hilsa shad also increased, implying a positive effect of the policy.   



Figure 1 Total hilsa harvest from both marine and inland sectors in Bangladesh (1987-2007)

Source:  (Mome & Arnason, 2015)


Figure 2 illustrates Bangladesh’s total fish production, which shows a steady even after the adoption of the conservation policy. The hilsa shad is a major portion of the nation’s total catch, nearly 70%,, and while the conservation policy did limit the period of fishing for the same, the overall catch has not been negatively affected.  


Figure 2 Total fish production in Bangladesh (1996 to 2007)Source: (Mome & Arnason, 2015)


The second parameter to evaluate the conservation policy is to judge the effect that the policy had on the socioeconomic characteristics of the fishermen. Faraque and Ahsan (2014) surveyed 101 fishermen in the regions where the fishing of hilsa shad was the major occupation, post the conservation policy. Figure 3 shows the annual incomes of these fishermen in Kathalbaria, Horison-korpur, Chock Muktarpur and Yousufpur. The average annual income of the fishermen in these regions lies between 30,000 to 39,999 BDT (Bangladeshi Taka), which is approximately equivalent to 355 USD to 472 USD. This finding is in line with Ali et. al (2009).  



Figure 3 Yearly income of the fishermen

Source: (Rana et. al, 2018)

During the ban-period, the average monthly income of these fishermen drop  from BDT 3,975 to BDT 2,000 (Dey et al., 2010), Figure 4 illustrates the same. 



Figure 4 Average monthly income of fishermen during non-banning period and banning periodSource: Dey et al. (2010)

The socioeconomic conditions and the effect of Bangladesh’s conservation policy was shown in the case study. Now the study will analyze its effect and provide solutions or recommendations on the same.  


Analysis


 The section will now analyse to what extent Bangladesh considered the socioecomic conditions of the fishermen during the formulation of the hilsa shad conversation scheme. 


As regard to the first parameter, the impact of the conservation policy on the hilsa shad itself, there has been a positive change. The policy was the cause of the increase of hilsa harvest post 2003, when it dipped significantly. The policy also ensured an increasing total catch in Bangladesh, which is especially important to nation as it contributes to a major portion of its Gross Domestic Product.  While the policy was well intentioned and did improve the issue of the falling numbers of the hilsa shad, it was not planned perfectly, As any nation-wide policy, this one has its drawbacks. 


The fishermen of the hilsa rich regions were already quite poor on an average, their annual income lied between BDT 30,000 and BDT 39,999. After the adoption of the conservation scheme, their source of income had a break. The fishermen were not able to conduct their daily wage earning activity, and therefore their monthly average income reduced almost by half. The government did take this aspect into consideration, and did attempt to rehabilitate the fisherman by allocating nearly BDT 10,000 per household and provided opportunities of alternative income sources to the fishermen. However, BDT 10,000 is not enough to manage a household of five on an average. Moreover, the government encouraged occupations such as cow and goat rearing, setting up a tea stall or a vegetable stall. The occupations were not suitable for these fishermen, as they were trained to fish throughout the life, and also had very low literacy levels. The average fisherman could only sign his/her name, and did not attend school. 


The DoF also introduced the VGF card, whose holders would receive a subsidy from the government- 90 kgs of rice per banning season. The well intentioned promise of the government was often not executed appropriately, and the fishermen only received 51 to 60 kgs of the promised rice. A reason of this could be due to the dishonesty of the distributors or due to lack of surveillance from the government’s side. Furthermore, nearly 42 percent of the fishermen did not hold VGF cards, and were unable to avail their subsidies. This could be due to lack of awareness of the scheme. The fishermen’s intake of fish also declined from five times a week on average to once a week, and their frequency of meals also reduced. The fishermen’s health also declined during the ban-period as compared to the non-ban period, this could be attributed to the decrease in income, change in diet, and the decrease food supply and intake. Morover, the fishermen started to visit untrained medical practioners (kabiraj) or village doctors in case of illness. 

In conclusion, it can be said that Bangladesh’s conservation policy for the hilsa shad did have a positive impact on the environment and on the catch numbers of the fish. However, its implementation and execution was flawed. Also, the government did not take into consideration the fishermen’s literacy, health or habits and the corruption that exists in society. To bring about a positive change a multitude of changes and practices must be adopted. In tangent next section provides solutions and recommendations for the same. 


Solutions and recommendations 


The analysis shows that while well-intentioned, the Bangladeshi government failed to into account the socioeconomic conditions of the fishermen- the individuals who are most directly affected by the policy. The following are some recommendations to better the situation in Bangladesh- 

  1. Increasing the allocation of rehabilitation funds provided to the fishermen. BDT 10,000 is not enough to manage the families of the fishermen, and it must be increased to avoid negative consequences. 

  2. Take into account the literacy, training and habits of the fishermen while providing the fishermen with alternate opportunities of employment. Since most of the fishermen have been trained their whole life to fish, appropriate employment opportunities must be offered. Moreover, the government could offer training programs or develop their soft skills or skills pertaining to a particular field if they want to neccesairly employ the fishermen into a particular sector.

  3. Increase public awareness about the VGF card scheme so that more fishermen are able to receive subsidies from the government.

  4. Ensure the public distribution service is not corrupt, and is under supervision from the government so that the fishermen receive what they were promised. 

  5. The government could consider adding a source of protein to the subsidies provided to the VGF card holders. Since the fishermen’s main source of protein, i.e. hilsa fish, is no longer an option, their protein intake has declined. By providing them with a protein source such as eggs, which has a long shelf life, the government could avoid detrimental effects to the fishermen’s health due to a change in the diet. 

  6. The government can also improve health facilities in villages and provide concessions to the villagers, so that fishermen do not have to compromise on their healthcare or pay more than they can afford to.


Conclusion 


With today’s growing demand of natural resources and the growing threat of climate change, there is a need for the adoption of sustainable practices. Bangladesh has taken a step in the right direction by introducing a policy with the aim to conserve the hilsa shad, which was prone to overfishing and exploitation. However, while this policy was successful in increasing the catch figures of the country, through sustainable methods, the policy did not take into consideration the socio economic conditions of the fishermen, the individuals who will be the most affected and are already quite poor. Bangladesh needs to make changes with respect to the execution and implementation of the policy, in order to make sure no one is compromising their livelihood in the name of conservation.


Future research directions


Sustainable fishing and aquaculture is an issue that is imperative currently. More and more countries are planning to, or already have adopted conservation strategies. There should be more research on how these practices affect the citizens of the country, and what could be the best conservation policy that avoids negative impacts on society. Furthermore, these policies should be evaluated regularly so that the government is aware of when there is a need for a new one. 


 

References


Allan, J. D., Abell, R., Hogan, Z., Revenga, C., Taylor, B. W., Welcomme, R. L., & Winemiller, K. (2005). Overfishing of Inland Waters. BioScience55(12), 1041. doi: 10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[1041:ooiw]2.0.co;2 


Ali, H., M.A.K. Azad, M. Anisuzzaman, M.M.R. Chowdhury, M. Hoque and M.I. Sharful,

Dhaka, Bangladesh, pp: 182. (in Bengali). 2009. Livelihood Status of the Fish Farmers in Some Selected Areas of Tarakanda Upazila of Mymensingh District . Journal of Agroforestry and Environment, 3: 85-89.


B. Shakouri, Soheila khoshnevis Yazdi and A. Fashandi, "Overfishing," 2010 2nd International Conference on Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering, Cairo, 2010, pp. 229-234.doi:10.1109/ICBEE.2010.5649534


Bolster, J. W., & Magra, C. P. (2013). The Mortal Sea: Fishing the Atlantic in the Age of Sail, by W. Jeffrey BolsterThe Mortal Sea: Fishing the Atlantic in the Age of Sail. The American Historical Review118(5), 1473–1475. doi: 10.3138/cjh.49.1.164


Caddy, J. F., & Bazigos, G. P. (1985). Practical guidelines for statistical monitoring of fisheries in manpower limited situationsPractical guidelines for statistical monitoring of fisheries in manpower limited situations. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.


Costanza, R., Daly, H., & Bartholomew, J. (1993). Goals, Agenda, Policy Recommendations. In R. Costanza, Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability (pp. 1-20). Columbia University Press.


Dey, S. C., Sarker, B. S., Saha, D., & Adhikary, R. K. (2010). Impacts of Banning Period on the Socio-Economic Condition of Hilsa Fishermen of Monpura Island, Bangladesh. International Journal of Bio Research2(12), 31–36.


DoF (Department of Fisheries), Fisheries Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh (July 2011 - June 2012), Department of Fisheries, Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka (2013)


[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations . 1999. Review of the State of World Fishery Resources: Inland Fisheries. Rome: FAO Fisheries Department. FAO Fisheries Circular no. 942.


Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations . (2014). Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles The People's Republic of BangladeshFishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles The People's Republic of Bangladesh (pp. 5–13).


Food and Agriculture Organization. (2018). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018: In Brief.


Froese, R., Branch, T. A., Proelß, A., Quaas, M., Sainsbury, K., & Zimmermann, C. (2010). Generic harvest control rules for European fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 12(3), 340–351. doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00387.x 


Grafton, R. Quentin, Dale Squires, and Kevin J. Fox. 2000. Private Property and Economic Efficiency: A Study of A Common-Pool Resource. Journal of Law & Economics 43(October): 679–713


Hilborn, R., Branch, T., Ernst, B., Magnusson, A., Minte-Vera, C., Scheuerell, M., & Valero, J. (2003). STATE OF THEWORLD'SFISHERIES. Annual Review Of Environment And Resources28(1), 359-399. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105509


Islam, M. M., Mohammed, E. Y., & Ali, L. (2016). Economic incentives for sustainable hilsa fishing in Bangladesh: An analysis of the legal and institutional framework. Marine Policy68, 8–22. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.02.0054


Jackson, J. B. C. (2001). Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems. Science293(5530), 629–637. doi: 10.1126/science.1059199


Kura, Yumiko & Revenga, C. & Hoshino, Eriko & Mock, G.. (2004). Fishing for Answers: Making Sense of the Global Fish Crisis. 


M.A.L. Siddique, Conservation of juvenile hilsa (jatka) in Bangladesh: Need to address the livelihood of fishers, in: American Fisheries Society Symposium, vol. 69, 2009, pp. 757–768.


Mome, M. A., & Arnason, R. (2015). Monitoring artisanal hilsa fishery for economic efficient fisheries policy. Bangladesh Journal of Zoology43(1), 37–53. doi: 10.3329/bjz.v43i1.26136


Moustakas, A., Silvert, W., & Dimitromanolakis, A. (2006). A spatially explicit learning model of migratory fish and fishers for evaluating closed areas. Ecological Modelling192(1-2), 245–258. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.07.007


Pauly, D. (1983). Some Simple Methods for the Assessment of Tropical Fish StocksSome Simple Methods for the Assessment of Tropical Fish Stocks. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper.


Pauly, D., Silvestre, G., & Smith, I. R. (1989). On Development, Fisheries and Dynamite: A Brief Review of Tropical Fisheries Management. Natural Resource Modeling3(3), 307–329.

Global Journal of Science Frontier Research: I Marine Science Volume 15 Issue 1 Version 1.0 Year 2015 Type : Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA) Online ISSN: 2249-4626 & Print ISSN: 0975-5896


Porras, I., Mohammed, E. Y., Ali, L., Ali, M. S., & Hossain, M. B. (2017). Power, profits and payments for ecosystem services in Hilsa fisheries in Bangladesh: A value chain analysis. Marine Policy, 84, 60–68. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2017.06.031 


Rana, M. E. U., Salam, A., Km, S. N., & Hasan, M. M. (2018). Hilsa Fishers of Ramgati, Lakshmipur, Bangladesh: An Overview of Socio- Economic and Livelihood Context. Journal of Aquaculture Research & Development09(07). doi: 10.4172/2155-9546.1000541


"Text of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: Part V". Retrieved 2019-10-01.


United Nations. (2015). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015 (pp. 8-9). New York: United Nations. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf


World Bank. (2013). Fish to 2030: Prospects for Fisheries and AquacultureFish to 2030: Prospects for Fisheries and Aquaculture.


World Ocean Review. (2013). Retrieved October 2, 2019, from https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-2/fisheries/illegal-fishing/.


Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as a research method. Retrieved from http://psyking.net/htmlobj-3837/case_study_as_a_research_method.pdf

0 comments

Comments


bottom of page