a model performa for benchmarking fisheries co-operatives involved with fisheries and aquaculture in...
TRANSCRIPT
Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299348882
AModelPerformaforBenchmarkingFisheriesCo-OperativesInvolvedwithFisheriesandAquacultureinInlandWaterBodies
RESEARCH·MARCH2016
DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.4879.2728
READS
9
1AUTHOR:
KoushikRoy
CentralInlandFisheriesResearchInstitute
18PUBLICATIONS0CITATIONS
SEEPROFILE
Allin-textreferencesunderlinedinbluearelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,
lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.
Availablefrom:KoushikRoy
Retrievedon:28March2016
Model Performa For Benchmarking Fisheries Cooperatives Roy (2015) - Unpublished
A MODEL PERFORMA FOR BENCHMARKING FISHERIES CO-OPERATIVES
INVOLVED WITH FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE IN INLAND WATER
BODIES
Koushik Roy
Senior Research Fellow. ICAR- Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute, Barrackpore.
Introduction
Cooperative fishery management assigns management rights, formally or informally, to a
group of users. Assigning rights to groups rather than individuals can be advantageous, given
the shared, common-pool nature of fish stocks. Managing fisheries by delegating authority to
an association of users, often organized as a cooperative, is gaining increased attention.
Evidence from developed country fisheries managed by cooperatives indicates that
coordination gains can be substantial (Deacon, 2012). In order to provide sincere support to
fishermen and to develop fisheries sector, it is essential to organize techno-financially
feasible and professionally managed fisheries cooperative societies (Nair et al., 2007). As a
well known fact, the cooperatives are the only answer for creating a forum through which the
technology for self sufficiency and income generation could be transferred to the fishers. The
fishery cooperatives represent one of the weaker sections of the society. There is need to
revitalize and strengthen fishery cooperatives in the country besides development linkages
among different tires of fishery cooperatives (Planning Commission - Government of India,
2001).
This article showcases a model performa for benchmarking the potential fisheries
cooperatives involved in inland waters for quantitatively assessing their suitability and
viability which can be used by the government or competent authorities in rendering
technological and/or financial assistance.
Performa
1. Name of the organization:
2. Office Address:
1
Model Performa For Benchmarking Fisheries Cooperatives Roy (2015) - Unpublished
3. Type: Cooperative/ Self Help Group/ Partnership firm (tick appropriate)
4. Year of establishment: [ ] (Calculate, Experience = Current year - Year of Estd.)
5. Area under management: hectares. (can be used for SWOT analysis)
6. No. of beneficiaries: (for assessing popularity/ social significance)
Initially Now
If Now > Initially, signs of positive social significance and therefore assign high priority.
*NOTE: Record the number of beneficiaries for the last 5 years. It will be required for
segment No. 13 and 14.
7. Average Annual Turnover: (Take average of last 5 years of the official record)
Value (in Rs/USD) Volume (in Kg)
*NOTE: The interviewer shall obtain last 5 years data on value and volume from official
record.
8. Trend of Annual Turnover: (Based on graphical analysis of official record, last 5
years)
Value (in Rs) Volume (in Kg)
Increasing / Decreasing / Consistent Increasing / Decreasing / Consistent
*NOTE: The interviewer shall obtain last 5 years data on value and volume from official
record. In either case, construct a spline curve graph and plot the median value of the data set
over the graph as a line. Count the number of peaks above the line (A) and below the line (B).
If A>B, assort increasing. If A<B, assort decreasing. If A=B, assort consistent.
9. Peak season: (for GIS map/ modelling purposes w.r.t. the water body and creation of
time series data for future references)
From (Month) To (Month) Duration (No. of months)
10. Lean season: (can be proposed for banning of all fishing activities/ closed season)
From (Month) To (Month) Duration (No. of months)
2
Model Performa For Benchmarking Fisheries Cooperatives Roy (2015) - Unpublished
11. Months of significance: (for GIS map/ modelling purposes w.r.t. the water body and
creation of time series data for future references)
Maximum Value (in Rs) obtained in the
month
Maximum Volume (in Kg) obtained in the
month
12. Adoption of responsible fisheries: (for fisheries policymakers w.r.t. scientific
utilization or conservation of a particular water body)
S. No. Responsible Fishing Policies Implemented?
(if Yes, TICK)
1. Mesh Size Regulation (for sparing fingerlings or juveniles)
2. Fishing Units (No. of crafts) Restriction
3. Impose of Maximum catch limit
4. Observation of Closed season (zero fishing activities)
5. Demarcation for Closed area (restricted access for fishing)
*NOTE: If 3 to 5 ticks obtained out of 5, then assign ‘Undertaking Responsible Fishery’.
If 1 to 2 ticks obtained out of 5, then assign ‘Undertaking Partly Responsible Fishery’.
If 0 ticks out of 5, then assign ‘Practicing Indiscriminate Fishery’.
13. Number of fishermen: (for deriving thematic maps on dependencies on fisheries as
primary/ secondary sources of livelihood, socio-economic significance of peak and
lean seasons, strength of the organisation and human engagement potential of the
water body)
Total fishermen No. of active fishermen during
peak season/ peak month
No. of active fishermen during
lean season/ lean month
14. Infrastructure index: (for purposes of grading the organisation and assigning
priority to the water body; for GIS map/ modelling purposes w.r.t. the water body and
creation of time series data for future references)
A. Number of landing centres (under organisation) =
3
Model Performa For Benchmarking Fisheries Cooperatives Roy (2015) - Unpublished
B. Number of crafts used (under organisation) =
C. Number of gear per fisherman (under organisation) =
Infrastructure index = 𝐴 + 𝐵 + 𝐶
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
15. Number of markets covered: [ ] (for estimation of geographical outreach)
*NOTE: For estimation of geographical outreach, identify the on-map location of the
markets at first. Find out the distance of the markets from the landing centre(s) and calculate
an average.
16. Per capita share of beneficiaries: (for purposes of grading and assigning priority to
the organisation; for GIS map/ modelling purposes w.r.t. the water body and creation
of time series data for future references)
Per capita share = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 (𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑠.)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑜.𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠
*NOTE: If the total no. of beneficiaries has changed over the last 5 years, then take the
average (last 5 years). For average annual turnover (in Rs.), refer segment no. 7.
17. Productivity index: (for purposes of grading the organisation and assigning priority
to the water body; for GIS map/ modelling purposes w.r.t. the water body and
creation of time series data for future references)
Productivity index = 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 (𝑖𝑛 𝐾𝑔)
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑜.𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠
*NOTE: If the total no. of beneficiaries has changed over the last 5 years, then take the
average (last 5 years). For average annual turnover (in Kg), refer segment no. 7.
18. Socio-Economic index: (for socio-economic impact assessment; for GIS map/
modelling purposes w.r.t. the water body and creation of time series data for future
references)
Socio-economic index = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑁𝑜.𝑜𝑓 𝑏𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑠 + 𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 (𝑖𝑛 𝑅𝑠.)
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
4
Model Performa For Benchmarking Fisheries Cooperatives Roy (2015) - Unpublished
*NOTE: If the total no. of beneficiaries has changed over the last 5 years, then take the
average (last 5 years). For average annual turnover (in Rs.), refer segment no. 7.
Disclaimer
The author takes full responsibility in declaring that the present performa is an intellectual
creation of the author himself and is not part of any ongoing/completed project and/or
assigned work of ICAR-CIFRI, Barrackpore in any form whatsoever. The performa has not
been adopted from anywhere.
References
Deacon, R.T. 2012. Fishery Management by Harvester Cooperatives. Review of
Environmental Economics and Policy, 6 (2): 258-277. doi:10.1093/reep/res008
Nair, S.R., Pandey, S.K., Sharma, A. and Salim, S.S. 2007. An Evaluation of the Business
Performance of Fishery Cooperative Societies in Vasai Taluka of Thane District,
Maharashtra. Indian Cooperative Review, January (2007) 224-233pp.
Planning Commission - Government of India. 2001. Report of the working group on fisheries
for the tenth five year plan. TFYP working group Sr. No. 16/2001
5