Research Article Open Access

Volume 3 • Issue 2 • 1000115J Geogr Nat DisastISSN: 2167-0587 JGND, an open access journal

Open AccessResearch Article

Geography & Natural DisastersMamun, J Geogr Nat Disast 2013, 3:2

http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2167-0587.1000115

*Corresponding authors: Faculty of Science, Science Building, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Cananda, Tel: 519-884-0710; E-mail: mamu6650@mylaurier.ca

Received Spetember 16, 2013; Accepted November 28, 2013; Published December 05, 2013

Citation: Mamun AA (2013) Mechanisms of Enhancing Social-Ecological Resilience in Human-Altered Wetlands through Comanagement. J Geogr Nat Disast 3: 115. doi:10.4172/2167-0587.1000115

Copyright: © 2013 Mamun AA. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Mechanisms of Enhancing Social-Ecological Resilience in Human-Altered Wetlands through ComanagementAbdullah-Al Mamun*

Faculty of Science, Science Building, 75 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Cananda

AbstractThe objective of the research was to highlight if comanagement can be used as a tool to enhance social-ecological

resilience. In this regard, this study investigates the mechanisms of enhancing resilience concerning social-ecological systems of small-scale fisheries of Bangladesh. Aspects assessed concerning establishing resilience include: habitat protection measures through natural sanctuaries, local rules and fishing practices on maintaining habitats features to support ecosystem functions/services. A case study based approach followed by Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques was used for data collection and subsequent analysis. This study identifies that comanagement has the potentials to operationalize social-ecological resilience as it employs low cost measures to support ecosystems such as using locally based materials in sanctuaries and allows engaging local rules to managing fish habitats. Habitat management programs under comanagement also can enhance the incomes and access of fishers to their traditional fishers during recovery of ecosystem processes. However, some inherent constraints such as funding issues, degradability of the sanctuary materials and gaining supports from related stakeholders to be addressed for future applicability of comanagement in building social-ecological resilience.

Keywords: social-ecological resilience; Ecosystem dynamics; Comanagement

Introduction Human uses of nature are considered as major drivers for

environmental changes that shape ecosystem dynamics and related functions [1-6]. It is well known that human use systems rely vastly on healthily ecosystems that are capable of providing ecosystem services [7]. In inland wetland systems, major ecosystems services include small-scale fisheries and waters to support livelihoods such as incomes and subsistence uses, but often they are degraded for high level of human interventions. Recent information indicates that patterns of natural resource services (fisheries) from aquatic systems rely not only on efficient harnessing of the resources (e.g., technology driven harvest methods) but they also depend on the capacity of ecosystems to sustain production meeting human needs [8]. In this regard, we have recent example of collapse of cod fisheries in Eastern Coast of Canada where efficient mechanisms of harvests (e.g., trawl fishing) have led to severe degradation of cod stock and moratorium is in effect for years to recover the fishery but no discernible progresses is seen [9]. Similarly, overharvests and uncontrolled of fishing in many densely populated floodplain environments such as Bangladesh have caused substantial loss to fisheries too [10]. Therefore, a major challenge of the day is to formulate governance systems that enhance functions of ecosystem in a fashion that secures ecosystem capacity to support societal needs such as ensure fish catch and accesses to resource for key users [11-14]. This paper approaches the above governance challenge related to meeting both social and ecological needs of fisheries management through the concept of resilience where comanagement of fisheries was used as a tool.

Resilience is defined as a capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and to reorganize while undergoing changes [15]. This property permits a system to retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks after a shock or disturbance in an ecosystem [16]. Therefore, resilience has been promoted as a concept to guide the integrative study concerning management of natural resources to consider social and ecological systems equally (17-22,4,23). However, some participatory approaches include human dimensions to resource governance. These

approaches include: community-based conservation [11], integrated management [24], co management [25], and community-based comanagement [26]. The above approaches consider issues of scales such as administrative and geographic boundaries [27,19], institutions and rule systems (formal and informal), shared decision making [25], collective learning among actors [28] that can help developing robust social-ecological systems [29-32].

In this regard comanagement has been a widely used approach for shared decision making and use of powerful frameworks like design principles for managing common pool resources that include issues of social and ecological scales in managing common pool resources [33,27,19,34-36]. It is also for its adaptive nature to support governance to accommodate diversity of views in management which is flexible to changing circumstances and with the needs of social-ecological processes [37]. Although comanagement has a key focus to shared-decision making (local users and state bodies as actors) to reduce gaps among local and administrative scales [38], its scopes has been expanded greatly in recent years [39]. For example, comanagement of Bangladesh include components for ecosystem development such as community managed natural sanctuaries for recovery of degraded fisheries where local institutions called CBOs (community-based organizations) are supported by small grants [26]. So both issues related ecosystem processes and social components of resource governance are accommodated in fisheries comanagement which has been the major tenet of resilience approach to resource governance

Citation: Mamun AA (2013) Mechanisms of Enhancing Social-Ecological Resilience in Human-Altered Wetlands through Comanagement. J Geogr Nat Disast 3: 115. doi:10.4172/2167-0587.1000115

Page 2 of 9

Volume 3 • Issue 2 • 1000115J Geogr Nat DisastISSN: 2167-0587 JGND, an open access journal

for achieving sustainability. Given the above understanding, it is assumable that comanagement approach holds promise of advancing resilience theory in addressing problems of both social and ecosystem processes. However, this type of claim has not been actualized in connection with comanagement through empirical evidence from field settings. To fill these gaps, this research asks the following question: What are the mechanisms of comanagement can employ towards achieving social-ecological resilience in small-scale fisheries systems? For measuring ways of advancing resilience, this research highlights the mechanisms used to save fish habitats which include: establishment of natural sanctuaries, habitat friendly fishing practices, and related local rules favourable for recovery of small-scale fisheries in rivers, oxbow lakes and floodplains that are degraded for human uses. Some concerns related to approaches applied to enhance resilience in social-ecological systems under comanagement are also included for policy consideration and framing resource governance.

Profile of the study area and setting

This study was conducted in the greater Jessore District of Bangladesh Figure 1. The study area included six water bodies from three categories of inland fisheries systems where comanagement programs were applied for recovery of fisheries. These include:

floodplains (e.g., Isali and Goakhola), ox-bow lakes (e.g., Bukbhora and Porakhali), and rivers (e.g., Nabogonga and Fatki). All of the study sites were part of different donor funded programs directed towards development of open water fisheries and water management with the participation of local users Table 1. The projects ran between 1997-2006. A description of project areas is given in Table 1. Management systems of the fisheries in ox-bow lakes sites were controlled by fisheries cooperatives called community-based organizations (CBOs) who are also leasing holders of the fisheries while the rivers and floodplains were open access or semi-controlled except few designated fisheries areas such as sanctuaries.

Fishing were the dominant resource uses of all sites except Isali where irrigation use of waters along with some fisheries activities at nearby canal was found. In all sites individual and group fishing using varieties of gears such as seine nets, cast nests, push nets and traps. Setting fish aggregating device (e.g., brush parks) and angling are also common in rivers and ox-bow lakes.

Other uses of these aquatic systems included: waters for irrigating farmlands (e.g., winter crops), carrying goods by mechanize- and manually operated boats (e.g., rivers), and fodders for livestock (all sites). Cultural uses of wetlands are prominent in river sites (e.g.,

Figure 1: Map of Bangladesh showing location of study site.

Citation: Mamun AA (2013) Mechanisms of Enhancing Social-Ecological Resilience in Human-Altered Wetlands through Comanagement. J Geogr Nat Disast 3: 115. doi:10.4172/2167-0587.1000115

Page 3 of 9

Volume 3 • Issue 2 • 1000115J Geogr Nat DisastISSN: 2167-0587 JGND, an open access journal

Nabogonga and Fatki). Hindu communities use rivers as a sacrificial place of their goddess after paying homage during the main cultural festivals of Hindus like durga and kali puja. Bangladesh also has distinct cultural groups (e.g., Jayles, Koibortos and Banshi) who colonize historically alongside of rivers and whose main profession professions have been fishing. Local fishers also used wetlands for subsistence use as no much restriction applies except harvesting stocked fishes in ox-bow lakes (e.g., Porakhali and Bukbhora sites).

The information above indicates that local people have maintained a diversity of relationships with aquatic ecosystems of the study areas from the time immemorial. But recent information indicates that the study areas are highly interrupted by human interventions. For example, migration of fishes are blocked by cross dams (in rivers) while other wetland areas (Floodplains and Ox-bow lakes) are converted into farmlands by putting dikes and embankments across rivers or converted into aquaculture areas [26]. Related institutions and legal systems (e.g., Fish Acts), therefore, found ineffective for lack of implementation of fish rules to support fisheries. Fishers blame state management as DoF could control illegal fishing or use of unauthorized gears (e.g., small-meshed gill-nets). Local users (fishers) also do not show interests in controlling access to wetlands as the community rights are revoked by declaring all open waters as state properties. As a result, a de facto open access situations are active in open waters systems which has been the cause of fisheries degradations [26]. For these kinds of human interventions and the lack of supporting management measures (e.g., implementation of fish acts), fish productions from all these sites, therefore, are highly reduced. Many believe that the open water fishery in Bangladesh is on the verge of collapse as there is a 70-80% catch drop from inland capture fisheries accompanied by a loss of 45% from wetlands for flood control programs [10,40]. Due to such loss of fisheries, livelihoods of some visible cultural groups (e.g., Jalyes and Koidotos) are especially in high risk as they do not adopt alternative professions (e.g., farming) for cultural reasons (They believe they born to fish. So why other profession to go). These above factors concerning wetlands (loss of wetlands, erosion of local controls and reduced fish catch) can be a treated as disconnections between social systems and ecosystems while loss of fisheries productions are the ultimate outcomes of disturbances in ecosystems Figure 2. These phenomena also indicated that social systems and ecosystems are integrated and actions of society (institutions, rules and uses systems) affect ecosystems

(often negatively) which I have modeled in Figure 2. So establishment of connection between social and ecosystems is needed for recovery of fisheries.

As fisheries have strong livelihoods connections, and state management could not support fisheries, present reality for open water small-scale fisheries has been introduction of collective efforts from both state and users for maintaining fisheries. It’s more like reconnecting social-cultural ties with ecosystems where comanagement has been used as a tool. Comanagement has been promoted through local engagement which allowed excising local management (rules are developed through consultation with fishers) so that functions of ecosystems can be recovered to support social systems such as secure fisheries productions from open waters. Mechanisms applied in comanagement that was supportive towards ecosystems management include: development of natural sanctuaries, removals of fish barricades and use of local rules and practices that are favorable for fish health managment. Investigation on the diversity of the outcomes from mechanisms used to protect wetlands ecosystems (e.g., sanctuaries and related rule systems) across study sites can provide insights about how resilient social-ecological systems can be operatinalised using comanagement as a tool.

Methodological ConsiderationsGrounded in the theoretical framework of complex socio-ecological

systems [16,41,42], this research employs concepts concerning resilience in ecology [43], and participatory resource governance [37,44]. For understanding the impacts of comanagement in enhancing social-ecological resilience among study sites, an exploratory method was used for data collection that incorporate views of local people, government officials and personal observations. Interpretations were made based on the analysis of types of approaches used in enhancing social-ecological resilience such as such establishment of natural sanctuaries, management systems and other supporting roles of comanagement programs such as livelihood incomes. Primary data was collected in 2011 and 2012 utilizing three Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) based approaches including semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and participatory observation in combination to reduce data gaps [45]. Total data collection period was 18 months. In total 111 respondents were interviewed. Of them, 78 informants were made up of general

Descriptions Fatki Nabogonga Isali Goakhola Bukbhora PorakhaliHabitat types River River Floodplain Floodplain Ox-bow Lake Ox-bow Lakes

Connectivity Flowing Flowing Controlled flooding

Controlled flooding Silted Silted

Property rights State property State property Private lands Private lands Private and state property

Private and state properties

Uncontrolled/Open access systems √ √ √ √

Controlled management/leasing √ √Stock-based management √ √Water and irrigation √Transportations √ √ √ √ √ √Cultural use (pujas/ceremonial/festival fishing) √ √ √ √ √ √

Commercial fishery √ √ √ √

Allow subsidence fishing √ √ √ √ √ √

Effective social rules (Fishing times, gears and harvest sharing) √ √ √ √

Effective community organizations (Local cooperatives) √ √ √ √

(Sources: WFC 2007; Focus Groups, 2011)

Table 1: General characteristics of the study sites.

Citation: Mamun AA (2013) Mechanisms of Enhancing Social-Ecological Resilience in Human-Altered Wetlands through Comanagement. J Geogr Nat Disast 3: 115. doi:10.4172/2167-0587.1000115

Page 4 of 9

Volume 3 • Issue 2 • 1000115J Geogr Nat DisastISSN: 2167-0587 JGND, an open access journal

barricades at water ways. In this regard, types of advantages community received from sanctuary (e.g. economic gains and fisher rights) for habitat management programs are also discussed.

Natural sanctuaries-The Katas

…Fish needed a safe place during December through June, when our water body has less water and when fishing pressure is higher than in other seasons (fishing in small area intensify fishing pressures). After staying few months in a sanctuary, they can go out of the place (sanctuaries) for breeding, and that is how sanctuaries can save fish”. CBO Leader, Fatki River, Bhatuail, Bagharpara, Magura, 2011.

The above statement states the need and awareness of local people about habitat management through comanagement. Local people addressed the requirement of fish habitat protection by creating natural habitats called kata for saving both small and large sized fishes so that goal related to biodiversity conservation is also achieved. By both the fishers’ own definition and my own field observations, a typical kata sanctuary in fisheries systems consists of staked branches (which is similar to brush park made for fishing) that extend through the topmost, middle, and bottom parts of a particular water body. As above statement says Katas are intended to protect fish during the winter/dry season and keep some habitats safe for parent stocks. Based on the fishers’ local knowledge, deeper pools and areas situated adjacent to river meander zones (i.e., the coves, locally called ghona, with reduced stream velocity, hence less likely to wash out unstabilized materials-the branches and shade) were prioritized. With fast-flowing rivers displaying strong currents, fishers constructed smaller sanctuaries (0.02-0.05 hectare in area) while the sanctuaries built in near-stagnant habitats such as floodplains and Ox-bow lakes , were typically an

members (fishers/farmers/fish traders) and 18 were CBO leaders from community-based organizations, and 15 were officials concerned with comanagement programs. Some interviews were conducted one-on-one primarily by telephone, because not all participants were available during the time of direct field investigations. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and translated. In total, seven focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted (one in each site, with the exception of Goakhola which had an extra focus group discussion for women participants). In addition to the PRA based approaches, secondary data was also utilized to understand how comanagement was supportive in enhancing social-ecological resilience (e.g., measures for ecosystem development, joint actions, funding and fishing methods.). The data were collected for a Ph.D. research project.

Results and DiscussionsIn order for fish populations to thrive and reproduce, fish habitat

should provide shelter, security and nourishment [46]. However, management tools (institutions and rules) to support such programs are lacking. In connection with resilience approach to open water fisheries systems, two main interventions made under comanged fisheries and related outcomes are discussed. The first one is related to sanctuary operation and the second is related to local rules about fishing practices which in combination have contributed towards resilient social-ecological processes. For ecosystem protection, mechanisms of sanctuary management to restore ecosystem properties have been key considerations. For example, type of construction materials, site selections, management processes, are described. For social components of resilience, governance arrangements supported by local rules are described. These include: social rules applied to avoid uncontrolled fishing and types of joint surveillance for removal fish

(Note: This figure shows major linkages between fisheries and aquatic resources with decision supports from institutions which have positive (+) and negative (-) impacts on social-ecological processes. From Schluter and Worstl 2007 and my own presentation)

Figure 2: Conceptual model of linked social-ecological systems in wetland habitats.

Citation: Mamun AA (2013) Mechanisms of Enhancing Social-Ecological Resilience in Human-Altered Wetlands through Comanagement. J Geogr Nat Disast 3: 115. doi:10.4172/2167-0587.1000115

Page 5 of 9

Volume 3 • Issue 2 • 1000115J Geogr Nat DisastISSN: 2167-0587 JGND, an open access journal

order of magnitude larger (0.30-0.50 hectare), as there was little risk of damage to the sanctuary constructions by fast-moving currents.

Construction materials of katas: Fishers used locally available materials such as bamboo sticks for fencing, or stems of local trees, such as mangoes species for stabilizing sanctuary foundations. To establish hideouts for fish in sanctuaries, some aquatic plants (i.e., “kalmilata,” the aquatic angiosperm, Ipomea aquatica), found commonly in stagnant water, wetlands, and marshes of Bangladesh, were used as shedding materials for sanctuaries Figure 3.

To increase the efficiency of katas several other techniques were also favorable for supporting fish habitats for different types of fishes. For example, for saving small fishes (e.g., minnows and small shrimps) fishers used thick-leaved branches from local trees called shara so that they can protect the small fishes from predatory species like freshwater sharks (Wallago attu) and snake heads (Channa striatus). This plant is well known to form hideouts for tiny birds such as sparrows, larks, and doves which as used as construction materials for sanctuary so that big carnivores cannot enter the core area of katas and prey on small fishes.

Other related mechanisms supported katas include low cost approaches. kata materials (aquatic plants and twigs) were procured at no costs (e.g., water hyacinths and tree branches). Only voluntary laboring from general members were required to gather the materials and tied with branches to avoid flushing or moved away by water currents, strong winds or tornadoes. Fisheries only needed to buy some branches of some trees though such as mangoes in the case they did not have required amount of branches from own sources. Other cost curtailing approaches included use of local knowledge and avoidance high end designs but apply local knowledge. For example, fisheries did not require expert views on constructions and site selections from high paid consultants taught in western knowledge as no engineering or technical solution were expected. For all sites local community with the help of traditional and full-time fishers (e.g., Jalyes) identified spots that have fewer disturbances from human uses such as operation of country boats carrying goods or have high level of wave actions. Fishers

mostly used project funds for meeting the costs related to construction materials such as building twigs and bamboos. Katas were used in all sites but had some differences in the way they were operated. For example, open katas are more common in rivers and ox-bow lakes but pond-based katas were found in floodplains while the material used quite similar except adding more branches in katas used for rivers to hold related materials such as water hyacinths Figure 3.

Management process of kata: For successful operation of sanctuaries under comanagement, the integration of different stakeholders such as Donors, DoF and local institutions such as union councils were also important. For all CBOs project baseline funds were allocated by DFID, UK and channeled to communities through technical agencies such as WorldFish Center for the realizing initial costs (e.g., buying ropes or some entertaining money for laborers) of sanctuaries. For non-WorldFish sites (e.g., Oxbow lakes and Isali) management funds were made available through government department such as Engineering Department directly. Overall costs from constructions of sanctuaries ranged from TK. 20000-150000 (300-2000 dollars) based on the size of the water bodies, depths and target species that were either borne from project grants or rents of general members for fishing in sanctuary-based fisheries such as in Ox-bow lakes. For obligations related to rules under Fish Protection and Conservation Act 1950, government circulations were served through district offices managing lands and state properties for promulgating the operation of comanagement and area to be used. Also Government Land Office helped demarcation of comanaged area in floodplains and river sections. The actions can be treated as making comanagement a formal institutional arrangement as government rules were effective and communities gained institutional supports. In general, local community across the study sites was found to have established specific rules and regulations to manage fish sanctuaries. This includes demarcation of the areas used as sanctuaries by putting up a fence and highlighting the boundaries with red flags indicating that access to such areas is restricted. Additionally, they hanged up signboards, which outlined the rules and regulations for sanctuaries and highlighted their purposes and importance. They felt

Note: In this approach, ditches of ponds inside the rice fields are used as natural sanctuaries to restore fish habitats. Fishers feel that it is a useful approach to the capacity-building of CBOs as it helps fisheries production and increases the income of fishers. The red arrow indicates the natural moment of fishes between sanctuary and floodplain habitats when fishes need to do so. Rice fields are also seen in floodplains, which are used for the feeding and breeding grounds of fish, maintaining the natural growth of fisheries.

Figure 3: A view of a pond-based kata sanctuary in rice-field in Goakhola site.

Citation: Mamun AA (2013) Mechanisms of Enhancing Social-Ecological Resilience in Human-Altered Wetlands through Comanagement. J Geogr Nat Disast 3: 115. doi:10.4172/2167-0587.1000115

Page 6 of 9

Volume 3 • Issue 2 • 1000115J Geogr Nat DisastISSN: 2167-0587 JGND, an open access journal

that sanctuaries were symbols of their rights to the water body, and not solely about fish habitat protection and building ecosystem capacity. CBO members of Fatki River reiterate how people will know they are working for their fisheries when there is no sign of their actions. He remarked “…we have signboards and flags encircling the sanctuaries and that is how we make outsiders know we are there and they avoid the sanctuary area during fishing”. So management of sanctuary was both mixed of formal and informal rules and activities given various types of cooperation were necessary from DoF and land related offices for operation of sanctuaries such as erecting signboards with fish rules mentioned.

The deployment of conventional gear was physically impeded in such zones unless it is mentioned otherwise. As katas are for rejuvenating fisheries CBOs pay more attention in saving them by deploying fishers or members who live close to kata sanctuaries for nighttime guarding or monitoring of conditions of kata if there are any damages and replacement of materials needed. Access to kata was prohibited by CBOs (community-based organizations) formed under comanagement programs. Kata materials are checked periodically by fishers and any damages recorded were informed to the group leaders for necessary actions if needed. Fishers also eradicated some fishes by setting hooks with frogs or fish baits targeting big carnivores such as snakeheads (Channa straiatus) when they felt the population of prey species is more than normal. Therefore, sanctuary was fully an eco-friendly and technologically efficient approach to fisheries management by targeting both small indigenous (minnows) and large fishes such as snakeheads/freshwater sharks whose population needed recovery by maintaining habitat features.

Habitat protection through other means

Joint actions and flexible local rules are articulated as important components of resource governance in the absence of effective state rules directed towards fisheries habitats [47]. I described here how joint actions and habitat friendly measure that have supported ecosystem structures and functions.

Join actions supporting fish habitats: Comanagement driven joint actions such as surveillance and monitoring for eradiation of fixed gears been effective in rivers. Local users informed me that Fatki river had long term problems with the blocking of water ways by fence supported fishing. Traps are fastened to catch fishes after installation of underwater fences. As per DoF, removal of water barricades was not possible as fences were underwater structures and not visible from outside. As per community records, they could remove 14 such barricades from 8 km stretch of the rivers included under comanagement that was detected as detrimental to fisheries as they block routes of carp fishes that need long range migration. In this regard, DoF played as key actors as the representative of government in implementing fish acts while community members helped DoF in detecting the spots where fences were installed. Engaging local efforts with state has helped habitat features.

Habitat friendly fishing practices: Healthy fish habitats are identified as prerequisite to healthy fisheries [7] which was rediscovered though this study too. It was found that some fishing practices under comanaged ox-bow lakes have supported fish health and habitat conditions. Fishing practices related to habitat destruction are well known in many studies across the globe that affects fish health [48-50]. Although fishers are not blessed with having scientific information on fishing related damages and recovery process to apply in fisheries management, CBO members found very aware of the health of fish

that are impacted by recurrent hauling of fishing gears. In this regard, the CBOs especially from closed fisheries sites (such as Oxbow-lakes) informed me that after fishing 15 days in a row, there must be a one month undisturbed period (no fishing time) to resume fishing to maintain ecosystem properties as damage occurs in fish habitats for fishing. They meant it for increased turbidity for recurrent hauling that causes scarcity of natural foods as sunlight can not penetrate and fishes start to starve. This purposive suspension of fishing (temporary moratoriums) was useful as fish become stressed for recurrent hauling in a confined area like Ox-bow lakes having areas less than 100 hectares. In many cases, suspension of fishing is scientific, as fishing has a direct impact on habitat features such as disturbance of natural food webs (e.g., destruction of bottom features and uprooting of aquatic plants) as confirmed by other research works on ecology [48,49]. Fishers of Porakhali site informed me that habitat disturbance leads to less availability of food and multiple hauling in closed environment such as ox-bow lakes and ultimately cause weight loss in the fish available in such aquatic habitats. If harvest continues, fishers face loss from the harvesting of low quality fishes (often they are wounds and infections on body) and have less market price from selling them (none want to take fishes wounded and have infections). As a result, we can say that the measures taken by local fishers have both scientific and economic bases in responding to the needs of ecological processes. This information about fisheries in terms of habitat needs justifies the capability of local fishers to respond on resource processes using their own rules and traditional techniques. It also means that fishers can also respond to ecosystem needs for a developing reconnection and benefiting from ecological services such as high quality catch. This observation highlights roles of users in enhancing social-ecological resilience.

Social-ecological outcomes from resilient fisheries

For operation of sanctuary and managing fisheries community driven rules, small-scale fisheries have benefited in a number of ways in social-ecological terms. It is both for the community innovations and favorable rules for recovery of fisheries. For example, community was creative in adapting low-cost approach to sanctuary operation. Some level of fishing was allowed in all sanctuaries that alternated between “take and no-take years”, based on a scheduled harvest plans. In the Goakhola site, there are about three pond-based kata sanctuaries at rice fields Figure 3 from which one site was assigned to be harvested in a particular year, and the remaining two are to be saved as no-take zones for the next two years. Fishers of the Goakhola site mentioned they can generate around TK. 20000-30000/ (c.300-400 Can $) every year for the community every year that can be used for CBO operations. Fishers of this site maintained that even though this was not a substantial amount of money, it was enough to maintain expenditures relating to CBO operations, and meet the cost of repairing sanctuaries. One CBO leader expressed his views by comparing extractive reserves as a natural bank. He feels that the operation of sanctuaries is a blessing for them, especially at the end of project funding. He said,“…When we have no source of money, our last resort is the fish bank (the sanctuaries). We harvest one of them and keep the other two for coming years. From the sale, we meet our basic needs for CBO operations, such as fishing or buying the tree branches we need, and meet costs related to CBO”. Local rules for fishing followed by habitat conservation through sanctuaries have perhaps made ox-bow lake fisheries more economic too especially in the case of ox-bow lake sanctuaries under this study. As previews of fishers from Bukbhora, a portion of sanctuaries is need to be protected from fishing they functioned as like a natural seed bank of fishes which were enough to rejuvenate the fishery basing on natural stocks that what most of the fishers from Goakhola site and

Citation: Mamun AA (2013) Mechanisms of Enhancing Social-Ecological Resilience in Human-Altered Wetlands through Comanagement. J Geogr Nat Disast 3: 115. doi:10.4172/2167-0587.1000115

Page 7 of 9

Volume 3 • Issue 2 • 1000115J Geogr Nat DisastISSN: 2167-0587 JGND, an open access journal

oxbow lake sites told me about the advantages of natural sanctuaries (Focus Group, Bukbhora Ox-bow Lake, December, 2011). Fishers in Bukbhora site mentioned that they harvest around 12000-15000 tons every year of which nearly 30% is indigenous small-fishes that was supported by sanctuary operations (Focus Group, Bukbhora Ox-bow Lake, and December, 2011).

Fishers of Bukbhora stated further that they get better profit from selling small indigenous fishes (e.g., varieties of minnows, small shrimps and snakehead fishes) than stocked fishes that amount to 70% of catches (Indian major carps). It is because market price of local small indigenous fishes is much higher than stocked species (e.g., Indian major carps Labeo and Catla spp. and some Chinese carp Cyprinus carpio). It is because small indigenous fishes have almost disappeared from open waters but preference of small fishes is higher for their tastes and also for purchasable in small amount says few 100 grams that is affordable for families of poverty prone countries like Bangladesh [51,6]. Present market prices of small fishes range from TK. 200-300 ($ 3-7) per kg of fishes consisting of small cat fishes and minnows which size ranges between 5-7 cm in lengths. The above properties of small fishes make them very attractive in local markets from customers have low purchasing capacities (personal observation).

Sanctuary approach also benefited fisheries with respect to biodiversity conservation. In this regard, the CBO leaders in Fatki river claimed that they noticed the arrival of four species of fish including Bheda (a local perch Nandus nadus), Boal (a silurid fish Wallgo attu), Pubda (small silurid Ompok sp.), and Shole (Channa stiratus), in their fishing zone that had disappeared since the 1990s due to disease outbreak related to Epizootic Ulcerative Syndrome (EUS). Fishers were proud to say that the operation of their sanctuaries has restored fish habitats of some of the most delicious fishes such as local carps. One leader from Fatki river site claimed that they need sanctuaries for other reasons too. In addition to being a good source of income for fishers, sanctuary operation also benefits aquatic animals in general, including wildlife (i.e., water birds and reptiles such as snakes that settle with fish in sanctuaries). As a result, it improves the health of ecosystem. Fishers confirmed that sanctuaries attracted wintering water birds such as cormorants or kingfishers as it saves fishes. Moreover, fishers felt that sanctuaries were symbols of establishing their lost rights to the water bodies. Fishers feel state system have abolished their rights from fishing grounds through leasing water bodies to third parties other than fishers and not solely about fish habitat protection and building ecosystem capacity but a way of establishing fishers rights to their traditional fishing grounds. The above information indicates the beneficial roles of sanctuary development in both social and ecological terms, given the production from fishing increased along with development of ecosystem properties. Similarly, community rules towards habitat management also have contributed to fisheries productions. Use of extractive reserves as opposed to no-take zones was favorable option for its economic benefits because it facilitates the supply of money for recurring CBO costs. Overall message from sanctuary operation and allow local people to exercise their own rules is a true picture of social-ecological resilience as fishers have saved fish habitats and they are benefited too from comanaged fisheries.

Discussions and conclusions

This study indicates that comanagement endorses social-ecological to resource governance and has potential in enhancing resilience towards sustainable development that incorporates measures such as natural sanctuaries along with introduction of ecosystem friendly rules, and fishing practices supportive towards ecosystems. Natural

sanctuaries especially favorable for their low cost approach using locally available materials such as water hyacinths and reeds as major construction materials for habitat conservation. Secondly, social equity has been a key consideration comanagement as it helped revitalizing rights to fishing grounds for fishers and allowed livelihoods approach to fishing (partial harvesting). This study invented that sanctuary can generate incomes for local users at the same time can be used to save ecosystems structures (various types of habitats) and functions supporting indigenous stock of fishes with economic importance. Sanctuaries have used a source for securing funds as they were used as extractive reserves as opposed to no-take-zone that we see mostly in the case of biodiversity conservation programs that are often not sustainable [11]. We have seen that saving ecosystems have benefited fishers through providing high valued catch that was lost before but recovered substantially during comanagement programs such as in Goakhola site and also in ox-bow lakes. Thirdly, sanctuary was approach was useful in saving fisheries by managing habitat properties such as restricted areas for fish refugees during low water conditions that have used local knowledge and social capitals (fishers have facilitate by small funding from external bodies). Moreover, sanctuary operation has been treated by fishers as a way or reestablishing their traditional rights to fishing grounds that were revoked. The above features of comanagement are strong indicative of enhancing resilience in social-ecological systems.

There are, however, times and local conditions where the maintenance of sanctuaries was not fully possible by CBOs as a result of lack of external supports. Availability of such external financial assistance was discontinued after the end of the project term and fish could not continue with the required number of sanctuaries as they are very poor (daily incomes are less than a dollar a day). Two ox-bow lakes sites managed the sanctuaries with own costs (they still do) but based on loans from banks while Nabogonga river site failed to operate sanctuaries as community did not cooperate (fishers put fishing devices at the place or close to sanctuary areas). One notable exception was at the Porakhali sites, where as late as 2011, the Abhoynagar sub-district Fisheries Office continued supporting the CBO towards defraying the costs of sanctuary development and maintenance. However, study sites such as Goakhola was nearly self-sufficient in managing their costs of fishing operation as they used sanctuaries as extractive reserves. Given this understanding, ether generation of self-source or external sources of funding (no matter is it is small or big) and external cooperation for communities are preconditions for success of habitat recovery through comanagement programs.

Comanagement programs also faced several other constraints at their operational levels. Fishers conveyed to me that interruption of management activities often happens as result. They identified some key factors such as discontinued funding from projects sources and as projects ended joint surveillance to protect illegal fishing did not continue. Fishers also informed me that, river sanctuaries are especially prone to flashfloods and if the velocity of current is strong and if no precautionary measures are taken, damage is likely. Similarly, fishers were found anxious regarding the durability of the construction materials. As these materials last around one year only, there is a requirement to replace them annually. Costs for annual replacement sometimes exceed the financial capacity of the CBOs and they need to rely on bank loans (e.g., Ox-bow lake sites) resulting in the interruption of fish sanctuary maintenance. Sanctuary operation at river systems was also interrupted by setting fishing devices such as brush piles by non-members. As mentioned before in the case of Nabogonga river site, fishers mentioned that if few sanctuaries are established among hundreds of brush pile fishing active, then putting such measure to

Citation: Mamun AA (2013) Mechanisms of Enhancing Social-Ecological Resilience in Human-Altered Wetlands through Comanagement. J Geogr Nat Disast 3: 115. doi:10.4172/2167-0587.1000115

Page 8 of 9

Volume 3 • Issue 2 • 1000115J Geogr Nat DisastISSN: 2167-0587 JGND, an open access journal

save fisheries is virtually have no benefits for fisheries conservation. As fishers failed to stop non-member operators of brush piles, it can be inferred that property rights in river systems have not been effective through comanagement programs and fisheries is remaining as open access. In this regard, fishers in Fatki River were found particularly concerned for the future operation of sanctuaries, which is also applicable to other areas. These fishers are mostly poor. They said if a stable source of funding were not available, they would not be able to operate the sanctuaries. If that happens, fishers will lose control of their hard-earned rights to local fisheries that was previously not possible before comanagement operation. Therefore, sanctuary approach is not a completely risk-free approach to habitat management but it is certainly much better than technology intensive habitat management measures such as creation of artificial habitats by placing rock [52] or putting restriction on the access by declaring sanctuaries as “NO TAKE ZONES” that do not support local livelihoods and access to resources [11,53-55].

Although management program is constrained by several factors, but it has still the potentials to be used as an approach to enhance social-ecological resilience in fisheries systems to help out degraded fisheries and livelihood processes. A detail review on worldwide habitat management programs by Smokorowski et al. [52] indicates that measures taken for restoration of habitats are expensive (e.g., as building artificial fish habitats by emplacing rocks for spawning sites and refuges for fish larvae, or by removing toxic debris from the bottom of water bodies) and also there is no strong empirical evidence that such approaches can save fish habitats and improve productions. So, fishers were innovative in terms of sanctuary operation indicating validity of their existence in governance of fisheries where state management often fails. Comanagement would be a better tool in advancing reliance approach to social-ecological processes if concerns related to continuous flow of resource for community is addressed and risk related to managing sanctuaries (decaying materials, private operation of fishing devices) can be abated to increase the efficiency of the approach. Future research may look at the expansion of the sanctuary approach along with local rules to other type of habitats such as rivers where developing social-ecological resilience has been less successful for the lack of local cooperation.

Acknowledgements

My special thanks to the community members and other stakeholders of the Fisheries Comanagement Program of the WorldFish Center, Bangladesh, who gave me the opportunity to discuss various management issues related to leadership development in local settings. I also would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Derek Armitage, University of Waterloo and Dr. Slocombe, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario for their assistance guiding the research and preparing this manuscript. I also equally acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Paul M. Thompson, Former Project Director, WorldFish Center, and Dr. Parvin Sultana, WorldFish Center, Dhaka, Bangladesh, who extended their support in conducting the research and providing access to the WorldFish Database system and archival records and offered other suggestions that benefited the study. I extend my sincere thanks to my friend Dr. Alan Potkin, University of Illinois, USA who helped me in many ways in developing the paper. This research is funded by International Development Research Center, Canada (www.idrc.ca/).

References

1. Tipping Point Planner (2013) Tipping points and indicators: Supporting sustainable communities in Great Lakes States.

2. Wellcoast (2013) Social-ecological Resilience.

3. Cash DW, Adger W, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, et al. (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society 11: 8.

4. Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses. Global Environmental Change 16: 253-267.

5. Young OR (2002) The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts 221.

6. Minkin SF, Boyce JK (1994) Net losses: “development” drains the fisheries of Bangladesh. Amicus Journal 16: 36-40.

7. Morrow JV, Fischnich C (2000) Habitat requirements for freshwater fishes.

8. Holmlund CM, Hammer M (1999) Ecosystem services generated by fish populations. Ecological Economics 29: 253–268.

9. Green Peace (2009) The collapse of the Canadian Newfoundland cod fishery.

10. Dey MM, Bose ML (2008) Recommendation domains for pond aquaculture. Country case study: Development and status of freshwater aquaculture in Bangladesh. WorldFish Center Studies and Reviews. No. 1872. The WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia 73.

11. Brooks JKA, Waylen MB (2013) Assessing community-based conservation projects: A systematic review and multilevel analysis of attitudinal, behavioral, ecological, and economic outcomes.

12. RA (2007) Assessing and managing resilience in social-ecological systems: A practitioners workbook.

13. Lambin EF (2005) Conditions for sustainability of human-environment systems: information, motivation, and capacity. Global Environmental Change 15: 177-180.

14. Costanza R, Daly HE, Folke C, Hawken P, Holling CS, et al. (2000) Managing our environmental portfolio. BioScience 50: 149–155.

15. Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1-23.

16. Walker BH, Hollin SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9: 5.

17. Manzel S, Buchecker M (2013) Does participatory planning foster the transformation toward more adaptive social-ecological systems? Ecology and Society 18: 13.

18. CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems (2012) Resilient livelihoods and food security in coastal aquatic agricultural systems: Investing in transformational change. CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems, Penang, Malaysia. Project Report 28.

19. Inman TB (2011) Local Perceptions of Social-Ecological Change on the McKenzie: Implications for Resilience. Master Thesis. Oregon State University.

20. Davidson DJ (2010) The applicability of the concept of resilience to social systems: Some source of optimisms and nagging doubts. Society and natural resources 23: 1135-1149.

21. Folke C, Carpenter SR, Walker B, Scheffer M, Chapin T, et al. (2010) Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society 15: 20.

22. Schlüter M, Pahl-Wostl C (2007) Mechanisms of resilience in common-pool resource management systems: an agent-based model of water use in a river basin. Ecology and Society 12: 4.

23. Adger WN, Hughes TP, Folke C, Carpenter SR, Johan R (2005) Social-ecological resilience to coastal disasters. Science 309: 1036-1039.

24. Slocombe DS, Dearden P (2008) Ecosystem-based management and park planning, in P. Dearden & R. Rollins, eds., Parks and Protected Areas in Canada, 2nd ed, Oxford University Press, Toronto.

25. Pomeroy RS, Berkes F (1997) Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries comanagement. Marine Policy 21: 465-480.

26. WFC (WorldFish Center, Bangladesh) (2007) Community-based fisheries management: Fisheries yields and sustainability. Policy Brief 2: 4.

27. Marin A, Gelcich S, Castilla JC, Berkes F (2012) Exploring social capital in Chile’s coastal benthic comanagement system using a network approach. Ecology and Society 17: 13.

28. Didduck A (2004) Incorporating participatory approaches and social learning. In: Mitchell, B. (Ed.), Resource and Environmental Management in Canada, third ed. Oxford University Press, Don Mills 497–452.

29. Anderies JM, Folke C, Walker B, Ostrom E (2013) Aligning key concepts for global change policy: robustness, resilience, and sustainability. Ecology and Society 18: 8.

Citation: Mamun AA (2013) Mechanisms of Enhancing Social-Ecological Resilience in Human-Altered Wetlands through Comanagement. J Geogr Nat Disast 3: 115. doi:10.4172/2167-0587.1000115

Page 9 of 9

Volume 3 • Issue 2 • 1000115J Geogr Nat DisastISSN: 2167-0587 JGND, an open access journal

30. Berkes F, Ross H (2013) Community Resilience. Towards integrated approach. Society and natural resources 26: 5-20.

31. Parlee BL, Geertsema K (2012) Lesser Slave Lake Indian Regional Council. Social-ecological thresholds in a changing boreal landscape: insights from Cree knowledge of the Lesser Slave Lake region of Alberta, Canada. Ecology and Society 17: 20.

32. Berkes F (2010) Linkages and multilevel systems for matching governance and ecology: lessons from roving bandits. Bulletin of marine science 86: 235–250.

33. Epstein G (2013) Missing ecology: integrating ecological perspectives with the social-ecological system framework. International journal of the commons, future.

34. Ostrom E (2009) A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 325: 419-422.

35. Abbott J (2007) Rivers as resources, rivers as borders: Community and transboundary management of fisheries in the Upper Zambezi River floodplains. Canadian Geographer 51: 280-302.

36. Oft P, Tsuma W (2006) Mobilizing resilience from below: Linking institutions to actors and knowledge to decisions: A case from the Netherlands. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitat Bonn.

37. Armitage D (2008) Adaptive co-management of social-ecological complexity. Frontiers in ecology and environment.

38. Berkes F, Jolly D (2001) Adapting to climate change: social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western Arctic community. Conservation Ecology 5: 8.

39. Thompson P, Mazumder A (2008) Fisheries for the future: restoring wetland livelihoods in Bangladesh. World Resources 2008: Roots of Resilience – Growing the Wealth of the Poor. Washington DC: WRI.

40. SEHD (2002) Bangladesh environment facing the 21st Century. 391.

41. Berkes FJ, Colding, Folke C (2002) Introduction. In Berkes, F. J. Colding and C. Folke eds. Navigating the dynamics of social-ecological systems. London: Cambridge University Press 394.

42. Holling CS, Gunderson LH (2002) Resilience and adaptive cycles. Pages 25-62 in L. H. Gunderson and C. S. Holling, editors. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

43. Holling CS (1987) Simplifying the complex: the paradigms of ecological function and structure. European Journal of Operational Research 30: 139–146.

44. Borini-Feyerabend G, Pimbert M, Favar MT, Kothari A, Renard Y (2007) Sharing power: Learning-by-doing in co management of natural resources throughout the world. Earthscan, London 473.

45. Townsley P (1996) Rapid rural appraisal, participatory rural appraisal and aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 358.

46. Gosse MM, Power AS, Hyslop DE, Pierce SL (1998) Guidelines for Protection of Freshwater Fish Habitat in Newfoundland and Labrador. Fisheries and Oceans, St. John’s, NF. x + 105: 2.

47. Acheson JM (2006) Institutional failure in resource management: Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 117–134.

48. Wilson SK, Fisher R, Pratchett MS, Graham NAJ, Dulvy NK, et al. (2010) Habitat degradation and fishing effects on the size structure of coral reef fish communities. Ecological Applications 20: 442–451.

49. Turner SJ, Thrush SF, Hewitt JW, Cummings VJ, Funnels G (2001) Fishing impacts and the degradation or loss of habitat structure. Fisheries Management and Ecology 6: 401-420.

50. Hall SJ (1999) Ecosystem effects of fishing. Chapman and Hall. Fisheries Management and Ecology. 6: 401-420.

51. Roos N, Islam MM, Thilsted SH (2003) Small indigenous fish species in Bangladesh: Contribution to Vitamin A, Calcium and Iron Intake. Journal of Nutrition 133: 11.

52. Smokorowski, Withers KEKJ, Kelso JRM (1998) Does Habitat Creation Contribute to Management Goals? An Evaluation of Documented Freshwater Habitat Rehabilitation or Enhancement. Canadian technical report of fisheries and aquatic Science, Department of Fisheries and Ocean. Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Science, ON, Canada.

53. Campbell, Stuart J (2012) Weak Compliance Undermines the Success of No-Take Zones in a Large Government-Controlled Marine Protected Area.

54. Jones PJS, Qiu W, De Santos EM (2012) Governing marine protected areas: social-ecological resilience through institutional diversity.

55. Nowak M (2008) Barrier Reef ‘no-take’ zones see leap in fish numbers.

Submit your next manuscript and get advantages of OMICS Group submissionsUnique features:

• Userfriendly/feasiblewebsite-translationofyourpaperto50world’sleadinglanguages• AudioVersionofpublishedpaper• Digitalarticlestoshareandexplore

Special features:

• 300OpenAccessJournals• 25,000editorialteam• 21daysrapidreviewprocess• Qualityandquickeditorial,reviewandpublicationprocessing• IndexingatPubMed(partial),Scopus,EBSCO,IndexCopernicusandGoogleScholaretc• SharingOption:SocialNetworkingEnabled• Authors,ReviewersandEditorsrewardedwithonlineScientificCredits• Betterdiscountforyoursubsequentarticles

Submityourmanuscriptat:www.omicsonline.org/submission/

Citation: Mamun AA (2013) Mechanisms of Enhancing Social-Ecological Resilience in Human-Altered Wetlands through Comanagement. J Geogr Nat Disast 3: 115. doi:10.4172/2167-0587.1000115