Eom

BHa

b

c

d

e

f

a

ARRAH

KCCCFFG

1

sfati

(

h0

Fisheries Research 183 (2016) 410–423

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fisheries Research

j ourna l ho me pa ge: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / f i shres

valuation of the ecological effectiveness and social appropriatenessf fishing regulations in the Bangladesh Sundarbans using a newulti-disciplinary assessment framework

enjamin S. Thompson a,∗, Annabelle J. Bladon b, Zubair H. Fahad c, Samiul Mohsanin d,eather J. Koldewey e,f

National University of Singapore, Department of Geography, 1 Arts Link, 117570, SingaporeImperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PY, UKIUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), Bangladesh Country Office, House#16, Road# 2/3 Banani, Dhaka 1213, BangladeshNature Conservation Management (NACOM), House 20-21, Flat C5 & D2, Block F, Road 12, Niketan, Gulshan 1, Dhaka 1212, BangladeshConservation Programmes, Zoological Society of London, Regents Park, NW1 4RY London, UKCentre for Ecology & Conservation, University of Exeter, Penryn Campus, Cornwall TR10 9FE, UK

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 10 December 2015eceived in revised form 4 July 2016ccepted 5 July 2016andled by A.E. Punt

eywords:atch analysisomplianceonservationishisheries managementear

a b s t r a c t

Fisheries research is hindered by a paucity of multi-disciplinary tools for broadly assessing thesocietal appropriateness and ecological effectiveness of fishing regulations. This study presents a multi-disciplinary assessment framework that combines ecological, spatial, and social research methodsto reveal the knowledge, opinions, activities, and impacts of fishers. The framework is applied to amulti-gear, multi-species, data-poor coastal fishery in the Bangladesh Sundarbans to demonstrate thecomplementarity of the methods, commensurability of the data, and how results can be interpreted toprovide a broad initial overview of the fishery in a standardized manner that can guide future researchand management. Data were obtained for 26 catches across five different gear types, 62 finfish species,20 fishing grounds that were mapped, and 67 respondents across four villages regarding their awareness,acceptability, and compliance (AAC) of eight existing and seven proposed fishing regulations. AAC scoresvaried starkly for different regulations, and all proposed regulations scored lower on acceptability thanany existing regulation. A number of recommendations are made to improve specific gear and speciesregulations; for example, protecting the locally endangered species Scatophagus argus (currently under

no fishing regulation) through a ban on the long-shore net that heavily impacts the species, rather than aban on the species itself. Broader management recommendations are also made including spatially tar-geted enforcement, awareness raising, and capacity building approaches. The positives and limitationsof the framework are discussed. The framework is particularly applicable to small-scale fisheries in thedeveloping world, and is useful as a pilot study.

© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

The on-going depletion of fisheries jeopardizes human foodecurity, resilience of fishing communities, and livelihood optionsor current and future generations (Lam and Pitcher, 2012), as well

s impacting marine species, habitats, and ecosystems beyond theargeted species (Hobday et al., 2011). To reduce these threats, fish-ng regulations are drafted and enforced to control among other

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: Benjamin.thompson@u.nus.edu, bst88@live.com

B.S. Thompson).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.07.010165-7836/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

things: the area and time of usage; size, sex and species cap-tured; gear use; and fishing effort (Walters and Martell, 2004).Given the inherent complexity, dynamics, and spatial variabilitywithin marine and coastal ecosystems (Chuenpagdee and Jensoft,2009), more needs to be known about the ecology and spatialityof fisheries in relation to their governance – particularly regard-ing compliance with fishing regulations (Hauck, 2008; Catedrillaet al., 2012). Compliance is strongly influenced by a fisher’s aware-ness and acceptance of regulations (Thomas et al., 2015). ‘Effective’

regulations produce desired ecological and social outcomes for thesustainability of the fishery. ‘Appropriate’ regulations are consid-ered by fishers to be legitimate, fair, accountable, and necessaryfor the sustainability of the fishing grounds and their livelihoods

B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisheries Research 183 (2016) 410–423 411

Table 1Important criteria for fishery assessment frameworks.

Criterion Reasoning

Comprehensive Should provide thorough information as regards the scope of the frameworkFlexible Applicable to all types of fishery, irrespective of size, fishing method, speciesObjective Based predominantly on empirical data that has been collected in an impartial manner

(especially important for social research)Pragmatic Sensible methods that can − if necessary − be tailored to the capacity and context of

the locationReplicable Easy to train field staff should personnel change; can form part of a long-term

monitoring programmeQuick to generate information Should be able to yield sufficient data for inferences to be made in a short period of

timeMaximize stakeholder participation Including stakeholders (e.g. as para-taxonomists) can save time and labour costsCost effective Make use of existing knowledge, information and data within realistic limits of time

and resourcesScientifically sound methodologies Defensible and based on established methods, that demonstrate a precautionary

approach to uncertaintyTransparent Comprehensive details given on methods and assumptions that have been madeSimple and understandable Easy for stakeholders to grasp both the methods and results

B ; Pecl

(offibeNocabt

p2eFsbbaafiai2ioefifl2Lvce

ht2iu

ased on: Borja et al. (2008); Daw (2008); Garces et al. (2010); Hobday et al. (2011)

Pomeroy et al., 2015). Individual regulations may differ in termsf their effectiveness and appropriateness according to a range ofactors such as: local fishing experience, area of residency, satis-action with the state of the fishery, satisfaction with the enforcingnstitution, the severity and certainty of punishment, the risk ofeing caught, and the potential gains of rule breaking (Catedrillat al., 2012; Hauck, 2008; Pomeroy et al., 2015; Thomas et al., 2015).on-compliance can be ‘unintentional’ if an individual is unawaref the rules, or ‘uninformed’ if an individual is not aware of theonsequences of rule breaking (Read et al., 2011). Assuming fullwareness and understanding of the rules, there is also the possi-ility of ‘wilful non-compliance’, when a fisher makes a judgmento commit an offence (Read et al., 2011).

The demand for fish is expected to keep increasing to meet therotein demands of a rapidly increasing human population (FAO,014). In 2011, at least 28.8% of the world’s fish stocks were over-xploited or depleted, and 61.3% were fully exploited (FAO, 2014).isheries scientists continue to develop new methodologies to elicituch figures, and to inform fisheries management around the world,ut conventional research methodologies that focus on fisheriesiology and stock assessments are often costly, time-consuming,nd technocratic (Garces et al., 2010; Pomeroy, 2016; Tesfamichaelnd Pitcher, 2006). Consequently, there have been calls for simpli-ed assessment frameworks that are less technocratic, more costnd time effective, and that can enable more stakeholders to engagen fisheries research, such as the fishers themselves (e.g., Froese,004; Martell and Froese, 2013; Thorpe et al., 2016). Also advocated

s a focus on small-scale, multi-species, data-poor fisheries in devel-ping countries (Chuenpagdee, 2011; Cisse et al., 2014; Erismant al., 2014). Many existing frameworks focus on the status of theshery or fishing community in isolation; for example, an exclusive

ocus on ecological data to make stock assessments and calcu-ate maximum sustainable yields is common (see Carruthers et al.,014). Furthermore, despite exceptions (e.g., de la Torre-Castro andindstrom, 2010; Hadjimichael et al., 2013), in many cases, fishers’iews on fishing regulations are seldom placed in broader ecologi-al and spatial contexts (e.g., McClanahan et al. 2009, 2013; Thomast al., 2015).

Accordingly, multi-disciplinary fishery assessment frameworksave been strongly advocated in recent years – especially thosehat generate quantitative data (Garces et al., 2010; Cisse et al.,

014; Erisman et al., 2014). A multi-disciplinary approach draws

nformation from numerous disciplines in an attempt to broadennderstandings of complex situations and identify solutions. Cur-

et al. (2014).

rent methodologies seldom integrate multiple elements into asingle evaluation of an aquatic system (Borja et al., 2008). One ofthe few multi-disciplinary fishery frameworks is RAPFISH (Pitcheret al., 2013), although this predominantly relies upon qualitativefield indicators, expert opinion, and subjective scoring rather thanon primary quantitative data – for example on biomass, fishingeffort, or spatial scale – that are often expensive and difficult toobtain in countries that have limited fisheries research capacity(Tesfamichael and Pitcher, 2006). These and other recommendedfeatures of fishery assessment frameworks are listed in Table 1.

Based on the above, this study presents a novel framework forassessing ‘Fishing Regulation Effectiveness and Appropriateness’(FREA) that combines ecological, spatial, and social methods to gen-erate a complementary array of quantitative and qualitative data.FREA provides a broad initial overview that can serve well as a pilotstudy or student project, and as a means to gain broad insights intoa data-poor fishery in a standardized manner that conforms to thecriteria listed in Table 1. Although informing fisheries managementin the form of, for instance, calculating maximum sustainable yieldis beyond FREA, its results offer key inferences on the ecologicaleffectiveness and societal appropriateness of fishing regulations.Furthermore, while the primary aim of the ecological methods isto generate data on gear selectivity and catch composition thatcan be used to assess the fishing regulations e.g., gear bans andspecies size limits, in gathering such ecological data, the frame-work also provides a low-resolution snapshot of fishery status (i.e.,species presence and relative abundance). Use of FREA can enablethe following research questions to be answered (Fig. 1):

• How socially appropriate are the existing fishing regulations?• How ecologically effective are the existing fishing regulations?• How socially appropriate are the proposed fishing regulations?• What should be the particulars of the proposed fishing regula-

tions?

In this paper, FREA is applied to a multi-gear, multi-species fish-ery in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Bangladesh was ranked 47thout of 53 of the most active fishing countries in the world basedon its compliance with the UN Code of Conduct for Responsi-ble Fisheries (Pitcher et al., 2009). Nevertheless, the sustainability

of fishery resources is crucial since fish accounts for 56% of thepopulation’s animal protein intake (FAO, 2014), and 10% of the pop-ulation currently depend on fisheries for their livelihoods (Hussain,2010). Bangladesh exhibits complex systems of customary rights

412 B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisheries Research 183 (2016) 410–423

Fig. 1. Map showing the location of the Sundarbans within Bangladesh, the four range boundaries of the Sundarbans Reserve Forest (SRF), and locations of the four villagesin the FREA application.

ies Res

iTdetknabaowpuarlaptdrf

2

gBFwrTlmipaoe(W(

ifgimh2chHd(c

dwf((l(

tified through legal documents such as National Acts and FishingCodes. A formal letter to the relevant government authority wasrequired to acquire an official and up-to-date list of fishing regula-

B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisher

n coastal areas, which are poorly documented (Dastidar, 2009).he country implements what Imperial and Yandle (2005) wouldefine as a ‘bureaucracy-based’ institutional arrangement of fish-ries management, where the focus is on developing regulationshat increase fish production at sustainable levels. However, little isnown about the ecological effectiveness and societal appropriate-ess of these regulations, or opinions on proposed ones. Regulationsre appropriate if fishers are aware of them, accept them (as fair andeneficial to the ecosystem and sustainability of their livelihood),nd comply with them (henceforth termed, AAC). Despite a lackf recent empirical evidence (see below), in the Sundarbans, it isidely held that stocks are in decline, largely due to high fishing

ressure, destructive and non-selective gears, and poison fishingsing pesticides (Hoq, 2007; IPAC, 2010). Furthermore, despite

growing coastal population the number of fishing licenses hasemained fixed since the 1980s, leaving many unlicensed fishersittle option but to fish illegally (IPAC, 2010). Ultimately, this workims to (1) present a multi-disciplinary research framework thatrovides an initial assessment of fishery regulations; and (2) applyhe framework to a coastal fishery in the Bangladesh Sundarbans,emonstrating how the methods complement each other and howesults can be interpreted to provide an overview of the successes,ailures, and future options for Sundarbans fishing regulations.

. Demonstration site

Some 65% of the 10,000 km2 Sundarbans – the largest man-rove forest on Earth – is found in Bangladesh (FAO, 2003). Theangladesh Sundarbans was declared the Sundarbans Reservedorest (SRF) in 1875, and three areas of the forest are designatedildlife sanctuaries in which the extraction of vegetation and ter-

estrial and aquatic wildlife is banned (Islam and Wahab, 2005).ogether these sanctuaries cover 23% of the SRF and were col-

ectively designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1997. Aoratorium on timber extraction has been imposed on the remain-

ng 77% of the SRF, but fishing, recreation, and non-timber forestroduct extraction are allowed – controlled through permits, feesnd forest patrols. The SRF provides crucial habitat for a numberf rare and charismatic animals such as the Bengal tiger (Barlowt al., 2008), Irrawaddy dolphin (Smith et al., 2010), and sawfishPristidae)(Hossain et al., 2015). It is split into four ranges; from

est to East these are: Satkhira, Khulna, Chandpai, and SarankholaFig. 1).

The SRF also sustains a large fishery of local and nationalmportance (Bladon et al., 2014); for example, fisheries accountor nearly 7% of Bangladesh’s export earnings (DoF, 2008). Twoovernment agencies are responsible for fisheries managementn the SRF: national regulations are implemented by the Depart-

ent of Fisheries (DoF), but it is the Forestry Department (FD) thatas responsibility for enforcing those laws in the SRF and up to0 km offshore (Hoq, 2007). Infighting between these two agen-ies, overlapping bureaucracy, insufficient capacity, and corruptionave been cited as reasons for ineffective enforcement (Hoq, 2007;ossain et al., 2015; Islam, 2003). To make matters worse, anec-otal evidence suggests the presence of dacoites, a group of piratespeople undertaking illegal activities at sea) that rob fishers of theiratch and other possessions.

The inshore, estuarine and coastal fisheries of the SRF are pre-ominantly artisanal, with gears deployed along the coast andithin natural canals called ‘khals’ that run through the mangrove

orest. Major gears targeting finfish include: standard set bag net

behundi or bendi jal), narrow set bag net (kol jal), long-shore netcharpata jal), creek net (khalpata jal), cast net (khepla jal), and long-ines (borshi). Another notable gear is the post-larvae set bag netnet jal) that targets shrimp fry; approximately 120,000 people fish

earch 183 (2016) 410–423 413

using this gear in the Bangladesh Sundarbans, which involves walk-ing along the riverbanks with hand-held nets (Hoq, 2008). Verylittle recent research has focused on the ecological impacts of fish-ing gears other than the post-larvae set bag net (e.g. Hoq et al.,2006).

Indeed, no detailed studies on the ecological status of theSundarbans fisheries have been carried out since the mid-1990s(Chantarasri, 1998; Smith, 1995). Since then, the bulk of the lit-erature on Sundarbans fisheries has consisted primarily of reviewdocuments. For example, IPAC (2010) review the drivers of fisheriesresource exploitation and assert that amendments should be madeto existing fisheries policies and laws; the study is primarily a litera-ture review supplemented with (unspecified) ‘discussion meetings’and field visits. Hoq (2007) provides an alternative synthesis thatincludes coarse secondary data on Sundarbans fisheries produc-tion, a thorough overview of fishing regulations, and a review of theimpacts of shrimp farming and post-larvae collection. In addition tothese works, a limited amount of primary data has been gathered ondiscrete topics such as gear usage (Hoq, 2008), shrimp post-larvaeabundance (Hoq et al., 2006), and the social impacts of post-larvaefishing (Ahmed et al., 2010). Social studies have focused on fisherlivelihoods (e.g., Islam and Chuenpagdee, 2013), as opposed toeliciting data on fisher AAC towards existing and proposed fish-ing legislation. Multi-disciplinary research to inform managementplans and conservation strategies for the Bangladesh Sundarbansfisheries is strongly recommended (Islam and Wahab, 2005). Ulti-mately, the current state of knowledge has to be gleaned from alimited number of discrete studies published over the last decade.The findings of these studies however, can be used to cross-checkthose of FREA. These points, plus the apparent threat to fisherysustainability makes the Bangladesh Sundarbans a suitable site inwhich to apply FREA: there is a clear need to understand the viewsthat fishers hold towards fishing regulations, and gather primaryquantitative data from which clearer research and managementdirections can be identified.

3. Methods

Prior to commencing the main fieldwork, primary and sec-ondary background research was conducted along with a scopingvisit, outlined below. This is followed by description of the eco-logical, spatial, and social research methods that make up themain fieldwork of FREA. In conceptualising the research frame-work, regulations are broadly categorised as1: ‘species’, ‘gear’, and‘locational’ (see Fig. 2).

3.1. Primary and secondary background research

Background information was elicited for secondary (literature)and then primary (interview) sources. Relevant published andgrey literature (e.g. university theses, government reports, NGOreports etc.) was examined primarily to identify and categoriseboth existing and proposed fishing regulations (see Table 2). Thesedocuments also provided background information on past researchand helped identify key-informants and potential focal villages inwhich to conduct the fieldwork. Existing regulations were iden-

1 A fourth component would be ‘time’, e.g. seasonal bans. However, since FREAonly produces a snapshot at a given point in time, the time component is removedfrom the conceptualisation. It is made explicit however, that the framework can −and indeed should − be repeated to account for seasonality or to compile a data setover time that allows trends to be identified.

414 B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisheries Res

Fig. 2. Conceptualisation of ‘Fishing Regulation Effectiveness and Acceptability’(FREA) Framework showing the two overarching aims of fishing regulations (out-side text), main method types that gather data to inform those components (blackbold text), several individual methods (dark purple text), three regulation categories(pink text), and two regulation sets (orange text). The framework operates in a top-bottom direction since the background research phase is a pre-requisite to all thatfollows, while social, ecological, and spatial elements are later conducted in tandem(depicted by the three-way yin-yang). Lower crescent depicts data interpretationat

tameoaiiupa

3

fitstsudfidbmTa2

••

•

•

species were selected for in-depth analysis based on a high fre-

nd final recommendation phase. (For interpretation of the references to colour inhis figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

ions. Proposed regulations were identified through the literaturend semi-structured interviews that were conduced with relevantembers of government agencies responsible for enacting and

nforcing fishing regulations, as well as NGOs and academics (basedn Pomeroy et al., 2015) (see Table S1). Interviews were conductedt the start and end of fieldwork, with the former helping in design-ng the AAC questionnaire (see below), as well as eliciting sensitivenformation that may not have been published. The latter can besed to verify findings, and double as an opportunity to presentreliminary results to the decision makers that can use them, suchs government officials.

.2. Scoping visit

Following the background research, but before starting the maineldwork, a scoping visit was conducted to (a) obtain informa-

ion regarding the types and timings of fishing activities, and (b)elect four focal villages for the main fieldwork. Fishing informa-ion was elicited through discussions with villagers, depot (landingite) managers, and village heads. Fishing calendars were drawnp to inform fieldwork logistics, such as to show in what seasonifferent gears are used. In the case of the Sundarbans, fishers planshing trips according to the lunar cycle, maximising their effortsuring the highest tides. Fishing trips typically begin three daysefore and continue until three days after the new and full moon,eaning that a week of fishing is followed by a week of no fishing.

he suitability of each village for conducting FREA was consideredccording to a range of criteria (partly informed by Garces et al.,010):

Be well known across the region for its fishing activitiesNot be adjacent to other focal villages (for good spatial compari-son)Contain or be located near to a large fishing depot where catches

are landedHave been visited during the familiarization visit and consideredto be safe and accessible

earch 183 (2016) 410–423

• Clear demonstration of willingness to participate in the researchfrom the village chief and community

• Good links between the community and the in-countryresearch/conservation organization

Field methods were tested in four villages: two from Satkhirarange (Harinagar and Munshiganj), and two from Khulna range(Jorshing and Kalabogi) (Fig. 1). This decision led to a broad geo-graphical overview and allowed potential comparisons withinvillages, between villages within a range, and between ranges. Theauthors conducted all fieldwork – occasionally with help from oneor two research assistants – between January and February 2012.

3.3. Ecological considerations

Some researchers use indirect methods to elicit catch data suchas logbooks (e.g. Hutubessy et al., 2014) and creel surveys – wherefishers estimate their catches during interviews (e.g. Lockwood,2000). However, direct catch analysis generates more precise data(Methot and Wetzel, 2013). The direct methods outlined hereattempt to minimize time, cost, and effort, which are often citedas disadvantages to such direct approaches. Fishers willing to beinvolved were identified through contact with village depot own-ers (landing site managers). Participating fishers were selected onthe basis of a number of criteria:

• Be known to a depot owner or village head (ideally both)• Be able to spare time that day, to come to the boat for briefing• Be able to voluntarily spare some time during the morning, before

landing the catch in the village, to allow adequate analysis timeon the research boat

• Be going fishing for one day/night only• Be partaking in only one fishing episode per day (and if they fished

first in one area and then another, catches were kept separate)• Be using a gear for which data was required• Be able to provide contact details, as they would be borrowing a

GPS receiver• Be able to prove during the briefing that they were able and moti-

vated to use the GPS

Once identified, fishers were invited to the research vessel (oranother quiet location) where details of their next fishing opera-tion were taken (e.g. gear specifics, likely duration, potential catchweight), and a rendezvous time and place was arranged for deliveryof the catch. Arrival times were staggered as much as much as possi-ble to avoid overstretching the research team during catch analysis.Per diem compensation or in-kind payments for time/revenue lostduring analysis was given since fishers arrived at the research boaten route to the depot where they were eager to sell their catchfirst. Upon arrival, each catch was sorted to species level. The totalcatch weight for all individuals of each species was then noted.Subsequently, each individual of each species was then weighedand total length measured, allowing length-weight coefficients tobe determined. While ideally every individual should be weighedand measured, in situations where the catch was particularly largeand/or where time was limited, the total weight and total num-ber of individuals of each species was taken, and then weight andlength measurements were taken for a random subsample of 20individuals of each species. If a species could not be identified, asample was retained for identification.

A large number of species were typically caught from tropi-cal multi-species, multi-gear fisheries. As such, a number of focal

quency of occurrence (across catches of different gears) and/or ahigh number of individuals. In-depth analysis included using esti-mates of length at sexual maturity that was obtained from the

B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisheries Research 183 (2016) 410–423 415

Table 2Existing and proposed fishing regulations for the SRF (adapted from Hoq, 2007).

Regulation Description Legislation or source

ExistingE1. Restricted khals 18 canals (khals) closed permanently to allow

fish breedingKhal Closure Regulation (1989)

E2. Protected sanctuaries Fishing is permanently prohibited in threewildlife sanctuaries of SRF: Sundarbans East(Bagerhat), Sundarbans West (Satkhira) andSundarbans South (Khulna).

Wildlife Sanctuary Regulations (1999)

E3. Fish closed season Fishing in SRF closed to P. pangasius, P. canius,L. calcarifer, M. rosenbergii and S. serrata from1st May to 30th June to allow breeding. It isillegal to catch, process, and sell hilsa smallerthan 25 cm during the closed season(November-June).

Closed Season Regulation (2000) and Protectionand Conservation of Fish Act (1950)

E4. Crab closed season Closure of SRF to crab fishing from Decemberto February to allow breeding.

Collection and Export of Live Crab Regulation(1995)

E5. Gear bans Illegal to use fixed engine fishing gears (set bagnet, post-larvae set bag net, shore net, canalgillnet) in SRF

Hunting and Fishing Rules (1959)

E6. Poison ban Illegal to use poison and explosives in SRF Hunting and Fishing Rules (1959)E7. Dewatering khal ban Illegal to dam or bale water in a canal of SRF Hunting and Fishing Rules (1959)E8. Blocking khal ban It is illegal to block a khal with a net or string a

rope transversely across a khal.Imposed by FD (Hoq, 2007)

ProposedP1. More protected areas Implies increasing the area of protection

beyond the 23% of SRF currentlyChantarasri (1998)

P2. Fish size limit For example:

• 30 cm for Lates calcarifer• 10 cm for Johnius argentatus• 23 cm for Tenualosa ilisha

Chantarasri (1998) and Hoq (2007)

P3. Fish catch limit Maintenance of annual harvest limit forvarious species, initially T. ilisha, all catfishesand mud crab

Chantarasri (1998)

P4. Mesh size limit The only legal mesh size for all gill nets, liftnets, shore seines and set bag nets is 5 cm.

Hoq (2007)

P5. More gear bans Cast nets, gill nets, and longlines. Excludesconsideration of set-bag net targeting shrimpfry (see P6)

Hoq (2007)

P6. Shrimp fry ban Restriction of shrimp fry catch to boundary Chantarasri (1998)

s backcollec

opnirtml

3

uwastttbpfitld

rivers onlyP7. Small fish release Release of small fishe

caught in shrimp fry

nline database, FishBase (Froese and Pauly, 2011) to estimate theercentage of individuals caught by each gear type that may haveot reached sexual maturity (akin to Froese, 2004). In any catch,

ndividuals will be extracted before they have reached sexual matu-ity, meaning they will not have had a chance to spawn and restockhe waterways. The more this happens, the less sustainable the

ethod of fishing is, and the more susceptible the stock is to col-apse.

.4. Spatial considerations

Spatial research methods involved mapping fishing groundssing GPS receivers and conducting basic GIS analysis to illustratehere specific gears were deployed. Since the catches that were

nalysed came from these mapped fishing operations, there wastrong commensurability between the location of gear deployment,ype of gear, and catch composition. A member of the researcheam explained to participating fishers how to use the ‘track’ fea-ure of a GPS receiver. Terminology was simplified and similaritiesetween the receiver and a mobile phone were made to put thearticipants’ minds at ease. The GPS receiver was off when the

shers leave for their fishing trip, was turned on upon arrival at

heir fishing grounds, and turned off upon leaving. Data were ana-ysed in ArcView. Maps were created depicting colour-coded geareployments and the village that each fishing trip had left from.

to the watertion nets

Chantarasri (1998)

This approach differs from often-used map-based interviews whereinformants record fishing grounds on individual hard copy maps(Daw, 2008; Hall and Close, 2007). With the falling cost and easy-of-use of many GPS receivers, the method outlined here is no moretime consuming and yields more precise data. To some extent thenumber of catches that can be analysed each day depends on thenumber of GPS receivers that are available. However, this is a minorissue since if many fishers with the same gear travel to the samegrounds in convoy, only one receiver need be provided. This singletrack can then proxy for all proximal operations.

3.5. Social considerations

A questionnaire was designed to elicit AAC data from fishers.Respondents were selected through a random household samplethat was made in each of the four focal villages, and attention wasgiven to the gears used by each fisher to ensure the sample wasrepresentative of village-wide gear use at the time of fieldwork.Interviews were conducted face-to-face, one-to-one, and followedbest ethical practices (see Hammett et al., 2015). After respon-dent details were recorded (e.g., age, village of residence, number

of years fishing, gears used), phase one asked respondents abouttheir awareness of fisheries regulations. Responses were scored ona Likert scale of 1–5 according to how much the respondent knew,akin to the approach used by McClanahan et al. (2009) and Thomas

416 B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisheries Research 183 (2016) 410–423

Fig. 3. Frequency of occurrence of fish species in each catch. N = 26. Species identified to genus level have been grouped with those identified in the same genus, e.g., Eleotrisf

e(khaolsmdte

pcsatnoiRanTcfilpoatvw

4

Fts

usca and Eleotris sp. are both denoted Eleotris sp.

t al. (2015). Scoring was based on set criteria that must be fulfilledi.e., specific terms stated by the respondent). An example for thehal closure law is as follows: if villagers could name more thanalf of the khals where fishing was prohibited, they were awardedn awareness score of 5; less than half but more than two, 4; oner two khals, 3; failure to name any khals but knowledge of the

aw, 2; vague knowledge of the law, 1; no knowledge, 0. For allcoring criteria, see Table S2. Hence, if for a given regulation theean score for all respondents were 5, there would be unanimous

etailed awareness of the regulation, while if the mean score were 0hen no respondents would have any knowledge that the regulationxisted.

Phase two asked if respondents accepted each regulation. At thisoint, the full details (from Table 2) of each regulation were dis-losed. No criteria were required since respondents were free toelect a number between 1 (strongly disapprove) and 5 (stronglypprove) based on their personal opinion of the regulation. Phasehree asked about compliance. The scale was similar (1 = frequenton-compliance; 5 = zero non-compliance), but a ‘don’t know’ption was included so that respondents did not have to explic-

tly state they broke the law. A ‘don’t know’ was scored as a 2.espondents could make an informed retrospective considerations to what extent they might have complied with a regulation orot. Phase four described the proposed regulations (according toable 2) and then followed the same protocol as phase two. Uponompletion, respondents were invited to talk more freely aboutshing-related issues. It is acknowledged that respondents could

ie and say a higher number for phases two, three and four, but thisroblem is inherent with this type of survey. No indications werebserved that respondents felt uncomfortable discussing compli-nce; respondents had been assured of complete anonymity, andhose that did not opt for the ‘don’t know’ option were generallyery open to explaining the reasons for their non-compliance –ilful or otherwise – as discussed later.

. Results

This section presents data that can be collected through use ofREA. Since the assessment framework focuses on breadth ratherhan depth, some of these data are based on fairly small sampleizes. Nevertheless, many of the results from the demonstration

site still allow useful inferences to be made about fisheries regula-tions in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Given the large variety of datacollected, only certain examples are included (see Supplementarymaterial for more). Eight existing laws and seven proposed lawswere identified (Table 2) from the background research and usedto inform the AAC questionnaire.

4.1. Ecological considerations

Data were obtained from 26 catches across five different geartypes: set bag net (6); shore net (13); creek net/canal gillnet (4);cast net (2); narrow set bag net (1). All operations involved inshorefishing using a non-mechanised dingi boat containing 2–3 fishers.Mesh sizes ranged from 0.5–2 cm. Fishing duration varied between120 and 960 min, but most were around 300 min. Travel times fromthe village of residence varied from 30 to 150 min. In every case,one gear was deployed once. In total 62 species were recorded.In some circumstances identification could only be carried out togenus level. For a list of those identified to species level and thespecific catches they were found in see Table S3. Most species hada low frequency of occurrence i.e. found in <5 of the 26 catches(Fig. 3). Glossogobius giurus was the most ubiquitous species, foundin 22 of 26 catches, followed by Liza parsia, found in 20 of 26. Butismelanostigma, Toxotes chatareus, Stigmatogobius sadanundio, Ilishamegaloptera and Scatophagus argus were also found in a relativelyhigh number of catches (>50%).

Most species were also found in low total numbers i.e. <50individuals across the 26 catches. Only eight species were foundin numbers of >100 (L. parsia, G. giurus, Acanthropagrus latus, I.Megaloptera, S. argus, S. sadanundio, Anadontostoma chacunda andB. melanostigma). L. parsia (1652) and G.giurus (725) were found inthe highest numbers (Fig. 4).

Frequency of occurrence is predominantly related to distribu-tion, and total numbers to abundance, yet results for both may beindicative of the gears used. It was on this basis that nine focalspecies were selected for further analysis. A subjective assessmentwas made on the basis of both frequency of occurrence and total

numbers, with a species selected for further analysis if it was foundin either >50% of the catches or in total numbers of >100. It isacknowledged that these species are not the only ones of inter-est, but that they are key species used to demonstrate how larger

B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisheries Research 183 (2016) 410–423 417

Fig. 4. Number of individuals of each species across all catches. N = 26. Species identified to genus level have been grouped with those identified in the same genus, e.g.,Eleotris fusca and Eleotris sp. are both denoted Eleotris sp.

F ng-shl tool or

dpgfm

nb

ig. 5. Size distribution of Liza parsia caught using (top L-R) standard set bag net, loength at sexual maturity, at 10.6 cm (SE 7.9–14.0), obtained using the life history

eader is referred to the web version of this article.)

atasets could be analysed. Using the nine focal species as exam-les, some conclusions can be drawn about the selectivity of eachear type. One example is provided here, for L. parsia (Fig. 5). Resultsor the other eight focal species can be found in the Supplementary

aterial (Table S4).The size distributions of L. parsia caught using standard set bag

et, long-shore net, creek net and cast net were fairly similar:etween 6 and 16 cm in length, with a peak between 8 and 10 cm.

ore net, creek net, (bottom L-R) cast net, narrow set bag net. Red line indicates then FishBase. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the

However, when compared to narrow set bag net, these gears appearto be catching large proportions of small individuals. For example,72.7% of creek net catch and 77.5% of cast net catch were below theestimated length at sexual maturity, compared to 11.8% of individ-

uals caught using narrow set bag net. Although this indicates thatnarrow set bag net tends to catch more sexually mature L. parsiathan the other gears do, it is important to note that the samplesize for narrow set bag net is very small because few fishers were

4 ies Res

ufitfl(

4

voimtAddm

4

aefcst(

uiea(nmo

tptnn(iriidbp

5

5

5r

stbpv

18 B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisher

sing it during the time of fieldwork. Finally, if sample sizes are suf-cient, inter-gear catch variability can be explored by comparing

he number of individuals of each species that are caught by dif-erent operations deploying the same gear type. This is possible forong-shore net (n = 13), using the nine focal species as an exampleFig. S1).

.2. Spatial considerations

Fishers were usually willing to take the GPS receivers, wereery careful with them, and fully understood how to operate themn every occasion; there were no problems with misunderstand-

ngs, battery life, loss or damage. Some 20 gear deployments wereapped and examples can be seen in Fig. 6. Despite small datasets,

he potential of the method is evident and some patterns emerge.ll gears are deployed very close to shore. Creek net is typicallyeployed at the channel mouth, while long-shore net is ofteneployed along the coastline or further into the channels of theangrove forest.

.3. Social considerations

AAC data were elicited from 67 respondents across four villages;ge range 22–70 yrs; fishing experience 3–55 yrs. There was consid-rable variation among the mean awareness and compliance scoresor the existing regulations, while the acceptability level was moreonsistent. For the proposed regulations however, the acceptabilitycores also showed substantial variation, and all proposed regula-ions were considered less acceptable than all existing regulationsFig. 7).

The awareness-level differs starkly for different existing reg-lations. Khal closures, crab closed seasons, gear bans, and the

llegalities of poison fishing were all fairly well known (>3). How-ver, knowledge of protected sanctuaries, finfish closed seasons,nd laws against dewatering and blocking khals were very low<2). Dewatering and blocking khals only scored ∼1.3 for aware-ess. However, upon learning of the rationale for the regulation,any villagers thought it was a good idea to keep some khals free

f fishing (acceptability scores of 3.9 and 3.6, respectively).The acceptability scores for existing regulations were all rela-

ively high (>3.6); few existing laws were disputed. The ban onoison fishing had the highest acceptability score (4.4) and indeedhrough discussions with respondents it emerged that there wasegative stigma attached to breaking this regulation. It is worthoting that the correlation between high (low) awareness and highlow) acceptability is quite indistinct, suggesting that the formers not indicative of the latter. Compliance scores for the existingegulations varied between 4 for poison fishing and 2.1 for block-ng khals and sanctuaries. In the latter case, results suggest thiss due to low levels of awareness (1.4); for example, one respon-ent with a low compliance score thought the sanctuaries no longerelonged to Bangladesh and had been sold to another country orrivate investor.

. Discussion

.1. The Bangladesh case study

.1.1. How socially appropriate are the existing fishingegulations?

Acceptability scores were often higher than awareness scoresuggesting that many regulations – particularly the protected sanc-

uaries, finfish closed seasons, and laws against dewatering andlocking khals – need greater publicising in order to improve com-liance. For example, providing a list or map of the banned khals onillage notice boards, and erecting signs at khal entrances would be

earch 183 (2016) 410–423

simple, cost-effective actions to improve awareness. Besides lowawareness, another reason for low compliance was the perceivedlack of enforcement. Generally, once respondents are informedabout the sanctuary regulation, results suggest that they acceptthe rationale. Hence, the law is potentially efficient, but wouldagain benefit from outreach and awareness-raising efforts. Massawareness campaigns have been used effectively in the Indian Sun-darbans (Sarkar and Bhattacharya, 2003). Such outreach shouldalso involve an education component since our qualitative data(from informal discussions with fishers) suggests that fishers sel-dom acknowledge the relationship between their harvest practicesand fish abundance and bycatch mortality − similar findings formthe Indian Sundarbans have been reported (e.g. Philcox et al., 2010).

Fishers are generally aware that certain fisheries are closed forperiods of the year and understand why the closed season benefitsspecies recoveries and improves their future catches. Yet, compli-ance with this regulation is low (2.4) since fishers do not wantto lose out if others break this law, while some respondents per-ceive the chance of facing a sanction to be low enough to takethe risk. More monitoring and enforcement as well as checks forbanned species in catches landed at depots might be a way to tar-get wrongdoing. Meanwhile, though a number of specific gear bansare known, respondents were insistent that enforcing the ban onthe post larvae set bag net would be disproportionately beneficialfor sustaining fish stocks – compared to the laws on khals, closedseasons, and sanctuaries. While fishers may be using post larvae setbag nets as a scapegoat to avoid admitting to the flaws of their gearsof choice, the ecological devastation caused by this particular fish-ing gear (e.g., very high bycatch) is highlighted in the literature,supporting their perceptions (e.g. Hoq et al., 2006). Compliancewith gear bans is low (2.8), possibly because many fishers use postlarvae set bag net opportunistically during the peak post-larvaeseason. Since this hand-held gear is operated manually along theriverbanks, greater enforcement patrols along the riverbanks maybe warranted, rather than applying such efforts offshore which iswhat was cited as the priority in interviews with the FD.

A substantial spatial difference exists regarding awareness ofthe poison fishing regulation. The average awareness score forKhulna range is 4 while for Satkhira range it is 2.5. The former rangeincludes data from Kalabogi, which is notorious for the activity.Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that people know the activ-ity occurs, and that wrongdoers can be fined and imprisoned bythe FD – clearly demonstrating to all others in the village that theactivity is illegal. Anecdotal findings suggest that virtually no fish-ers in Satkhira range use poison, which could suggest that with noengagement, nor bad publicity (e.g. residents being imprisoned),Satkhira residents are somewhat unfamiliar with the activity. Fish-ers in Kalabogi were candid, claiming they don’t want to use poison,but are desperate to catch more to feed the family so they bribe theFD. However, the income settings in these two villages are similar,so the need to fish to feed family members will likely be the samein Satkhira. Thus, despite this purported defence of their actions, itcould be stipulated that Kalabogi respondents may be largely drivento fish using poison by extra greed.

5.1.2. How ecologically effective are the existing fishingregulations?

While the demonstration data set of 26 catches is quite small,this subsection demonstrates the method’s potential worth in mak-ing a quick assessment of the ecological impact of certain gears.For clarity, the focus here is firstly on long-shore net, for which13 catches were analysed, followed by a broader discussion of the

difficulties of multi-fisheries management, with a focus on L. parzia.

S. argus had a high frequency of occurrence (Fig. 3), was foundin high numbers (Fig. 4), but was caught almost solely using long-shore nets – a gear used only along the shore (Table S3). However,

B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisheries Research 183 (2016) 410–423 419

F hira rb

t(ptmntw

ig. 6. GPS-mapped fishing grounds for operations emanating from Harinagar (Satkut no catch data was obtained.

he long-shore net had a far higher sample size than the other gearsTable 3), which likely made S. argus appear more abundant than itrobably is. S. argus is locally endangered (Hoq, 2007), and thereforehese results infer that rather than being an abundant species, it is

ore likely to be subject to heavy fishing pressure from long-shoreets and in decline as a result. No species is caught uniformly byhe long-shore net, the closest are B. melanstigma and L. parsia, ofhich individuals appear in 9 of the 13 catches, and S. argus in 10

ange) and Kalabogi (Khulna range). One longline 600 hooks long was also mapped

of the 13. On the other hand, I. megaloptera was only caught in anymentionable amount by one of the 13 long-shore net operations(Fig. S1). Given that this species was the fourth most abundant interms of number of individuals across all gears surveyed, it follows

that it was almost consistently present in catches of the other gears(Fig. 3), which suggests that long-shore net does not select for thisspecies to the same level as the other gears. Meanwhile, narrow setbag nets generally caught many longer, mature individuals; while

420 B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisheries Research 183 (2016) 410–423

F ards

S

tgpr

ttsafishitsdttsmbTm

5r

(sitTraptcbar

ig. 7. Mean awareness, acceptability, and compliance scores from 67 fishers towundarbans. Error bars denote standard error.

his suggests the narrow set bag net could be a more sustainableear type, it is also possible that the large old spawners could needrotecting the most, depending on the species, and hence furtheresearch is needed given the small sample size.

In multi-species, multi-gear fisheries, fishers can often adaptheir practices to comply with regulations to some degree e.g.hrough fishing different areas, depths, seasons, times of day, and bywitching or modifying gear – as has been seen in Australia (Klaernd Smith, 2012). However, the degree of adaptability afforded toshers depends on circumstances. For example, the results of FREAuggest that fishing mortality by each gear type was moderate toigh, so given this is a multi-species fishery the cumulative fish-

ng impact from all gears may be unsustainable. L. parsia is one ofhe most valuable species in Bangladesh (IPAC, 2010). In terms ofize distribution the impact on the species is similar by all gearseployed in the SRF (except narrow set bag net) (Fig. 5). This infershat a species ban would be difficult to implement effectively sincehe degree to which fishers can avoid targeting L. paria is verymall, i.e. switching from one gear to another in a bid to complyay ultimately prove futile. However, gear-specific bans may also

e ineffective, since the species is found ubiquitously in all gears.his example further highlights the complexities and difficulties ofanaging multi-species fisheries (Moutopoulos et al., 2013).

.1.3. How socially appropriate are the proposed fishingegulations?

Every proposed regulation was considered less acceptableall <3.6) than any existing regulation. This could suggest that eitherome form of bias led respondents to overstate their acceptabil-ty of existing regulations, or simply that the prospect of havingheir fishing activities further restricted was generally rebuffed.his result could be put down to ‘status quo bias’, a concept in whichespondents favor current situations over new ones (Samuelsonnd Zeckhauser, 1988). Since they consider new regulations asotentially detrimental to their livelihoods, convincing fishers ofhe benefits can be difficult (Hadjimichael et al., 2013). There is

lear support for some regulations over others. For example, gearans appear to be more popular than restricting smaller mesh sizesnd setting catch limits, although this could be due to the ease ofemembering that certain gears are banned compared to remem-

eight existing and seven proposed fishing regulations relevant to the Bangladesh

bering specific details about mesh size. As stated, we recordedspecifics and the reasons why. It is widely considered that shrimppost larvae nets are devastating fish numbers, because so manyfinfish fry are caught as bycatch. Actually, some of these nets arebanned but without enforcement, which suggests that any policyrecommendations will have to involve an improvement in moni-toring for compliance.

Overall, additional regulations were not favoured by fishersbecause more laws mean more opportunities for them to be fined.Fishers stated that, because of this, while additional laws couldhelp the ecosystem, there would be limited improvements to fisherlivelihoods, and they may even worsen. The particulars of finesare not well documented in the literature. Fishing violations arelisted on the Bangladesh Boat License Certificate, but specific fineamounts are not given. IPAC (2010) found that fishers reportedpaying at least four fines per year, and that fines are seldom propor-tionate to the type of violation committed. It seems that, alongsidethe poverty and vulnerability faced by Bangladeshi coastal fishers,what drives them to evade the law is the corruption within enforce-ment authorities (Islam, 2003) and the knock-on resentment thatthis instils. It has been suggested that fishers are more inclined tonon-comply with regulations to recover expenses incurred throughfines, which creates a “vicious circle of overexploitation and corrup-tion” (Islam and Chuenpagdee, 2013).

5.1.4. What should be the particulars of the proposed regulations?Gear bans were some of the most acceptable fishing regulations,

indicating scope for an increased focus on gear bans, which are rel-atively easy to enforce compared with, say, size limits and speciesbans. S. argus, for instance, which despite being locally endangered(Hoq, 2007) is currently under no fishing regulation, would be eas-ier to protect through a ban on long-shore nets than through a banon the species itself. S. argus breeds in the sea and migrates to fresh-water to feed and grow, making it vulnerable to easy targeting withthis gear during migrations through the Sundarbans. Other expla-nations for these observations exist such as S. argus happening to

be particularly abundant at the time of sampling – although field-work was conducted outside of the species’ spawning season ofApril-August. Although the narrow set bag net appears to be moreselective towards fish that are longer in size than other gears, this

ies Res

cs

asmttFaha

tbfbiScpptpwa

dcIicfl(Bniwd

awnnSmlna

5a

vrawthgTtcf

ever, FREA can be repeated to form part of a long-term monitoringprogramme, meaning its usefulness as an ecological monitoringapproach could increase over time. In general however, since FREA

B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisher

ould affect some species adversely, particularly during spawningeasons.

Khal restrictions and protected sanctuaries were also accept-ble, though the prospect of increasing protected area coverage lesso. Restricted khals may be easier to build awareness about and toonitor and enforce than protected sanctuaries. However both of

hese approaches require robust science and constant monitoringo ensure that protection of that area will have an ecological impact.urthermore, establishing new closed areas will likely stretch thelready limited enforcement capabilities of the FD, so it would per-aps be more efficient to focus efforts on those protected areas thatlready exist.

Size limits and small fish release regulations were also rela-ively acceptable, but to a lesser extent. Small fish release mighte another way to protect S. argus, but setting an overall size limitor all species would mean some sexually mature small fish woulde released unnecessarily, and by setting a limit for S. argus only at

ts size of sexual maturity, this creates sorting work for the fisher.ize limits through bans on the least selective gears would be a lessomplex way forward. There is, however, a mounting literature dis-uting the assumptions underlying the selective fishing paradigm,articularly in broad, adaptive and low-tech fisheries like those inhe Sundarbans (e.g., Kolding and van Zwieten, 2011). Small fishlay an important role in food security in developing countries, andhen multi-species interactions are considered, size selectivity can

ctually reduce total yields.Catch limits were the least acceptable regulation, and one that

oes not hold much promise in Bangladesh since it would likelyause a shift in landings from depots to unofficial landing sites.n our view, catch limits are not well suited to artisanal develop-ng world fisheries, where food security is paramount. Measuresontrolling fishing effort tend to be more controversial than thoseocused on gear and fish size (McClanahan and Mangi, 2004). Catchimits require specific monitoring and enforcement at landings sitesand preferably on the water too) which simply isn’t feasible in theangladesh Sundarbans right now given its large scale (i.e., largeumber of official landing sites) and the limited enforcement capac-

ty of the FD. Even if these capacities were improved and catch limitsere enforced at major landings sites, fishers could easily land in

ifferent areas to evade the authorities.Ultimately, the greatest priority is to build technical, human,

nd financial capacity for enforcement, and eradicate corruptionithin enforcement authorities. New laws will have little impact,

o matter how appropriate, without enforcement. It should beoted, of course, that this does not have to come from the top down.elf-monitoring through some kind of co-management is usuallyore effective in institutional contexts such as this. Stronger col-

aboration between the FD and other governmental agencies andon-governmental organisations could be key to bringing aboutny changes.

.2. Positives of the fishing regulation effectiveness andppropriateness (FREA) assessment framework

FREA is suitable for a number of purposes e.g.: (a) as a pilot sur-ey to a broader research project, with pilots typically being moreeadily funded since they require smaller amounts of money; (b)

potential student project – the timespan and cost fits with mostestern Masters projects that involve fieldwork abroad; (c) scien-

ists new to fisheries research and coastal management that mayave limited financial capacity, methodological know-how and/oruidance. FREA meets the assessment framework criteria listed in

able 1. The framework is quite ‘flexible’ since it could be appliedo a small artisanal fishery, lake and estuarine fisheries, or largeroastal fisheries such as the Sundarbans. It is probably unsuitableor larger offshore fisheries since the catches landed will be much

earch 183 (2016) 410–423 421

larger. It is also ‘comprehensive’ enabling a broad overview of thefishery to be grasped, and ‘objective’ being based on empirical data.

FREA is also ‘cost-effective’ since equipment costs are minimal;the only significant expenditures are scales for weighing catches, IDguides, and GPS receivers. Most research organisations, and evensmall NGOs have at least a few GPS receivers and these could bepooled. Regardless, receiver prices are falling and equally, some GISsoftware is now freely available for straightforward tasks such asmapping tracks, e.g., Google Earth and QGIS. Similarly, ID books arecheap and Internet resources are available for free e.g., FishBase. Onemajor cost consideration is manpower; face-to-face surveys can bevery expensive to carry out due to high labour cost, and we note thatonline surveys could be an option in places where fishers poses thetechnical capacity and have Internet access. Given the size of theSundarbans, for this demonstration a research boat was required formobility. It aided the research by offering an isolated place to anal-yse catches and brief participating fishers. In most circumstanceshowever, it is possible that boat hire costs can be avoided, eitherby (a) going direct to the to the landings site – although this coulddraw unwanted attention, or preferably (b) arranging a rendezvouspoint near to the landing site and analyzing the catches there. Theselatter points allude to the ‘pragmatic’ nature of the framework sinceit can be tailored to local conditions.

With adequate preparation, FREA can be completed within afew weeks of fieldwork. Some things can begin before arrival inthe field such as the literature review, arranging interviews withkey-informants, organizing logistics, and acquiring equipment.Moreover, numerous catches can be compared simultaneously orwithin the same morning. Furthermore, with clear instruction thefishers themselves can conduct accurate GPS mapping. Battery lifeand data storage when tracking are generally good, but if not,receivers are returned on a daily cycle allowing daily data uploadsand battery replacements. While not necessarily a rapid frame-work, FREA does minimize time for collecting a multiple types ofprimary data and in this regard we consider it ‘quick to generateinformation’. FREA is also ‘simple’ to perform with ‘transparent’accounts of ‘scientifically sound methodologies’. While social sur-veys can be difficult to perform, clear and transparent guidelinesand scoring protocols have been provided (see Supplementaryinformation). GIS skills are required, but it would be expected thatsomeone within a typical environmental science research orga-nization could perform this. Tracks can be uploaded to GoogleEarth easily. With catch ID it can initially take time for researchersunfamiliar with the species to ‘get their eye in’ – however, this pro-cess speeds up after a few attempts. From our experiences, fishersthemselves were keen to help sort catches, which demonstrates‘stakeholder participation’. Finally, FREA is highly ‘replicable’ andcan form part of a longer-term monitoring study.

5.3. Limitations of the fishing regulation effectiveness andappropriateness (FREA) assessment framework

As with any new framework, there were several challenges, notall of which were limitations of the methodological design. Theseare outlined here, with some recommendations on how they canbe minimized. Firstly, it is important to assert that the main pur-pose of FREA is to broadly assess fishing regulations; it does notpurport to offer a thorough assessment of fishery status.2 How-

2 Similarly it does not consider market price fluctuations, fish consumption, andnumber of fishers in the fishery − all of these things are external to the main purposeof FREA.

4 ies Res

cytarafim

fibtertibeasa

gtfpaedac

cmttmcbFcetbi

cbiecdawsatflrc

6

p

22 B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisher

reates a snapshot in time, it could be used within a few months/aear of regulation implementation – depending on the objective ofhe regulation; e.g., to see whether a new fishing gear ban is knownbout and accepted, or whether the mandatory use of a bycatcheduction device is having an effect on catches. During scoping,nnual fishing calendars can be created during focus groups withshers to show in what season different gears are used and informulti-season monitoring.

The number of available GPS receivers limited the number ofshing grounds that could be mapped. However, more GPS distri-ution means more catches to analyse the following day. As alludedo earlier, it is important not to over-burden the research team orlse the quality of the catch analysis may suffer. All fishers want toush to the depot to sell their catch when it is freshest and whenhe most customers are present − this limitation cannot be builtnto the methodology. It is acknowledged that not all fishers maye willing to reveal details of their fishing locations. However, fish-rs are given the option of whether or not to participate in thisctivity and our experience in Bangladesh suggests the main rea-on for non-participation was fear for the safety of the GPS receivers explained below.

Spatial patterns are difficult to infer from the demonstration site,iven the small number of mapped tracks. However, further use ofhis previously untested method is advocated since it was success-ul in terms of implementation, and it is clear that with more routes,reviously unknown distributions of different fishing gears, effort,nd possibly species assemblages, can be uncovered. Meanwhile, toxpand the social survey, respondents could be asked about the pre-icted compliance level for the proposed regulations (i.e., addingnother bar to P1-P7 in Fig. 7), which could test whether expectedompliance is positively correlated with acceptability levels.

The reliance on locals for information about fishing datesan create miscommunications, meaning research days could beissed. To prevent this, it is recommended that such informa-

ion is verified with other groups of fishers, depot managers, andhe lunar calendar. Meanwhile, the potential reliance on govern-

ent authorities for legislative documents and research permitsan delay the start. Hence, it is recommended that such peoplee contacted in advance to secure these important documents.REA does not give strict consideration to governability (e.g., theapacity of the FD to enforce fishing regulations, which is appar-ntly poor − Islam, 2003), although coarse inferences can be madehrough information elicited during the primary and secondaryackground research, and guidance to incorporate this can be found

n Chuenpagdee and Jensoft (2009).There are a number of external factors that cannot be directly

ountered by any methodological means. The first is the weather:ad weather means no fishing. The monsoon, for instance, is a lim-

tation to all research activities in the Sundarbans. While this is anxtreme example, it is recommended that annual weather data areonsulted, and fieldwork scheduled accordingly, to avoid wastedays in the field. A second external factor in Bangladesh was dacoitectivity, which hindered progress at one time during which fishersere unwilling to take GPS receivers through fear they would be

tolen by the dacoites. Indeed, some fishers decide not go fishing atll during times of high dacoite presence. While specific to this loca-ion, similar problems may exist elsewhere. Despite the above, theexible nature of FREA does allow these issues to be countered indi-ectly, since the background research and social research methodsan still be conducted on days of no fishing.

. Conclusion

A novel framework is presented that assesses the societal appro-riateness and ecological effectiveness of fishing regulations. The

earch 183 (2016) 410–423

framework is multi-disciplinary, uniquely combining ecological,spatial, and social research methods to reveal the knowledge,opinions, activities, and impacts of fishers. The framework isapplied to a fishery in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Ultimately,these fishers support the rationale of existing laws, but may bedriven to non-compliance by their hardship, which is exacer-bated by the presence of dacoites and corrupt law enforcementagencies. For the same reasons, proposed laws are viewed unfa-vorably. Findings from FREA allow a number of suggestions forimproving specific gear and species regulations to be made. Inaddition, broader management recommendations were suggestedincluding spatially-targeted enforcement, awareness-raising, andcapacity-building approaches. The broader merits and limitationsof the framework are made explicit. The framework is particularlyapplicable to data-poor fisheries in developing countries such asBangladesh, but might need further adaptation in other nations. Thetool can help academics, practitioners, and government agencies,and is particularly useful as step-by-step guide for inexperiencedfisheries researchers.

Acknowledgments

We thank A. Hossain, R. Hassan, R. Azam of WildTeam for helpin the field, and P. Lahann, A. Islam, A. Barlow, and C. GreenwoodBarlow of WildTeam for logistical and managerial support. H. Islamis acknowledged for help with GIS. We are grateful to the commentsof two anonymous reviewers and T. Davies, who made insightfulcomments that have improved this manuscript. Fieldwork fundingcame from a private donor that wishes to remain anonymous.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.07.010.

References

Ahmed, N., Troell, M., Allison, E.H., Muir, J.F., 2010. Prawn postlarvae fishing incoastal Bangladesh: challenges for sustainable livelihoods. Mar. Policy 34,218–227.

Barlow, A.C.D., Ahmed, M.I.U., Rahman, M.M., Howlader, A., Smith, A.C., Smith,J.L.D., 2008. Linking monitoring and intervention for improved management oftigers in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2031–2040.

Bladon, A.J., Short, K.M., Mohammed, E.Y., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2014. Payments forecosystem services in developing world fisheries. Fish Fish., http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/faf.12095 (Epub ahead of print).

Borja, A., Bricker, S.B., Dauer, D.M., Demetriades, N.T., Ferreira, J.G., Forbes, A.T.,Hutchings, P., Jia, X., Kenchington, R., Marques, J.C., Zhu, C., 2008. Overview ofintegrative tools and methods in assessing ecological integrity in estuarine andcoastal systems worldwide. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 56, 1519–1537.

Carruthers, T.R., Punt, A.E., Walters, C.J., MacCall, A., McAllister, M.K., Dick, E.J.,Cope, J., 2014. Evaluating methods for setting catch limits in data-limitedfisheries. Fish. Res. 153, 48–68.

Catedrilla, L.C., Espectato, L.N., Serofia, G.D., Jimenez, C.N., 2012. Fisheries lawenforcement and compliance in District 1, Iloilo Province, Philippines. OceanCoastal Manage. 60, 31–37.

Chantarasri, S., 1998. Fisheries resources management for the sundarbans reservedforest. In: Integrated Resource Development of the Sundarbans ReservedForest, Bangladesh (BGD/84/056). FAO/UNDP, Khulna, Bangladesh http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/383933.htm.

Chuenpagdee, R., Jensoft, S., 2009. Governability assessment for fisheries andcoastal systems: a reality check. Hum. Ecol. 37, 109–120.

Chuenpagdee, R. (Ed.), 2011. World Small-Scale Fisheries Contemporary Visions.Eburon Delft, Netherlands, p. 400.

Cisse, A.A., Blanchard, F., Guyader, O., 2014. Sustainability of tropical small-scalefisheries: integrated assessment in French Guiana. Mar. Policy 44, 397–405.

Dastidar, R., 2009. Capitalist Development and Technological Innovation inOpen-Water Fisheries: Impacts on Traditional ‘Water-Slave’ Fishing

Communities of Southeastern Bangladesh. PhD Thesis. Chittagong University,Bangladesh, pp. 329.

Daw, T.M., 2008. Spatial distribution of effort by artisanal fishers Exploringeconomic factors affecting the lobster fisheries of the Corn Islands, Nicaragua.Fish. Res. 90, 17–25.

ies Res

d

D

E

F

F

F

F

G

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

H

I

I

I

I

I

K

K

Thorpe, R.B., Dolder, P.J., Reeves, S., Robison, P., Jennings, S., 2016. Assessing fisheryand ecological consequences of alternate management options for multispeciesfisheries. ICES J. Mar. Sci., http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsw028.

B.S. Thompson et al. / Fisher

e la Torre-Castro, M., Lindstrom, L., 2010. Fishing institutions Addressingregulative, normative and cultural-cognitive elements to enhance fisheriesmanagement. Mar. Pol. 34, 77–84.

oF (Department of Fisheries), 2008. Matshya Pakkhya Saranika. Department ofFisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

risman, B.E., Apel, A.M., MacCall, A.D., Román, M.J., Fujita, R., 2014. The influenceof gear selectivity and spawning behavior on a data-poor assessment of aspawning aggregation fishery. Fish. Res. 159, 75–87.

AO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 2003. FAO GlobalMangrove Area Estimate. FAO, Rome.

AO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2014. The State ofWorld Fisheries and Aquaculture: Opportunities and Challenges. FAO,Bangkok, pp. 243.

roese, R., Pauly, D. (Eds.), 2011. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publicationwww.fishbase.org.

roese, R., 2004. Keep it simple: three indicators to deal with overfishing. Fish Fish.5, 86–91.

arces, L.R., Pido, M.D., Pomeroy, R.S., Koeshendrajana, S., Prisantoso, B.I., Fatan,N.A., Adhuri, D., Raiful, T., Rizal, S., Tewfik, A., Dey, M., 2010. Rapid assessmentof community needs and fisheries status in tsunami-affected communities inAceh Province, Indonesia. Ocean Coastal Manage. 53, 69–79.

adjimichael, M., Kaiser, M.J., Edwards-Jones, G., 2013. The impact of regulatoryobligations on fishers’ income: identifying perceptions using a market-testingtool. Fish. Res. 137, 129–140.

all, G.B., Close, C.H., 2007. Local knowledge assessment for a small-scale fisheryusing geographic information systems. Fish. Res. 83, 11–22.

ammett, D., Twyman, C., Graham, M., 2015. Research And Fieldwork inDevelopment. Routledge, pp. 352.

auck, M., 2008. Rethinking small-scale fisheries compliance. Mar. Pol. 32,635–642.

obday, A.J., Smith, A.D.M., Stobutzki, I., Bulman, C., Daley, R., Dambacher, J., Deng,R., Dowdney, J., Fuller, M., Furlani, D., Griffiths, S.P., Johnson, D., Kenyon, R.,Knuckey, I.A., Ling, S.D., Pitcher, R., Sainsbury, K.J., Sporcic, M., Smith, T.,Walker, T., Wayte, S., Webb, H., Williams, A., Wise, B.S., Zhou, S., 2011.Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing. Fish. Res. 108, 372–384.

oq, M.E., Wahab, M.A., Islam, M.N., 2006. Hydrographic status of Sundarbansmangrove, Bangladesh with special reference to post-larvae and juveniles fishand shrimp abundance. Wetlands Ecol. Manage. 14, 79–93.

oq, M.E., 2007. An analysis of fisheries exploitation and management practices inSundarbans mangrove ecosystem, Bangladesh. Ocean Coastal Manage. 50,411–427.

oq, M.E., 2008. Sundarbans Mangrove: Fish and Fisheries Ecology, Resources,Productivity and Management Perspectives. Graphic Media, Dhaka,Bangladesh, pp. 271.

ossain, M.A., Thompson, B.S., Chowdury, G.W., Mohsanin, S., Fahad, Z.H.,Koldewey, H.J., Islam, M.A., 2015. Sawfish exploitation and status inBangladesh. Aquat. Conserv. 25, 781–799.

ussain, M.G., 2010. Freshwater fishes of Bangladesh Fisheries, biodiversity andhabitat. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manage. 13, 85–93.

utubessy, B.G., Mosse, J.W., van Zwieten, P.A.M., Hayward, P., 2014. Towards anecosystem approach to small island fisheries: a preliminary study of a balancedfishery in Kotania Bay (Seram Island, Indonesia). J. Mar. Island. Cult. 3, 98–105.

PAC (Integrated Protected Area Co-management), 2010. Study on theConservation and Management of Fisheries Resources of the Sundarbans.USAID (United States Agency for International Development), Dhaka,Bangladesh http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf docs/pnaed073.pdf.

mperial, M.T., Yandle, T., 2005. Taking institutions seriously: using the IADframework to analyze fisheries policy. Soc. Nat. Resour. 18, 493–509.

slam, M.M., Chuenpagdee, R., 2013. Negotiating risk and poverty in mangrovefishing communities of the Bangladesh Sundarbans. MAST 12, 7.

slam, S., Wahab, A., 2005. A review on the present status and management ofmangrove wetland habitat resources in Bangladesh with emphasis onmangrove fisheries and aquaculture. Hydrobiologia 542, 165–190.

slam, S., 2003. Perspectives of the coastal and marine fisheries of the Bay ofBengal, Bangladesh. Ocean Coastal Manage. 46, 736–796.

laer, N.L., Smith, D.C., 2012. Determining primary and companion species in amulti-species fishery: implications for TAC setting. Mar. Policy 36, 606–612.

olding, J., van Zwieten, P., 2011. The tragedy of our legacy: how do globalmanagement discourses affect small-scale fisheries in the South? Forum Dev.Stud. 83 (3), 267–297.

earch 183 (2016) 410–423 423

Lam, M.E., Pitcher, T.J., 2012. The ethical dimensions of fisheries. Curr. Opin.Environ. Sustainability 4, 364–373.

Lockwood, S.J., 2000. The effect of fishing on marine ecosystem and communities.Aquat. Conserv. 10, 226–227.

Martell, S., Froese, R., 2013. A simple method for estimating MSY from catch andresilience. Fish Fish. 14, 504–514.

McClanahan, T.R., Mangi, S.C., 2004. Gear-based management of a tropical artisanalfishery based on species selectivity and capture size. Fish. Manage. Ecol. 11,51–60.

McClanahan, T.R., Cinner, J.E., Kamukuru, A.T., Abunge, C., Ndagala, J., 2009.Management preferences, perceived benefits and conflicts among resourceusers and managers in the Mafia Island Marine Park, Tanzania. Environ.Conserv. 35, 340–350.

McClanahan, T.R., Cinner, J.E., Abunge, C., 2013. Identifying managementpreferences, institutional organisational rules, and their capacity to improvefisheries management in Pemba, Mozambique. Afr. J. Mar. Sci. 35, 47–56.

Methot Jr., R.D., Wetzel, C.R., 2013. Stock synthesis: a biological and statisticalframework for fish stock assessment and fishery management. Fish. Res. 142,86–89.

Moutopoulos, D.K., Libralato, S.L., Solidoro, S., Stergiou, K.I., 2013. Toward anecosystem approach to Fisheries in the Mediterranean Sea:multi-gear/multi-species implications from an ecosystem model of the GreekIonian Sea. J. Mar. Syst. 113–114, 13–28.

Pecl, G.T., Ward, T.M., Doubleday, Z.A., Clarke, S., Day, J., Dixon, C., Frusher, S.,Gibbs, P., Hobday, A.J., Hutchinson, N., Jennings, S., Jones, K., Li, X., Spooner, D.,Stoklosa, R., 2014. Rapid assessment of fisheries species sensitivity to climatechange. Clim. Change 127, 505–520.

Philcox, N., Knowler, D., Haider, W., 2010. Eliciting stakeholder preferences: anapplication of qualitative and quantitative methods to shrimp aquaculture inthe Indian Sundarbans. Ocean Coastal Manage. 53, 123–134.

Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D., Short, K., Varkey, D., Pramod, G., 2009. An evaluation ofprogress in implementing ecosystem-based management of fisheries in 33countries. Mar. Pol. 33, 223–232.

Pitcher, T.J., Lam, M.E., Ainsworth, C., Martindale, A., Nakamura, K., Perry, R.I., Ward,T., 2013. Improvements to Rapfish: a rapid evaluation technique for fisheriesintegrating ecological and human dimensions. J. Fish Biol. 83, 865–889.

Pomeroy, R., Parks, J., Reaugh-Flower, K., Guidote, M., Govan, H., Atkinson, S., 2015.Status and priority capacity needs for local compliance andcommunity-supported enforcement of marine resource rules and regulationsin the coral triangle region. Coastal Manage. 43, 301–328.

Pomeroy, R., 2016. A research framework for traditional fisheries: revisited. Mar.Pol. 70, 153–163.

Read, A.D., West, R.I., Haste, M., Jordan, A., 2011. Optimizing voluntary compliancein marine protected areas: a comparison of recreational fisher andenforcement officer perspectives using multi-criteria analysis. J. Environ.Manage. 92, 2558–2567.

Samuelson, W., Zeckhauser, R., 1988. Status quo bias in decision making. J. RiskUncertainty 1, 7–59.

Sarkar, S.K., Bhattacharya, A.K., 2003. Conservation of biodiversity of the coastalresources of Sundarbans, Northeast India: an integrated approach throughenvironmental education. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 47 (1–6), 260–264.

Smith, B.D., Diyan, M.A.A., Mansur, R.M., Mansur, E.F., Ahmed, B., 2010.Identification and channel characteristics of cetacean hotspots in waterways ineastern Sundarbans mangrove forest, Bangladesh. Oryx 44, 241–247.

Smith, T.J., 1995. Integrated Resource Development of the Sundarbans ReservedForest, Bangladesh (Further Analysis of Fisheries Data, BGD/84/056,FAO/UNDP). FAO/UNDP, Khulna, Bangladesh.

Tesfamichael, D., Pitcher, T.J., 2006. Multidisciplinary evaluation of thesustainability of Red Sea fisheries using Rapfish. Fish. Res. 78, 227–235.

Thomas, A.S., Milfont, T.L., Gavin, M.C., 2015. What determines fishers’ knowledgeof and attitudes towards regulations? A case study from the MarlboroughSounds, New Zealand. Mar. Policy 51, 547–554.

Walters, C.J., Martell, S.D., 2004. Fisheries Ecology and Management. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton (New Jersey), pp. 399.