Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
core area (Sunderban National Park) has been designated as a World Heritage Site. All
of Eastern India is dependent on fishery resources from the Sunderban. A major part of
the management effort focuses on the Sundarban National Park which includes 2320 km
2
of mangroves in the Ganges delta. The park straddles the India-Bangladesh border and is
called Sundarban owing to the dominance of the tree species
Heritiera fomes
, known loc-
ally as 'sundari'.
Well over three million people live in the biosphere reserve. They depend directly on
forest and forest-based resources since agriculture is not an option in this area, dominated
by tidal and salt water. Sales of timber, fuel wood, thatching leaves, honey, and wax are the
main sources of income. Because of demographic pressures, the Sunderban is under great
stress and therefore an eco-development programme exists based on a highly participat-
ive approach from the local communities, working with state and national governments.
Management emphasis is given to schemes that generate additional income and economic
security for the people, such as mangrove forest management, animal husbandry, popular-
ization of energy alternatives, habitat improvement, aquaculture, honey and wax culture,
development of crafts, and education - all surrounding the core (World Heritage) zone.
While problems do exist from over enthusiastic, or even illegal development of inappro-
priate aquaculture, in general community involvement has produced a result that typifies
application of the ecosystem approach .
In Australia, the management of different pressures on the Australian sea lion has
evolved over the past few years from a sectoral approach to one that is now much more
focused on the ecosystem in which the sea lion feeds and breeds. Because of mortalities
caused by interactions with fishing gear the Australian Fisheries Management Authority
has implemented permanent fishery closures around Australian sea lion colonies off South
Australia, with associated adjoining zones with strict trigger levels for catch that can be
closed to shark gillnetting when maximum by-catch limits are reached. Three of the seven
trigger zones (73,180 km
2
) have recently been closed to gillnetting for 18 months. Con-
versely, gillnetting is prohibited in only 14,553 km
2
(25%) of the proposed marine protec-
ted area network in this region (although most of the protected areas are at depths beyond
