Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
The current conflict over fishing in the Palk Bay cannot be satisfactorily understood
with reference only to newly developing economic competitions and environmental
declines. As was argued in Sections 2 and 3 above, fragmented and asymmetrical gov-
ernance frameworks too make a substantial contribution to conflict. Legal pluralism
has become a major factor in the Palk Bay, precipitating a shift in the nature of strife - in
Rapoport's (1974) language - from endogenous to exogenous, and from symmetrical
to asymmetrical.
In the decades following Independence, the governments on both sides of the bay
have manifested themselves as claimants over marine territory and the human uses to
which it is put. India and Sri Lanka have also entered into talks to redefine the mar-
itime boundary between them. The 1974 Maritime Boundary Agreement established
the geographical coordinates hereof, with India 'ceding' the small island of Kachchativu
to Sri Lanka (Suryanarayan 2005). On the Sri Lankan side, the national government
assumed the prerogative over inshore fisheries, whereas in India it was the state gov-
ernment of Tamil Nadu. Both governments have been engaged in developing bodies
of fishing law which are distinct, and differentially rooted, from fisher law. Fisheries
departments take charge of their enforcement.
The national governments on both sides, however, are in charge of defense and
foreign affairs. With fishers being regarded as potential saboteurs and smugglers, inter-
ests other than fishing have come to play a role in the fisheries of the Palk Bay. The
navy and the coast guard, in particular, occupy key positions. As part of their control
over coastal and marine activities, these agencies - independently or via their respective
Fisheries Departments - have implemented elaborate systems of personal identification
and craft registration. One obvious distinction is that of Indian or Sri Lankan citizen-
ship. Each is linked to a specific geographical territory on either side of the maritime
boundary. Transgressions of the boundary are in principle not permitted.
As a consequence of the natural movements of fish, fishers in South Asia have never
been as concerned about territorial boundaries as governments have (Bavinck 2001).
Rather, the working rule in fisher society has been one of reciprocal access to fishing
grounds, provided migrants (those coming from outside) follow the rules imposed by
locals (those regarded as local right holders). From this perspective, national citizenship
is not an issue - there is thus substantial evidence of the historical movement of fishers
back and forth across the Palk Bay, making use of broadly accepted ideas of rights and
responsibilities. In the event of violations or contested behavior, leaders of the fishing
parties in question would act to find a mutually acceptable solution. Conflicts of this
kind were therefore endogenous to the social group and their legal system.
As in other parts of the world, however, the introduction of trawling has created
a new situation (Bavinck 2005). Trawl fishers have generally not been accepted as
legitimate entrants to customary fishing grounds, in part because of the vast superiority
of their technology. Rather than subscribing to the tenets of traditional fishing law,
which, while emphasizing reciprocal access, recognises territorial rights, trawl fishers
in South Asia have also established their own organisations and made their own rules
for fishing. These emphasise a regime of complete open access that contrasts sharply
with the notion of reciprocal access under specific conditions. The fishing wars that
have taken place in India between the emergent class of trawl fishers and the many
small-scale fishers has resulted in a variety of forms of accommodation across legal
systems. Government agencies played an important role in whatever arrangements
Search WWH ::
Custom Search