664
(iv) Generation of environmental awareness
through brochures, training programmes,
padayatras, hoardings, etc.
(v) Developing various publicity materials
on wetlands
(vi) Use of media
(m) Impact assessment through concurrent and
terminal evaluation
(i) Preparation of baseline data for parameters like extent of soil erosion in the
catchment, extent of siltation in the
wetland, quantum of biomass, quality
of water, groundwater level and change
in biodiversity
(ii) Assessment of qualitative and quantitative changes in wetlands through various
conservation activities
(iii) Evaluation of programmes through
independent agencies, consortia of
agencies, etc.
Notwithstanding the above, some of the basic
aspects of CBFM and PRA are briefl y given
below.
31.14.4.3 Concept of CBFM
(a) It is an alternative fi sheries management
strategy to the top-down, centralised government approach for fi sheries management.
(b) Under this process, the people are given the
opportunity and/or responsibility to manage
their own resources by themselves.
(c) People could defi ne their needs, goals and
aspirations and take decisions for their wellbeing by themselves.
(d) CBFM is participatory in nature and locationspecifi c with respect to technology, social
and environmental management aspects.
(e) CBFM is people-centred, people-led and
resource-based management practice.
(f) It attempts to bring the government and
resource users in closer contact which
enhances participation of resource users in
the management process.
(g) Fisheries management responsibilities are
shared among the stake holders; and hence, it
is cost-effective than that of centralised management system.
Advantages of CBFM
Some of the advantages are:
(a) It is a more transparent, accountable and
autonomous management system.
(b) Fishers participate in the planning to maximise fi sh yield and conserve fi sh stocks.
(c) Fishers share the cost and benefi ts of
improved management among themselves.
(d) Wider platform and closer contacts for
exchange of knowledge and views.
(e) Rules and regulations could be strictly followed in this democratic and participatory
process.
(f) This process instils the sense of ownership
among the fi shers over the resource. This
could lead to sustainable resource management in the long run.
Disadvantages of CBFM
Some of the disadvantages are:
(a) CBFM may not always be very suitable for
every fi shing community.
(b) Leadership and appropriate local institutions,
e.g. fi shers’ organisations, may not always
exist within the community to initiate and
sustain co-management efforts.
(c) The expenses in CBFM practices may appear
to be high to certain fi sher groups and may
not be affordable. Further, the expenses may
sometimes outweigh the expected benefi ts.
31.14.4.4 CBFM (PRA) Exercises:
A Study from Assam
Barman ( 2011 ) and Barman et al. ( 2008 ) had
made studies on CBFM in Assam based on PRA
exercises. Some of the salient features of the
study are as follows:
(a) Correlation analysis indicated that two
variables, namely, community-based fi shery
organisation and management capabilities of
Beel Development Committees (BDC), have
a positive and signifi cant association
( p < 0.001) with all the three dependent variables, namely, Beel users’ knowledge, scores
on community-based fi shery management
(CBFM) and sustainable development and
management of Beel and the community’s
livelihood for sustenance. This indicates that
31 Management and Conservation of Wetlands
(iv) Generation of environmental awareness
through brochures, training programmes,
padayatras, hoardings, etc.
(v) Developing various publicity materials
on wetlands
(vi) Use of media
(m) Impact assessment through concurrent and
terminal evaluation
(i) Preparation of baseline data for parameters like extent of soil erosion in the
catchment, extent of siltation in the
wetland, quantum of biomass, quality
of water, groundwater level and change
in biodiversity
(ii) Assessment of qualitative and quantitative changes in wetlands through various
conservation activities
(iii) Evaluation of programmes through
independent agencies, consortia of
agencies, etc.
Notwithstanding the above, some of the basic
aspects of CBFM and PRA are briefl y given
below.
31.14.4.3 Concept of CBFM
(a) It is an alternative fi sheries management
strategy to the top-down, centralised government approach for fi sheries management.
(b) Under this process, the people are given the
opportunity and/or responsibility to manage
their own resources by themselves.
(c) People could defi ne their needs, goals and
aspirations and take decisions for their wellbeing by themselves.
(d) CBFM is participatory in nature and locationspecifi c with respect to technology, social
and environmental management aspects.
(e) CBFM is people-centred, people-led and
resource-based management practice.
(f) It attempts to bring the government and
resource users in closer contact which
enhances participation of resource users in
the management process.
(g) Fisheries management responsibilities are
shared among the stake holders; and hence, it
is cost-effective than that of centralised management system.
Advantages of CBFM
Some of the advantages are:
(a) It is a more transparent, accountable and
autonomous management system.
(b) Fishers participate in the planning to maximise fi sh yield and conserve fi sh stocks.
(c) Fishers share the cost and benefi ts of
improved management among themselves.
(d) Wider platform and closer contacts for
exchange of knowledge and views.
(e) Rules and regulations could be strictly followed in this democratic and participatory
process.
(f) This process instils the sense of ownership
among the fi shers over the resource. This
could lead to sustainable resource management in the long run.
Disadvantages of CBFM
Some of the disadvantages are:
(a) CBFM may not always be very suitable for
every fi shing community.
(b) Leadership and appropriate local institutions,
e.g. fi shers’ organisations, may not always
exist within the community to initiate and
sustain co-management efforts.
(c) The expenses in CBFM practices may appear
to be high to certain fi sher groups and may
not be affordable. Further, the expenses may
sometimes outweigh the expected benefi ts.
31.14.4.4 CBFM (PRA) Exercises:
A Study from Assam
Barman ( 2011 ) and Barman et al. ( 2008 ) had
made studies on CBFM in Assam based on PRA
exercises. Some of the salient features of the
study are as follows:
(a) Correlation analysis indicated that two
variables, namely, community-based fi shery
organisation and management capabilities of
Beel Development Committees (BDC), have
a positive and signifi cant association
( p < 0.001) with all the three dependent variables, namely, Beel users’ knowledge, scores
on community-based fi shery management
(CBFM) and sustainable development and
management of Beel and the community’s
livelihood for sustenance. This indicates that
31 Management and Conservation of Wetlands