Growing the Wealth of the Poor - World Resources Institute

W O R L D R E S O U R C E S 2 0 0 8fishers. Within the beel, a 0.5 ha sanctuary was created wherefishing was banned in order to regenerate the wider wetland,and two species of locally extinct fish have been successfullyreintroduced. The RMO borrowed 42,000 taka (US$600) fromMACH to create the sanctuary, which it repaid through userdues within two years. Within five years, fish catches had almostdoubled, to 231 kg/ha. In 2004, having proved its sustainablemanagement credentials and boding well for the future, theRMO obtained leasing rights to a much larger neighboringbeel, covering 250 ha (MACH 2005a).In the few areas where enforcing new rules such as seasonalfishing bans and no-fishing sanctuaries has been a problem,communities have responded by organizing volunteer wetlandpatrols to deter rule-breakers (MACH 2005c). With communityapproval, CNRS also pioneered the design and use of concretefish shelters, using local labor to construct more than 22,000hexapod-shaped devices and place them in sanctuaries. Theseboth provided additional feeding habitat and made it very difficultto catch fish, which congregate and hide among them(MACH 2006:4-4).Resource Management Organizations have also exercisednewfound influence by successfully overcoming resistance frompowerful former leaseholders who did not want to hand overcontrol of wetlands. Such successes have often been achievedwith the support of local fisheries officials or council chairmen,underlining the worth of the new co-management arrangementsin strengthening communities’ hands. Although fisheries law inBangladesh is generally poorly enforced, in three cases RMOssupported by Upazila Fisheries Committees have succeeded inupholding fines on groups of fishers that broke harvesting rules(MACH 2007:59–61). The evaluation team commissioned byUSAID also noted that the co-management structure had“equipped the poor to resist pressure from the powerful” andthat they found “no examples of elite benefit capture” in theproject villages (Whitford et al. 2006:8).Whether this remains the case after project funding ends isan open question. But in 2006–2007 MACH boosted RMOs’survival prospects by awarding the Upazila Fisheries Committeesendowment funds whose annual returns could be used tocontinue making grants to RMOs for habitat restoration andmanagement. By guaranteeing a future revenue stream, theseprovided a clear incentive for communities to retain their loyaltyboth to the institutions and to sustainable wetland and fisheriespractices (MACH 2007:vi).Community Dividends:More Fish, New LivelihoodsAs a pilot government program, close monitoring of social andenvironmental impacts was an essential component of MACH’sactivities. To establish a baseline, NGO field staff set up 23 monitoringlocations in 1999, representing all types of wetland habitat.Every 10 days during the project, field staff and village monitorsdesignated by RMOs recorded the number of people fishing, theirhours, and the weight of the catches (MACH 2007:35).The resulting data were dramatic and unequivocal. Fishyields more than doubled with wetlands in community hands,from average catches of 144 kg/ha in 1999 to 327 kg/ha in2007 (MACH 2007). Fish consumption, recorded every threedays by local women in 29 villages, rose by 52 percent overallbetween 1999 and 2004, from 32 to 48 grams per person a day(MACH 2006:2–3). Wetland diversity also expanded, withthreatened fish species successfully reestablished, migratingbirds returning, and aquatic plants recovering, including theshingra fruit harvested by poor families (MACH 2007: 12, 112).For families used to unpredictable fish harvests, the mostimportant benefit has been the revival of fish catches. By 2004,fishing effort had fallen by almost 2,500 hours a day across projectFISH YIELD AND FISH SANCTUARIES,MACH SITES, 1999–2006kg of fish / hectare4003002001003241465461 62Fisheries yield,as catch perunit of areaNumber ofsanctuaries11801999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Source: MACH 2007:11, 53