sustainability

Article
Socio-Economic Conditions of Small-Scale Hilsa Fishers
in the Meghna River Estuary of Chandpur, Bangladesh
Maruf Ahmed 1,† , Sabrina Jannat Mitu 1 , Petra Schneider 2 , Masud Alam 3 ,
Mohammad Mojibul Hoque Mozumder 4 and Md. Mostafa Shamsuzzaman 1, *,†

1 Department of Coastal and Marine Fisheries, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet 3100, Bangladesh;
[email protected] (M.A.); [email protected] (S.J.M.)
2 Department for Water, Environment, Civil Engineering and Safety, Magdeburg-Stendal University of Applied
Sciences, Breitscheidstraße 2, D-39114 Magdeburg, Germany; [email protected]
3 Department of Agricultural Statistics, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet 3100, Bangladesh;
[email protected]
4 Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), Fisheries and Environmental Management Group,
Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, 00100 Helsinki, Finland;
[email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract: Hilsa fish (Tenualosa ilisha) have become an essential factor behind the well-being of the fishing
community, giving fishers their identity as a source of cultural heritage. A field survey was conducted





 to understand the socio-economic conditions of hilsa fishers at the Meghna river estuary of Chandpur
Citation: Ahmed, M.; Mitu, S.J.;
District using well-structured questionnaire interviews (N = 250) with hilsa fishers. The survey revealed
Schneider, P.; Alam, M.; Mozumder, that fishers’ livelihoods and living conditions were still below average due to low literacy levels, lack
M.M.H.; Shamsuzzaman, M.M. of professional skills, and low incomes. More than two-thirds of the fishers were entirely dependent
Socio-Economic Conditions of on hilsa fishing, while more than one-third had between 11 and 20 years of fishing experience. More
Small-Scale Hilsa Fishers in the than two-thirds of the fishers did not have an alternative occupation during ban periods, and the
Meghna River Estuary of Chandpur, incentives provided by the government were not adequately received by half of the fishers. Fishers
Bangladesh. Sustainability 2021, 13, were divided into three groups according to their dependence on hilsa fishing. Significant differences
12470. https://doi.org/10.3390/ were found between these groups in terms of the age of fishers, annual income from fishing, and annual
su132212470
fishing activity days. Therefore, the government, Fisheries cooperatives, NGOs, and other relevant
organizations must unite to support fishers for sustainable hilsa fishery management.
Academic Editors: Liontakis Angelos
and Tzouramani Irene
Keywords: small-scale fishery; livelihood; hilsa fishers; Meghna river estuary; socioeconomics
Received: 16 September 2021
Accepted: 5 November 2021
Published: 11 November 2021
1. Introduction
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Small-scale fisheries are an essential and valuable element of global fisheries and play
with regard to jurisdictional claims in a crucial role in meeting the basic needs of millions of people worldwide in both developed
published maps and institutional affil- and developing countries [1]. This sector offers many benefits, including economic growth,
iations. food, and nutrition security, employment, income for millions of people, and resilience
to poverty, particularly for many low-income countries [2]. Recent estimates have shown
that approximately 36 million (97%) of the world’s fishers are in developing countries. In
comparison, approximately 107 million (88%) of the world’s fisheries and fish trade workers
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. are employed in the small-scale fishing industry [3]. SSFs provide animal protein and
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. livelihood to 11% of the total population but face risks due to multifactorial issues related
This article is an open access article to indiscriminate fishing, unregulated fishers and efforts, illegal fishing nets (fine-mesh
distributed under the terms and monofilament nets), conflict over resources, and climatic variability. This, in turn, has led to
conditions of the Creative Commons fisheries-dependent livelihoods being vulnerable and ultimately unsustainable. Moreover,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// despite the vital role SSFs play in national and local economies [4], they are poorly planned
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and regulated, marginalized, and often neglected by all levels of government.
4.0/).

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212470 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 2 of 18

In Bangladesh, coastal resources, including rivers and small-scale marine fisheries,

contribute significantly to the national economy and promote poor coastal fisheries communi-
ties [5]. Bangladesh is one of the world’s leading fish-producing countries with a total pro-
duction of 4.276 million metric tons in 2017–2018 [6], of which the hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) catch
makes up approximately 12% with a global average annual catch of about 0.72 million tons.
Others know this country as the harbor of hilsa fish. In contrast, about 50% to 60% of hilsa
comes from Bangladesh, 20% to 25% from Myanmar, 15% to 20% from India, and 5% to 10%
from other countries, including Iraq, Kuwait, Malaysia, Thailand, and Pakistan [7,8]. This
transboundary fish species shares a tremendous social, cultural, economic, and emotional
bond with the people of the country and the other Bengali people living around the world
through its high nutritive value and flavor.
Hilsa fish (the national fish/ GI indicator) is the largest single-species fishery in
Bangladesh, contributing the highest to around 14% of the country’s total fish production
and 47% of total marine catch [9]. This fishing has become the “social and economic driving
force” of the country [10], characterized by the usual conditions of joint ownership, using
the resources available to fishers [11]. The total annual value of the hilsa fishery is USD 1.3
billion, accounting for more than 1% of Bangladesh’s total GDP and directly or indirectly
supporting the livelihoods of 4 million people of Bangladesh [8]. About 1 million fishers
depend directly on hilsa fishing to maintain their livelihood. At the same time, another
3 million small-scale fishers are indirectly involved in hilsa fishing throughout the hilsa
supply chain, including trade, transportation, marketing, and processing [12,13]. Moreover,
this fish has become an essential factor behind the well-being of the fishing community,
giving fishers their identity as a source of cultural heritage and symbolically contributing
to many religious traditions. Therefore, fluctuations in hilsa catch negatively impact the
livelihoods of hilsa-dependent communities and the country’s national economy.
Hilsa is an anadromous clupeid native to the Bay of Bengal, the Indian Ocean, and the
Arabian Sea. It is well distributed in the Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna drainage systems
in India and Bangladesh [7]. In Bangladesh, the Padma, Meghna, Jamuna, Rupsa, Shibsa,
Bishkhali, and Pyra rivers are the primary riparian hilsa fishing areas throughout the
year [6]. The Meghna River is one of the most critical and expansive rivers in Bangladesh,
and the maximum catch on the riverbank comes from this river. It covers 12 coastal regions
of Bangladesh, where many people make a living from fishing [14]. A few decades ago,
the distribution of hilsa was in almost all major rivers throughout the country. However,
according to the latest research, the distribution of hilsa has reduced to 82 Upazilas in
16 counties [15].
Many small-scale fisheries are poorly managed today. New diagnostic approaches
to contextualize fisheries and seek suitable entry points are needed to transform them
into social-ecological sustainability and secure future livelihoods [16–18]. Small-scale
hilsa fishers in Bangladesh are among the most vulnerable communities in society, living
with extreme stratification, discrimination, social exclusion, and economic oppression [19].
These fishers occupy a lower position in Bangladeshi society due to their weak economic
capacity, limited professional skills, and living options [12]. Most Hilsa fishers live below
the poverty line and are often deprived of many basic amenities of life, especially in the
off-season. Among small-scale fishers, hilsa fishers suffer more because of hilsa catching
restrictions during the prohibition period.
Furthermore, much research has been done to assess the socio-economic or livelihood
of the fishers in Bangladesh [11,20–24]. However, analysis of important issues such as
living patterns, degree of dependence on fisheries, and related issues during the fishing
ban has not been focused on adequately. Considering the above facts, this study aims
to evaluate the socio-economic conditions and livelihood strategies of small-scale hilsa
fishers at the Meghna river estuary of Chandpur, Bangladesh. Using the resource users’
perspective, the study will contribute to more profound insights into the social-ecological
aspects of small-scale hilsa fishers in the Meghna River. Furthermore, the study’s findings
will contribute to a knowledge base for new, practical, and fairer management approaches.
 perspective, the study will contribute to more profound insights into the social-ecological
aspects of small-scale hilsa fishers in the Meghna River. Furthermore, the study’s findings
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 will contribute to a knowledge base for new, practical, and fairer management 3 ofap-
18

proaches.

2. Materials
2. Materials and
and Method
Method
2.1. Selection
2.1. Selection of
of the
the Study
StudyAreas
Areas
Usingaacomparative
Using comparativecase
casestudy
studyapproach,
approach,thethelivelihoods
livelihoodsofofsmall-scale
small-scalehilsa
hilsafishers
fishers
in the
in theMeghna
Meghnariver
riverestuary
estuarywere
wereassessed
assessed(Figure
(Figure1).
1). The
Thestudy
studywas
wascarried
carriedout
outinintwo
two
Upazilasofofthe
Upazilas theChandpur
Chandpur district,
district, named
named Chandpur
Chandpur Sadar
Sadar andand Haimchar,
Haimchar, and four
and four vil-
villages
lages were selected to represent different socio-religious patterns, Anandabazar,
were selected to represent different socio-religious patterns, Anandabazar, Charvanga, Char-
vanga, Charvoirovi,
Charvoirovi, and Bishnupur
and Bishnupur (Tables 1(Tables
and 2).1 and 2).

Figure1.1.Map
Figure Mapofofthe
the study
study area
area (Banglapedia:
(Banglapedia: TheThe National
National Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia of Bangladesh
of Bangladesh (Online(Online
ed.).
ed.). Dhaka,
Dhaka, Bangladesh:
Bangladesh: Banglapedia
Banglapedia Trust,Trust, Asiatic
Asiatic Society
Society of Bangladesh.
of Bangladesh. ISBN ISBN 984-32-0576-6.).
984-32-0576-6.).

Table1.1.Primary
Table PrimaryData
DataCollection
CollectionMethod,
Method,Survey
SurveySites
Sitesand
andNumber
Numberof ofIndividual
IndividualInterviews
Interviews(II),
(II),
FocusGroup
Focus GroupInterviews
Interviews(FGD),
(FGD),and
andKey
KeyInformation
InformationInterviews
Interviews(KI).
(KI).

Sample
Sample Size Size
(Number)
District
District Upazila
Upazila Location
Location Study Sites
Study Sites (Number)
II FGD KII
Anondobazar 80
II 3 FGD 5KII
Chandpur Sadar 23.21◦ 390 N; 90.63◦ 610 E Anondobazar 80 3 3 5
Chandpur Chandpur Sadar 23.21°39′ N; 90.63°61′ E Charvanga 70 5
Charvanga
Charvoirovi 50
70 2 3 5
5
Chandpur
Haimchar 23◦ 40 N; 90◦ 38.30 E Charvoirovi 50 2 2 5
Haimchar 23°4′ N; 90°38.3′ E Bishnupur 50 5
Bishnupur 50 2 5
Total 250 10 20
Total 250 10 20
The author also discussed with personnel of locally active NGOs (CNRS, ASA, BRAC,
and SAJIDA), World Fish Center, DoF, local school teachers, fish traders, and community
members to obtain an impartial impression about fishing villages.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 4 of 18

Table 2. Surveyed fish landing centers in the Chandpur district.

Motorized
District Upazila Landing Center Location No. of Fishers Aligned
Boat
90◦ 640 0400 E;
Boro station landing center 7000 700
23◦ 230 5700 N
90◦ 640 5200 E;
Katakhali landing center 3000 400
23◦ 110 0700 N
90◦ 650 7300 E;
Chandpur Sadar Lalpur Machghat 1920 200
23◦ 290 8900 N
90◦ 660 1900 E;
Anando Bazar Machghat 1870 100
23◦ 240 7900 N
90◦ 640 2600 E;
Horina Machghat 7320 500
23◦ 140 0800 N
90◦ 640 5300 E;
Katakhali Machghat 1560 200
23◦ 100 6900 N
90◦ 640 9300 E;
Telir More/Kalikhola Machghat 1650 150
23◦ 080 8600 N
90◦ 650 2500 E;
Chandpur Haimchar HaimChar Machghat 760 80
23◦ 070 0200 N
90◦ 650 4400 E;
Char Bhairobi Machghat 1930 250
23◦ 030 5100 N
90◦ 660 0000 E;
Katakhal Machghat 810 90
23◦ 010 7300 N

2.2. Data Collection Methods

Primary data were collected using qualitative methods, including interviews, focus
group discussions (FGDs), and participatory observation from June 2018 to December 2018.
Using a semi-structured questionnaire, in-depth interviews (N = 250) were conducted
at two Upazilas, Chandpur Sadar, and Haimchar, to gather the necessary information.
Interviews were held at fish landing sites, fishermen’s houses, and local fish markets
and shops, where fishermen spend their time in various activities such as loading and
unloading fish, repairing nets and boats etc. Secondary data such as fisheries production
data were from relevant published books, scholarly articles, and relevant literature through
an online search.

2.2.1. Participant Observation

Information about the characteristics and fishing activities of hilsa fishers was collected
through participant observation. Fieldwork in the selected fishing village began with an
observation of the fishermen’s lives and fishing methods. This observation appeared to be
the most useful, practical, and understandable way of learning directly and confidently
in a natural or social setting by immersing people’s livelihood dynamics, motives, values,
beliefs, interests, and local knowledge in the local cultural environment.

2.2.2. Semi-Structured Key Informant Interviews

Open-ended interviews with a semi-structured questionnaire were conducted with a
duration of 30–45 min, with the key knowledgeable people in the communities, Fisheries
Scientific Officers, and relevant NGO workers, to gather information on issues of coping
strategies, livelihood diversities, fisheries resources, gear, indigenous knowledge, conflicts,
changes in fishing regulations, local institutions, and other factors.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 5 of 18

2.2.3. Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

In the study areas, 10 FGDs were conducted with 5–7 participants, each lasting up
to 1 h (Table 3). FGD was effectively used to collect and validate production relations,
livelihood changes, coping actions, diversity, rituals, social and economic institutions, and
indigenous knowledge.

Table 3. Significant events of field research.

Techniques Stakeholders Remarks

Key informant interview 20 Each KI interviewed 2–3 times with a duration of 30–45 min
Focus group discussion Ten events With 5–7 participants with a duration of 45–60 min
Voyage with fishers for direct observation 3-day time voyages Duration of each voyage ranging from 1–2 h.
Interviews with DoF, NGO, and BFRI personnel 10 Frequency ranging from 1–2 with each personnel.
Baseline survey 30 families Socio-economic attributes.

2.3. Data Analysis

The collected information from the survey was accumulated, grouped, and interpreted
according to the objective and parameters. The collected data were then organized, sum-
marized, and followed by graphical analyzes during this study. Finally, all the quantitative
data obtained from interviews were analyzed using SPPSS version 22.

3. Results
3.1. Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Fishers
People belonging to fishing communities in the coastal region of Bangladesh are
economically vulnerable in terms of earnings and employment. Most hilsa fishers are so
poor that they cannot renew their boats to fish in the aquatic environment. The survey
was conducted on 250 hilsa fishers who were generally engaged in fishing, of which 240
(96%) were male (Table 4). In general, it was observed that women were engaged in
domestic activities and were not allowed to go out for large-scale fishing due to social and
security problems.
The results showed that 41% of the fishers were in the 26–30 age group, more than
a third (38%) of the participants were in the 40–60 age range, and only a few (9%) of the
fishers were in the age group of (>60 years). Fishers reported to prefer nuclear families
(head of household, with spouse and children) rather than joint families (head of household,
spouse and children, father, mother, brothers, and sisters) due to household expenses.
One of the most productive assets of the people living in the villages is to have
agricultural land. The study revealed that 57% of the fishers had no land, 33% owned
5–10 decimals, and 10% had more than 10 decimals. The present study revealed that 79% of
the fishers were entirely dependent on fisheries, 14% were partially dependent on fisheries,
and only 7% were non-dependent fishers (Table 4). The fishing experience of the fishers
was collected through in-depth interviews with fishers.
According to the survey, 35% of people have 11 to 20 years of experience, and few
have more than 40 years of fishing experience. For most households (47%), monthly
income was 5000 to 10,000 BDT (1 USD = 85.12 BDT), while 24% of fishers’ income was
less than 5000 BDT per month. On the contrary, 20% of fishers monthly income was
10,000–20,000 BDT, and only 9% of fishers reported monthly income of over 20,000 BDT.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 6 of 18

Table 4. Summary of the socio-demographic characteristics of the hilsa fishers.

Characteristics Categories No. of the Respondents Frequency (%)

Socio-demographic characteristics of the fishers
>25 31 12
26–40 103 41
Ages (Years)
40–60 95 38
>60 21 9
Male 240 96
Sex
Female 10 4
Muslim 228 91
Religion
Hindu 22 9
Nuclear 173 69
Family type
Joint 77 31
Illiterate 170 68
Can only write the name 33 13
Educational status Primary level 30 12
Secondary level 17 7
No land 143 57
Agricultural land ownership
5–10 83 33
(decimal)
>10 24 10
Non-dependent fishers 16 7
Fishers dependence group Partially dependent fishers 36 14
Fully dependent fishers 198 79
1 to 10 57 23
11 to 20 87 35
Fishing experiences
21 to 30 48 19
(years)
31 to 40 45 18
41 to 50 13 5
>5000 60 24
Monthly income (BDT) 5000–10,000 117 47
(1 USD = 85.12 BDT) 10,000–20,000 50 20
<20,000 23 9
Yes 63 25
Alternative occupation
No 187 75
Tin & wood 133 53
Straw roof and bamboo fence 60 24
House structure
Built-in half bricks (Semi pacca) 45 18
Built-in bricks (Pacca) 12 5
Basic facilities enjoyed by the fishers
Yes 235 94
Electricity Facilities
No 15 6
Own tube well 123 49
Drinking water facility
Neighbor tube well 102 41
River 25 10
in Built bricks (Pacca) 40 16
Sanitation facilities Built-in half bricks (Semi pacca) 75 30
Built-in the sand (Katcha) 135 54
Village doctor 75 30
Homeopathic 15 6
Treatment facilities Kabiraj 18 7
Hospital 142 57
NGO’s 150 60
Relatives & Neighbors 40 16
Credit access Moneylenders (Mahajan)/Boat
50 20
owners
Banks 10 4
Get sufficient incentives Yes 100 40
during ban periods No 150 60
 Relatives & Neighbors 40 16
Credit access
Moneylenders (Mahajan)/Boat owners 50 20
Banks 10 4
Get sufficient Yes 100 40
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 incentives 7 of 18
No 150 60
during ban periods

The pattern of the housing materials indicates the people’s standard of living, their
socialThe pattern
status, andof the housing
financial materials
capacity. indicates
More than the people’s
half (53%) standard
of the fishers’ of living,
houses their
were made
social status, and financial capacity. More than half (53%) of the fishers’ houses were made
of tin and wood, while the remaining fishers’ houses were made with a straw roof and
of tin and wood, while the remaining fishers’ houses were made with a straw roof and
bamboo fences (24%), semi pacca (18%), and pacca (5%).
bamboo fences (24%), semi pacca (18%), and pacca (5%).
The sanitary conditions of the fishers were deplorable. Only 13% of fishers’ families
The sanitary conditions of the fishers were deplorable. Only 13% of fishers’ families
use sanitary toilets made of brick, while more than half of the fishers (54%) use toilets
use sanitary toilets made of brick, while more than half of the fishers (54%) use toilets
made of sand (Katcha). From the study sites, more than half of the fishers (57%) received
made of sand (Katcha). From the study sites, more than half of the fishers (57%) received
health services from the hospital, whereas one-third of the fishers (30%) were dependent
health services from the hospital, whereas one-third of the fishers (30%) were dependent
on unlicensed village doctors.
on unlicensed village doctors.
Credit access facilities for the small-scale hilsa fishers were minimal. Therefore, it has
Credit access facilities for the small-scale hilsa fishers were minimal. Therefore, it has
been perceived that most fishers rely on informal sources of financing to meet the ex-
been perceived that most fishers rely on informal sources of financing to meet the expenses
penses of their enterprises due to low incomes and limited personal savings. The survey
of their enterprises due to low incomes and limited personal savings. The survey found
found
that 60%that
of 60% of the
the hilsa hilsa borrowed
fishers fishers borrowed money
money from from 20%
NGOs, NGOs,from20% from lenders,
money money lend-16%
ers, 16%
from from and
relatives relatives and neighbors,
neighbors, and only 4%andfrom
onlybanks.
4% fromIn banks. In addition,
addition, it was
it was found thatfound
35%
that
of the35% of the
fishers fisherssufficient
received received incentives
sufficient incentives from the government,
from the government, while 65% while
reported65% re-
that
ported that they did not receive sufficient incentives during
they did not receive sufficient incentives during the ban season. the ban season.

3.2. Food
3.2. Food and
and Nutrition
Nutrition
The major
The major food
food items
items consumed
consumed by by the
the hilsa
hilsa fishers
fishers were
were fish,
fish, meat,
meat, dal,
dal, egg,
egg, and
and
vegetables. It was found that the monthly intake of fish was higher (55%)
vegetables. was found that the monthly intake of fish was higher (55%) than the other than the other
food items
food items (Figure
(Figure 2).
2). Fishermen
Fishermen reported
reported that
that they
they kept
kept some
somefish
fishfor
forthemselves
themselvesas asfood
food
whilefishing
while fishingand
andselling
sellingfish.
fish.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Food
Food and
and nutrition
nutrition intake.
intake.

During
During the
the fishing
fishing ban
ban period,
period, the
the poor
poor fishers
fisherssuffered
sufferedfrom
fromfood
foodshortages.
shortages.A Atotal
total
28%
28%of offishers
fishersreported that
reported to to
that withstand
withstandthisthis
situation, theythey
situation, werewere
compelled to reduce
compelled their
to reduce
meal
their frequency to twoto
meal frequency meals
two per dayper
meals anddayconsume less expensive
and consume food items
less expensive (Table
food 5).(Table
items They
mainly depended on vegetables during the banning season, and their fish consumption
was reduced to 0–1 days per week from 5–6 days per week (Table 5). Therefore, reducing
meal frequency and fish consumption reflects low income levels and a lack of alternative
livelihood opportunities during the ban season.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 8 of 18

Table 5. Food consumption ratio of hilsa fishers.

Variables Points Non-Banning Season Banning Season

Three times/day 100% 72%
Meal frequency/day
Two times/day 0% 28%
Rice Daily Daily
Fish 5–6 days/week 0–1 day/week
Variation of food taken Vegetables 4–5 days/week 6-days/week
Meat/egg/milk Once or twice every month Rarely

3.3. Fishing Crafts, Engine Capacity, and License Availability

The main crafts operating on the Meghna River to catch hilsa fish were small mecha-
nized and non-mechanized boats. The study revealed that 85% of fishers used mechanized
boats and the rest (15%) used non-mechanized boats to catch hilsa fish (Table 6). In addi-
tion, mechanized boats went to extended areas for 3, 5, or 7 days (mostly gone in 3 days),
depending on their storage and carrying capacity, while non-mechanized boats went to
nearby areas.
It has been found that more than one third of the fishers (41%) in the study area used
boats between 20–30 HP for hilsa fishing (Table 6). At the same time, fishermen reported
that boats with 30–40 horsepower engines were used only for long-term fishing and only
when there was a shortage of fishermen. Furthermore, fishers stated that they need a lower
storage capacity boat for short trips (usually from 6 am to 5 pm or 6 pm). On the other
hand, for long trips (usually 3 to 7 days), they need boats with higher storage capacity to
catch hilsa fish. It is found that 30% of fishers have no license while the rest, 70%, have
a license for hilsa fishing (Table 6). Although a license is crucial for hilsa fishing in both
riverside areas in developed countries, there is no essential obligation for hilsa fishing
in Bangladesh.

Table 6. Information about the boat used by the hilsa fishers.

Title Types Percentage (%)

Mechanized 85
Boat types
Nonmechanized 15
Yes 81
Storage Facilities
No 19
10–20 36
20–30 41
Engine Capacity (HP)
30–40 12
>40 11
<0.5 28
0.5–1.0 26
Carrying capacities
1.0–1.5 18
(Metric Ton)
1.5–2.0 20
>2.0 8
Yes 70
Having a License
No 30

3.4. Fishing Gears Used for Hilsa Fishing

The nets used in hilsa fishing were of different sizes depending on the fishing boats
used for catching fish. The use of fishing gear also varied from season to season, depending
on the availability of fish. The nets used primarily for hilsa fishing in the study areas were
the Current Jal (Gill net), Jagat Ber Jal, Ber Jal (Seine net), Chandi jal (Gill net), Gulti Jal
(Seine net), Dora Jal (Gill net) (Table 7).
 ing on the availability of fish. The nets used primarily for hilsa fishing in the study areas
were the Current Jal (Gill net), Jagat Ber Jal, Ber Jal (Seine net), Chandi jal (Gill net), Gulti
Jal (Seine net), Dora Jal (Gill net) (Table 7).

Table 7. A particular net operates in the study area.

Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 9 of 18

Mesh Size Location of

Fishing Gears Fishing Season Species Caught Remarks
(mm) Operation
Table 7. A particular net operates in the study area.

Fishing Gears Mesh Size (mm) Location of Operation Fishing Season of small
All types Species Caught
fishes, but Remarks
All types of All Season Nov.– All fishes
types of small
Ber Jal 2–100 jatka with other in This net is big
Ber Jal the waterAll
2–100 body June
types of the water body All Season Nov.–June
fishes, but jatka This net is big
Seine Meghnawith
riverother fishes in (400–700)
(400–700) ininthethe
Meghna river Meghna river
Net Net
Seine April–Oct. to All types of fish, Jatka mainly in Meghna river
Jagat Ber Jal 6–75 River and beel All types of fish,
Jagat Ber Jal 6–75 Janu.–May
River and beel Meghna river
April–Oct. to Janu.–May Jatka mainly in
Meghna river
Gulti Jal 75–125 Big rivers March–Oct.
Gulti Jal 75–125 Big rivers March–Oct.
Chandi Jal 90–115 March–Oct.
Chandi Jal 90–115 March–Oct.
Drift Current Jal
Current Jal
55–85 55–85 All seasons All seasons Mainly hilsa
Gill DoraDora
Jal Jal 75–90 75–90 Rivers Janu.–Oct. Mainly hilsa
Drift Gill Net Rivers Janu.–Oct.
Net Chandi Jal Jal
Chandi 90–115 90–115 March–Oct. March–Oct.
Current Jal Jal
Current 55–85 55–85 All seasons All seasons

3.5. Total
3.5. TotalHilsa
HilsaProduction
Productionofofthe
theCountry
Countryvs.
vs.Hilsa
HilsaProduction
ProductionofofChandpur
Chandpur
The given
The given line
line chart
chartrepresents
representsthethetotal
totalfish
fishproduction
productionof ofthe
thecountry
countryversus
versustotal
total
hilsa
hilsa production versus hilsa production of Chandpur. Hilsa production
versus hilsa production of Chandpur. Hilsa production in Chandpur in Chandpur was
14,583 metric tons in fiscal year 2008–09, followed by 21,264, 29,260,
was 14,583 metric tons in fiscal year 2008–09, followed by 21,264, 29,260, 26,920, and26,920, and 29,180
MetricMetric
29,180 ton inton
fiscal years years
in fiscal 2009–10, 2010–11,
2009–10, 2011–12,
2010–11, and 2012–13.
2011–12, SinceSince
and 2012–13. then,then,
hilsahilsa
pro-
duction hashas
production declined
declined dramatically
dramaticallyuntil
untilthe
thefiscal
fiscal year
year 2015–16. Numerous steps steps have
have
sincebeen
since beentaken
takentoto address
address thethe problem
problem andand as aas a result,
result, hilsa hilsa production
production continues
continues to growto
growincreasing
with with increasing
demand demand
from FY from FY 2016–17
2016–17 to FY 2019–20
to FY 2019–20 (Figure(Figure
3). 3).

Figure3.3.Total
Figure Totalhilsa
hilsaproduction
productionvs.
vs.hilsa
hilsaproduction
productionof
ofChandpur.
Chandpur.

3.6.
3.6. Hilsa
Hilsa Production
ProductionTrends
Trends
In
In1999–00
1999–00the
thetotal
totalproduction
productionof
ofhilsa
hilsawas
was2.19
2.19lakh
lakhmetric
metrictons,
tons,and
andin
inthe
thefollowing
following
years (2001–02) the production increased and reached up to 0.220 million MT. Afterwards,
years (2001–02) the production increased and reached up to 0.220 million MT. Afterwards,
a significant fall in the production occurred in 2002–03 (0.199 million MT). Therefore,
it was surprising that after the 2003–04 financial year, every hilsa production rose at a
significant number, and at last, in 2016–17, it went to 0.4966 million MT (Figure 3). Hilsa
fish production trends have gradually increased from year to year, as shown in Table 8. The
highest production was achieved in 2019–20 with 532,795 tons, an increase index number
of production of 1.92 compared to the base year (2005–06) (Table 8).
During the study, it turned out that hilsa production increased after increased manage-
ment efforts (Figure 4). Production was comparatively lower from 2005–06 to 2006–07 as
only sanctuary management was done. Later, production increased, and small incentives
were imposed due to new management approaches such as ban periods. In 2009–10, the
first year of a strict ban period, a full incentive package such as 30 kg m−1 h h−1 VGF
 was surprising that after the 2003–04 financial year, every hilsa production rose at a sig-
nificant number, and at last, in 2016–17, it went to 0.4966 million MT (Figure 3). Hilsa fish
production trends have gradually increased from year to year, as shown in Table 8. The
highest production was achieved in 2019–20 with 532,795 tons, an increase index number
of production of 1.92 compared to the base year (2005–06) (Table 8).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 During the study, it turned out that hilsa production increased after increased man- 10 of 18
agement efforts (Figure 4). Production was comparatively lower from 2005–06 to 2006–07
as only sanctuary management was done. Later, production increased, and small incen-
tives were imposed due to new management approaches such as ban periods. In 2009–10,
(US) wasyear
the first distributed for four
of a strict ban months,
period, and as needed,
a full incentive AIGA
package such incentives
as 30 were
kg m-1h h-1 VGFdistributed to
(US) was
fishers indistributed for fourareas.
the production months, and increased
This as needed, AIGA
by 13% incentives were distributed
with increasing index number of
to fishers in the
production production
1.13. After thisareas. This increased
incentive, by 13%
hilsa fish with increasing
production index number
has gradually of
increased, and the
production 1.13. After this incentive, hilsa fish production has gradually increased, and
production trend has become relatively high year by year. Therefore, hilsa fish production
the production trend has become relatively high year by year. Therefore, hilsa fish pro-
was 339,845,
duction 346,512,
was 339,845, 351,223,
346,512, 385,140,
351,223, 385,140,387,211, 394,951,
387,211, 394,951, 496,600,
496,600, 496,417,
496,417, 517,198517,198 tons,
532,795 tonstons
tons, 532,795 in in
2010–11,
2010–11, 2011–12, 2012–13,
2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14,
2013–14, 2014–15,
2014–15, 2015–16,
2015–16, 2016–17, 2016–17,
2017– 2017–18,
2018–19, 2019–20
18, 2018–19, 2019–20respectively [9,25].
respectively [9,25].

Figure 4. Increasing trend of hilsa production after hilsa management action plan introduced in 2003
Figure
[9].
4. Increasing trend of hilsa production after hilsa management action plan introduced in
2003 [9].
Table 8. Production of hilsa with increased % in different years under different management activities [24] and this study.
Table 8. Production of hilsa with increased % in different years under different management activities [24] and this study.
Hilsa Production
Year Total Catch Index No.Production
Hilsa of Management Strategies
Year (Tons) Production Management Strategies
Total Catch
2005–06 277,123(Tons) Base Year Index No. of Production Sanctuary management
2006–07 279,189 1.01 Do
2005–06 277,123 Base Year Sanctuary management
2007–08 290,000 1.05 Sanctuary management + small incentive (VGF 10 kg m-1h h-1)
2006–07 279,189 1.01 Do
Sanctuary management + small incentive (VGF 10 m-1h h-1) + 10 days ban for
2008–09 298,921 1.07
2007–08 290,000 1.05 brood hilsa catching
Sanctuary management
in peak spawning+ small incentive (VGF 10 kg m−1 h h−1 )
season;
Sanctuary management + 10Sanctuary
days banmanagement
for brood hilsa catching
+ small in peak
incentive (VGF 10 m−1 h h−1 )
2008–09 298,921 1.07
2009–10 313,342 1.13 spawning season + total incentive (VGFban
+ 10 days 30 for
kg brood
m-1h h-1
hilsa+catching
need-based AIGAs
in peak spawning season;
distribution)
Sanctuary management + 10 days ban for brood hilsa catching in
2010–11
2009–10 339,845313,342 1.22 1.13 Do
peak spawning season + total incentive (VGF 30 kg m−1 h h−1 +
need-based AIGAs distribution)
2010–11 339,845 1.22 Do
Sanctuary management + 11 days ban for brood hilsa catching in
2011–12 346,512 1.25 peak spawning season + total incentive (VGF 30 kg m−1 h h−1 and
need-based AIGAs distribution)
2012–13 351,223 1.26 Jatka conservation + sanctuary + 10 days hilsa fishing ban
2013–14 385,140 1.38 Jatka conservation + sanctuary + 11 days hilsa fishing ban
2014–15 387,211 1.39 Jatka conservation + sanctuary + 11 days hilsa fishing ban
2015–16 394,951 1.42 Jatka conservation + sanctuary + 15 days hilsa fishing ban
Sanctuary management + 21 days ban for brood hilsa catching in
2016–17 496,600 1.79 peak spawning season + full incentive (VGF 40 kg m−1 h h−1 and
need-based AIGAs distribution)
Sanctuary management + 21 days ban for brood hilsa catching in
2017–18 496,417 1.79
peak spawning season + full incentive (VGF 40 kg m
Sanctuary management + 21 days ban for brood hilsa catching in
2018–19 517,198 1.86
peak spawning season + full incentive (VGF 40 kg m
Sanctuary management + 21 days ban for brood hilsa catching in
2019–20 532,795 1.92
peak spawning season + full incentive (VGF 40 kg m
 Sanctuary management + 21 days ban for brood hilsa catching in peak
2017–18 496,417 1.79
spawning season + full incentive (VGF 40 kg m
Sanctuary management + 21 days ban for brood hilsa catching in peak
2018–19 517,198 1.86
spawning season + full incentive (VGF 40 kg m
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 11 of 18
Sanctuary management + 21 days ban for brood hilsa catching in peak
2019–20 532,795 1.92
spawning season + full incentive (VGF 40 kg m

3.7. Perceived
3.7. Perceived Drivers
Driversand
andPressures
Pressuresin inHilsa
HilsaFishing
Fishing
Themain
The maindriving
drivingforces
forcesfor
forless
lesscatching
catchingbybyfishers
fishersand
andthe
thechanges
changesin inthe
thelivelihood
livelihood
of the
of the fishers
fishers are
arethe
theuse
useof
ofillegal
illegalfishing
fishingpractices,
practices, huge
huge catch
catch of
of jatka
jatka and
and brood
brood hilsa,
hilsa,
industrialpollution,
industrial pollution,heavy
heavysiltation
siltationthat
thathinder
hinderthe
themigration
migrationofof hilsa,
hilsa, fishing
fishingban
ban season,
season,
use of
use of destructive
destructive fishing
fishing gear,
gear,and
andviolation
violationofofrules
rulesand
andregulation
regulationparticularly
particularlyininthe
the
prohibitionperiod
prohibition period(Figure
(Figure5).
5).

.
Figure5.5.Perceived
Figure Perceiveddrivers
driversand
andpressures
pressuresin
inhilsa
hilsafishing.
fishing.

3.8. Fishers Groups According to the Dependence on the Profession

3.8. Fishers Groups According to the Dependence on the Profession
The hilsa fishers (i.e., persons having a professional fishing license) were categorized
The hilsa fishers (i.e., persons having a professional fishing license) were categorized
into three groups with reference to their dependence on fisheries. The majority (72.4%) of
into three groups with reference to their dependence on fisheries. The majority (72.4%) of
the hilsa fishers interviewed belong to Group C (fully dependent fishers), minority (20%)
the hilsa fishers interviewed belong to Group C (fully dependent fishers), minority (20%)
were categorized in Group B (partially dependent fishers), and a further minority (7.6%)
were categorized in Group B (partially dependent fishers), and a further minority (7.6%)
were categorized in Group A (non-dependent fishers) (Table 9).
were categorized in Group A (non-dependent fishers) (Table 9)
Table 9 showed the number of hilsa fishers belonging to each dependent group by
Table 9 showed the number of hilsa fishers belonging to each dependent group by
prefecture. Group A was more prominent in some prefectures of Ananda Bazaar (52), but
prefecture. Group A was more prominent in some prefectures of Ananda Bazaar (52), but
was less numerous at about 8 and 4 in another group. This deviation is due to the presence
was
of less numerous
large-scale at about 8activities.
fishing-related and 4 in another group.
The most This deviation
important part of theisother
due tothree
the presence
areas of
of large-scale fishing-related
study was Group A, not B and C. activities. The most important part of the other three areas of
study was Group A, not B and C.
Table 9. Number of hilsa fishers belonging to the three dependence groups in the prefectures of the study.

Prefecture Group
A-(Non-Dependent Fishers) B-(Partially Dependent Fishers) C-(Fully Dependent Fishers)
Anandabazar 3 13 52
Char vanga 7 12 43
Char voirobi 5 17 38
Bishnupur 4 8 48

3.9. The Mean and Standard Deviation of the Dependence Group

People who are not dependent on fishing are classified in Group A, in this group, the
minimum annual income of the fishers was less than 1 lakh (BDT), and the maximum is
180,000 (BDT) (1USD = 85.12BDT) (Table 10). Fishers used to fish from 150 to 235 days
annually, with a minimum daily income of 250 (BDT) and a maximum of 800 (BDT) for
fishers. Fishers said that a single fishing trip per day takes from half an hour to a maximum
of four hours. On the other hand, the duration of the voyage per fishing trip lasts from a
minimum of 2 to a maximum of 4 h, while the duration of fishing lasts from a minimum of
4 h to a maximum of 10 h (Table 10).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 12 of 18

Fishers who are partially dependent on fishing are classified in Group B, where
their minimum annual income was more than 1 lakh (BDT), and the maximum was
288,000 (BDT). Duration of a single fishing trip takes half an hour to maximum of four
hours while the duration of voyage per fishing trip takes minimum 2 h to maximum 4 h,
and the duration of fishing takes minimum 4 h to maximum 10 h in a day (Table 10).
Fishers wholly dependent on fishing are categorized in Group C, where their minimum
annual income was more than 1 lakh (BDT), and the maximum was 234,000 (BDT). This
group were reported to fish for at least 150 days to a maximum of 350 days, with a minimum
daily income of 250 (BDT) to maximum of 650 (BDT). This group also said it would take
half an hour to a maximum of 6 h to prepare for a fishing trip, where the duration of the
fishing trip for each fisher would take 2–5 h (Table 10).
Table 10. Descriptive statistics of the mean and standard deviation of the dependence group.

Characteristics Non-Dependent Fishers (Group-A) Partially Dependent Fishers (Group-B) Fully Dependent Fishers (Group-C)
Annual income from fisheries (BDT)
119,025 ± 5610.58 136,500.00 ± 6626.24 133,345.45 ± 2022.69
(Mean ± SE)
Annual income from all sources (BDT)
218,275 ± 3348.17 225,177.77 ± 7141.91 143,818.18 ± 2100.54
(Mean ± SE)
Annual days of activity (days) (Mean
190.12 ± 5.29 268.33 ± 5.08 267.19 ± 2.38
± SE)
Income per fishing day (BDT/Day)
330.62 ± 15.58 379.1667 ± 18.40624 370.4040 ± 5.61
(Mean ± SE)
Duration of preparation per fishing
trip (H) 2.43 ± 0.25 2.9861 ± 0.16243 2.7955 ± 0.07778
(Mean ± SE)
Duration of voyage per fishing trip (H)
2.93 ± 0.17 3.19 ± 0.11 3.26 ± 0.05
(Mean ± SE)
Duration of fishing per fishing trip (H)
7.31 ± 0.36 7.47 ± 0.21 7.62 ± 0.07
(Mean ± SE)

Tables 11 and 12 show the average annual income and activity days per age class for
the fisher dependence groups. There was no significant difference in the annual income
from fisheries between the age groups, while there was a significant difference between the
different dependence groups, as stated before. The income from fisheries follows the same
aspect, although it has some important deviations.
Table 11. Mean and standard deviation of annual income (BDT) from fisheries per age class for the fisher dependence groups.

Dependence Group Age Class

Group <40 Years 40 to 60 Years >60 Years Total
A 119,760 ± 23,029.81 108,000 ± 0.00 119,025 ± 22,442.32
B 129,600 ± 35,810.02 144,000 ± 45,128.38 162,000 ± 0.00 136,500 ± 39,757.47
C 132,523.48 ± 28,121.16 135,844.89 ± 29,629.69 133,345.45 ± 28,461.85

Table 12. Mean and standard deviation of annual days of fishing activity per age class for the fishers dependence groups.

Dependence Group Age Class

Group <40 Years 40 to 60 Years >60 Years Total
A 191 ± 21.63 177 ± 0.00 190.12 ± 21.19
B 269.5 ± 35.94 266 ± 23.54 280 ± 0.00 136.500 ± 39.757.47
C 269.49 ± 35.03 260.20 ± 27.76 267.19 ± 33.55
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 13 of 18

3.10. The Relation between Fishers Dependence Group & Annual Income from Fisheries
The chi-square test shows that the annual income from fisheries in the three dependent
groups is non-significant (p-value 0.360). Annual income from all fisheries is divided into
4 types. Less than or equal to 1 lakh, Category 1 represents income from 100,001 to 1.5 lakh,
2 represents the range between 150,001 to 2 lakh, 3 represents the range between 200,001 to
2.5 lakh. Most people who are not dependent on fishing were in the category 1(13) income
range where the income was 100,001 to 1.5 lakhs per year, while the highest income range
of non-dependent fishers was 150,001 to 2 lakhs per year. Partially dependent fishers and
wholly dependent fishers also showed the same statistics with the maximum in Category 1.
The result showed that the highest income of partially dependent fishers is 250,001 to
3 lakhs, while the highest income of wholly dependent fishers was 200,001 to 2.5 lakh
(Table 13).
Table 13. Frequency distribution of annual income from fisheries for the 3 dependent groups of Fishers.

Annual Income (Tk) from Fisheries Total p-Value

Type of Fishers ≤100,000 100,001 to 1.5 lakh 150,001 to 2 lakh 200,001 to 2.5 lakh 250,001 to 3 lakh
Non-dependent Fishers 12.5%(2) 81.3%(13) 6.3(1) 0.0%(0) 0.0%(0) 100.0%(16)
Partially dependent Fishe rs 5.6%(2) 77.8%(28) 8.3%(3) 5.6%(2) 2.8%(1) 100.0%(36) 0.360
Fully dependent Fishers 7.1%(14) 77.3%(153) 12.6%(25) 3.0%(6) 0.0%(0) 100.0%(198)
Total 7.2%(18) 77.6%(194) 11.6%(29) 3.2%(8) 0.4%(1) 100.0%(250)

3.11. The Kruskal Wallis Test

The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to evaluate differences among categories concerning
the three dependent groups. The Kruskal–Wallis test illustrates that the age of hilsa fishers,
annual income from all sources, and annual days of activity are significant. For example,
the chi-square statistics for fisherman’s age was 41.402, annual income from all sources was
102.535, and annual days of activity was 43.582 (Table 14). On the other hand, vessel length,
vessel age, annual income from fisheries, income per fishing day, duration of preparation
per fishing trip, duration of voyage per fishing trip, and duration of fishing per fishing trip
are non-significant.

Table 14. Kruskal Wallis test statistics for hilsa fishers of the three dependent groups.

Characteristics Chi-Square Sig. Number

Age of Fisherman 41.402 0.000
Vessel length (miter) 0.243 0.886
Vessel age (Years) 2.717 0.257
Annual income from fisheries (Tk) 4.483 0.106
Annual income from all sources (Tk) 102.535 0.000
Annual days of activity (days) 43.582 0.000
The income per fishing day (BDT/Day) 4.483 0.106
Duration of preparation per fishing trip (H) 2.184 0.336
Duration of voyage per fishing trip (H) 3.018 0.221
Duration of fishing per fishing trip (H) 1.302 0.522

3.12. Analysis of Variance Test

The present results (Table 15) depict that vessel length, vessel age, annual income from
fisheries, income per fishing day, duration of preparation per fishing trip, and duration of
voyage per fishing trip were found insignificant, whereas age of fisherman, and annual
days of activity were found significant.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 14 of 18

Table 15. ANOVA test for determining the significance of different variables.

Sum of Squares Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 7417.41 3708.70 37.985 0.000
Age of Fisherman Within Groups 24,115.95 97.63
Total 31,533.37
Between Groups 4.71 2.355 0.068 0.934
Vessel length (miter) Within Groups 8526.16 34.51
Total 8530.87
Between Groups 309.64 154.82 1.136 0.323
Vessel age (Years) Within Groups 33,649.91 136.23
Total 33,959.55
Between Groups 3.59 × 109 1.79 × 109 1.991 0.139
Annual income from fisheries (Tk) Within Groups 2.22 × 1011 9.01 × 108
Total 2.26 × 1011
Between Groups 89,402.13 44,701.068 42.286 0.000
Annual days of activity (days) Within Groups 261,109.06 1057.122
Total 350,511.20
Between Groups 27,669.973 13,834.987 1.991 0.139
Income per fishing day (Tk/Day) Within Groups 1,716,536.42 6949.540
Total 1,744,206.40
Between Groups 3.354 1.677 1.455 0.235
Duration of preparation per fishing trip (H) Within Groups 284.646 1.152
Total 288
Between Groups 1.655 0.828 1.456 0.235
Duration of voyage per fishing trip (H) Within Groups 140.406 0.568
Total 142.061
Between Groups 2.025 1.013 0.793 0.454
Duration of fishing per fishing trip (H) Within Groups 315.376 1.277
Total 317.401

4. Discussion
Small-scale fisheries are a sector that is heterogeneous at various levels (spatial, tempo-
ral, tool diversity), has different social and cultural importance, has its own characteristics,
and is very difficult to define [26]. Small-scale fishers in Bangladesh are among the most
vulnerable communities in society, living with extreme stratification, discrimination, social
exclusion, and economic domination [19]. Their livelihoods and living conditions are
still below average in the adjacent Padma and Meghna Rivers. The available data and
the findings of this study show that some features of small-scale fisheries in Chandpur
make them completely different from the average national status and present significant
challenges to management. These are the number of small-scale fishers and boats and the
various levels of fishing activities (Table 6). As a result, there is a high level of heterogeneity
in the level of occupational dependence, as confirmed by current findings and previous
studies [26].
The socio-economic status of small-scale hilsa fishers in this study shows that fishers
have lower education levels, lower incomes, lower purchasing power, and limited basic
facilities than the national average (Table 4). Most of the fishers were landless, poor, and
dependent on fishing for their livelihoods (Table 4). For example, the study found that
31% of fishers lived in joint families, and only 69% lived with nuclear families. In contrast,
the average number of members of a nuclear family was 4.17 per household, and the
average size of the joint family was 6.22 per household. On the contrary, the average family
members were below the national average of 5.6 persons per household in the single-family
case. The findings of these studies are consistent with the study of [27], where the authors
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 15 of 18

stated that due to poverty and daily expenses, most community members prefer to have a
nuclear family rather than a joint family.
Housing construction materials, availability of sanitary facilities, access to safe drink-
ing water and food are considered units of measurement of peoples’ standard of living and
an indicator of a country’s socio-economic status. It was observed that (53%) of housing
structures were made of tin and wood, and the rest were katcha, semi pacca, and pacca.
The health facilities of fishers in the study area were insufficient. Although there was
one Upazila hospital in the study area, the health facilities used by the fishers were not
satisfactory. Fishers often sought health advice from the unskilled, unprofessional village
charlatan doctor and Kobiraj. This study was more or less related to [28], who stated
that the health services of the Dhaleshwari River fishing community were received from
17.14% Kobiraj, 65.71% village charlatan doctors, 14.29% Upazila health complex, and
2.86% MBBS doctors.
Fishers having access to water sources were either dependent on tube well water,
neighbors’ tube wells, or sometimes on the river. The study area found that about 50% of
the fishers used their tube-well water for drinking, and the latter half used their neighbors’
water or sometimes river water for drinking purposes. Reference [24] reported that the
great majority (58.25%) of lower Meghna river basin hilsa fishers used government tube-
well and the remaining part used their own (15%) and neighbors’ (26.75%) tube-wells to
collect drinking water which is more or less similar to the present study.
Fishers occupy a lower position in society due to their weak economic capacity [13],
limited skills, and options for living. Due to their limited occupational skills, they cannot
easily convert to other occupations. Therefore, they find it difficult to obtain alternative
income-generating activities during fishing ban periods and suffer a lot. In order to support
the fishers and improve the socio-economic situation of the hilsa fishers, the Government
of Bangladesh has implemented the food aid program during the fish ban period for
fishing communities (covering 187,000 households). As part of the support program, the
government distributed some VGF (Vulnerable Group Feeding) cards to poor fishers during
the ban season. Through the VGF Card, fishers received 40 kg rice supplements per month
for four months during the Jatka fishing restriction period (February-May) [23]. However,
this allocation of Government and NGOs is minimal and only supports a small part. More
than half of the fishers claimed that they did not receive the total allocation of the VGF
card provided by the Government (Table 3). Instead, they get only 30–35 kg of rice per
month. The findings are more or less similar to the study of [10,23], which stated that more
than half of the fishers did not receive sufficient incentives from the government during
the prohibition period due to nepotism and corruption. In addition, the government has
also initiated some programs to support alternative income-generating activities such as
supplying cash, rickshaw/van, and sewing machines to compensate for the loss of earnings
resulting from the fishing ban periods [23].
Fishers were also well-known for the massive destruction of hilsa fish when using the
current Jar to collect Jatka from the Meghna river estuary. The use of Gulti jaal, ber jaal
also caused a massive loss of jatka and brood hilsa. Most fishers felt that the increase in
mechanized boats over the last decade has led to the massive exploitation of the mouth
of the Meghna River during the hilsa fishing season. The study of [29] has shown that
sewage and industrial wastewater were the primary sources of pollution in the Hooghly
River and that metal and pesticide contaminations could negatively impact the health of
aquatic organisms. Heavy siltation by sedimentation is also a significant phenomenon in
the Meghna river system, and many researchers supported this view.
The fish banning season has a tremendous impact on the livelihoods of small-scale
hilsa fishers. As more than two-thirds (79%) of the fishers depend entirely on hilsa fishing,
their incomes were about to cease during the prohibition season. They could hardly
afford the necessary food and other expenses. Therefore, these fishers had to receive loans
from moneylenders/Mohajan/boat owners or from microcredit organizations or neighbors,
which led them to an endless debt cycle, leading them to practice illegal fishing methods to
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 16 of 18

have a stable livelihood and repay their loans. In general, boats, nets, and loans are offered
by aratders on several terms.
After the introduction of incentive-based management, considering the impact on
other management, the production of hilsa increased year by year, and the livelihood
status of Jatka or hilsa fishers also improved. Similar opinions have been reported by
researchers [14,30,31]. Also, hilsa production increased from 2.777 million tons (2005–06)
to 3.51 million tons in 2012–13, rather than decreasing [32]. In addition, production
has increased significantly in recent years due to the adoption of different management
interventions for this fishery since 2005 [31]. To achieve sustainable production, it is
imperative to preserve the jatka while saving the berried hilsa during the peak spawning
period for the unabated release of a mature egg [14,32].
In recent years, the availability of hilsa in water bodies has decreased significantly
due to anthropogenic pressures–the destruction of hilsa juveniles, habitat degradation,
indiscriminate capture of hilsa juveniles, and poor enforcement of the net size regulation
law [1]. Various law enforcement agencies impose seasonal fishing ban periods, including
November-January and March-April. In addition, restrictions are imposed on juvenile hilsa
fishing at the six hilsa fish sanctuaries in the Meghna River estuary between November and
June. During the two ban periods, hilsa fishers suffered from food and income insecurity,
insecure livelihoods, and low living standards that negatively impacted their well-being.
Where resources are scarce and livelihoods uncertain, some activities of fishermen
are seen as a necessity rather than a choice [33]. In subsistence fishing, unemployment,
poverty, inequality, and economic crises are common reasons for fishermen to not comply
with fishing laws. The disadvantaged socio-economic situation of fishermen and the risks
they faced in making a living, sometimes dictated the choice of illegal fishing activities that
ultimately increases the risk of the serious collapse of fisheries. In [33–35], these studies
also support this point. Therefore, addressing the threat of collapse should be a priority
given the socio-economic dependence of fishing communities, which will have a major
impact on the local economy.
Fishermen do not deny the role of authorities and government in compliance with
laws and regulations for the long-term sustainability of local fisheries. They understand the
problems imposed by socioeconomic expenditures, especially for the livelihoods and well-
being of fishermen that arise during prohibition times and put the benefits of this strategy
at risk [36]. Fishermen know that banning fish seasons or protecting breeding grounds will
limit their activities and jeopardize their income from fishing, but they eventually cope
by indiscriminate and illegal fishing practices, catching of brood and juvenile hilsa, use
of destructive fishing gears etc. In this case, adequate assistance from the government,
microcredit access can play a major role in supporting the fishermen themselves and also
in reducing illegal fishing practices.
Complex problems require complex solutions. In this sense, measures such as the
prohibition of hilsa hunting alone do not work. Instead, they should rely on other measures
adapted to the specific fishing situation. However, conservation efforts will be successful if
available income-generating activities in Bangladesh can be implemented [37]. Restricting
the ecosystem for a certain period is not seen as a sustainable solution to conserve resources
that limit the entry of new fishers and can have long-term negative impacts where signifi-
cant numbers of people rely on natural resources [38]. Additional measures may be found
away from fisheries management in relation to structural issues that require clear policy
initiatives, such as corruption, poverty, and unemployment.
Consideration of the socio-economic needs of fishermen is essential, as they cannot
forfeit their livelihoods and food security needs because they live on the subsistence level.
This ethical and social impact highlights the need to understand the interrelationship be-
tween fishermen’s socio-economic conditions and their ecological conservation needs. The
Government needs to provide adequate assistance, particularly financial support, during
the prohibition period and other inevitable crises to continue their profession. In addition,
providing adequate assistance to hilsa fishers and identifying authentic, vulnerable hilsa
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 17 of 18

fishers may attract large numbers of non-fishers to participate in hilsa fishing [2]. The Gov-
ernment and affiliated NGOs should organize training programs and skills development
seminars with knowledgeable personnel for the skill development of fishers. Policymakers
and researchers should address sustainable co-management, aquatic ecosystem develop-
ment, livelihoods, and vulnerability aspects. Moreover, without excluding the fishers from
their responsibility for overexploitation, instead measures must be taken such as training
and education of fishers, empowerment, and participation in decision making.

5. Conclusions
Hilsa, the national fish of Bangladesh, generates employment and income for millions
of people in Bangladesh, India, and Myanmar. This study was focused on the livelihood of
the hilsa fishers of Chandpur district, Bangladesh. Fishers mainly were poor and neglected
in society and were exploited by wealthier classes, mohajan, and aratdar in different ways.
Almost 100% of fishers used current jal of which 85% fishers used mechanized boat. Among
all fishers 20 to 30 HP of the engine of the mechanized boat had the highest number (41%).
The socio-economic condition of the hilsa fishers in the adjacent area was not satisfactory
because they were deprived of many amenities. As fishers play an essential role in catching
hilsa fish under severely stressful conditions, the government should take some essential
steps by providing extra providence (VGF card, soft loan, fishing gears and nets, etc.)
off-season to improve their socioeconomic conditions.

Author Contributions: M.A. (Maruf Ahmed): Writing, original draft preparation S.J.M.: Formal
analysis, review and editing, P.S.: Data curation, funding acquisition, M.A. (Masud Alam): Data
analyzing, review and editing M.M.H.M.: Visualization and editing, M.M.S.: Conceptualization,
methodology, writing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Mozumder, M. Socio-Ecological Resilience of a Small-Scale Hilsa Shad (Tenualosa ilisha) Fishery in the Gangetic River Systems of
Bangladesh. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, October 2020.
2. Islam, M.M.; Mohammed, E.Y.; Ali, L. Economic incentives for sustainable hilsa fishing in Bangladesh: An analysis of the legal
and institutional framework. Mar. Policy 2016, 68, 8–22. [CrossRef]
3. Mozumder, M.M.H.; Pyhälä, A.; Wahab, M.; Sarkki, S.; Schneider, P.; Islam, M.M. Governance and Power Dynamics in a
Small-Scale Hilsa Shad (Tenualosa ilisha) Fishery: A Case Study from Bangladesh. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5738. [CrossRef]
4. Mills, D.J.; Westlund, L.; de Graaf, G.; Kura, Y.; Willman, R.; Kelleher, K. Under-Reported and Undervalued: Small-Scale Fisheries in
the Developing World; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2011.
5. Shamsuzzaman, M.M.; Islam, M.M.; Tania, N.J.; Al-Mamun, M.A.; Barman, P.P.; Xu, X. Fisheries resources of Bangladesh: Present
status and future direction. Aquac. Fish. 2017, 2, 145–156. [CrossRef]
6. Fisheries Resources Survey System (FRSS). Fisheries Statistical Report of Bangladesh; Department of Fisheries: Dhaka, Bangladesh,
2019; Volume 6, p. 129.
7. Sahoo, A.K.; Wahab, M.A.; Phillips, M.; Rahman, A.; Padiyar, A.; Puvanendran, V.; Behera, B.K. Breeding and culture status of
Hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha, Ham. 1822) in South Asia: A review. Rev. Aquac. 2018, 10, 96–110. [CrossRef]
8. Sunny, A.R.; Ahamed, G.S.; Mithun, M.H.; Islam, M.A.; Das, B.; Rahman, A.; Chowdhury, M.A. Livelihood Status of The Hilsa
(Tenualosa ilisha) Fishers: The Case of Coastal Fishing Community of The Padma River. Bangladesh. J Coast Zone Manag. 2019, 22, 469.
9. Department of Fisheries (DoF). National Fish Week Compendium; Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock:
Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2018; p. 160. Available online: http://fisheries.gov.bd/site/page/43ce3767-3981-4248-99bd-d321b6e3a7e5/
(accessed on 25 October 2021). (In Bengali)
10. Alam, M.S.; Liu, Q.; Nabi, M.; Al-Mamun, M. Fish Stock Assessment for Data-Poor Fisheries, with a Case Study of Tropical Hilsa
Shad (Tenualosa ilisha) in the Water of Bangladesh. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3604. [CrossRef]
11. Md, S.J.; Uddin, A.M.M.B.; Md, P.S.; Tanmay, M.H.; Rahman, F. Livelihood status of hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) Fishers of greater
Noakhali regions of Bangladesh. Fish Aquac. J. 2016, 7, 168.
12. Sunny, A.R.; Islam, M.M.; Nahiduzzaman, M.; Wahab, M.A. Coping with climate change impacts: The case of coastal fishing
communities in upper Meghna hilsa sanctuary of Bangladesh. In Water Security in Asia: Opportunities and Challenges in the Context
of Climate Change; Babel, M.S., Haarstrick, A., Ribbe, L., Shinde, V., Dichti, N., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 12470 18 of 18

13. Mredul, M.M.H.; Uddin, M.E.; Pervez, A.K.; Yesmin, F.; Akkas, A.B. Food aid programme during restricted hilsa fishing period:
Effectiveness and management perspective. J. Fish. 2020, 8, 752–761.
14. Roy, N.C.; Habib, A.B.M.Z. Hilsa Fishery Development: Present Situation, Problems and Recommendations. National Fish Week 2013
Compendium; Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2013; pp. 101–104. (In Bengali)
15. Jatka Conservation Project (JCP). Annual Report Jatka Conservation, Alternate Income Generation for the Jatka Fishers and Research
Project (JCP); Department of Fisheries: Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, 2014; p. 62. Available online: http://fisheries.gov.bd/site/page/
43ce3767-3981-4248-99bd-d321b6e3a7e5/ (accessed on 25 October 2021).
16. Andrew, N.L.; Béné, C.; Hall, S.J.; Allison, E.H.; Heck, S.; Ratner, B.D. Diagnosis and mangement of small-scale Fisheries in
developing countries. Fish Fish. 2007, 8, 227–240. [CrossRef]
17. Berkes, F. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J. Environ.
Manag. 2009, 90, 1692–1702. [CrossRef]
18. McClanahan, T.R.; Castilla, J.C.; White, A.T.; Defeo, O. Healing small-scale Fisheries by facilitating complex socio-ecological
systems. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2009, 19, 33–47. [CrossRef]
19. Sunny, A.R.; Prodhan, S.H.; Ashrafuzzaman, M.; Sazzad, S.A.; Mithun, M.H.; Haider, K.N.; Alam, M.T. Understanding Livelihood
Characteristics and Vulnerabilities of Small-scale Fishers in Coastal Bangladesh. J. Aquac. Res. Dev. 2020, 12, 635.
20. Bhuyan, S.; Islam, S. Present status of socio-economic conditions of the fishing community of the Meghna River adjacent to
Narsingdi district. Bangladesh J. Fish. Livest. Prod. 2016, 4, 192.
21. Ali, M.Y.; Rahmatullah, R.; Asadujjaman, M.; Bablu, M.G.U.; Sarwer, M.G. Impacts of Banning Period on the Socio-Economic
Condition of Hilsa Fishers in Shakhchor Union of Lakshmipur Sadar Upazila, Bangladesh. Middle East J. Sci. Res. 2015, 23, 2479–2483.
22. Haque, M.A.; Hossain, M.D.; Jewel, M.A.S. Assessment of fishing gears crafts and socio-economic condition of Hilsa
(Tenualosa ilisha) Fisherman of Padma River, Bangladesh. Int. J. Fish. Aquat. Stud. 2017, 5, 177–183.
23. Islam, M.M.; Aktar, R.; Nahiduzzaman, M.; Barman, B.K.; Wahab, M. Social considerations of large river sanctuaries: A case
study from the Hilsa shad Fishery in Bangladesh. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1254. [CrossRef]
24. Roy, N.C.; Rahman, M.A.; Haque, M.M.; Momi, M.A.; Habib, A.Z. Effects of incentive based hilsa shad (Tenualosa ilisha)
management and conservation strategies in Bangladesh. J Sylhet Agric. Univ. 2015, 2, 69–77.
25. Department of Fisheries (DoF). Yearbook of Fisheries Statistics of Bangladesh 2016–17; Fisheries Resources Survey System (FRSS),
Department of Fisheries: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2017; Volume 34, p. 129. Available online: http://fisheries.gov.bd/site/page/43ce3
767-3981-4248-99bd-d321b6e3a7e5/ (accessed on 25 October 2021).
26. Tzanatos, E.; Dimitriou, E.; Katselis, G.; Georgiadis, M.; Koutsikopoulos, C. Composition, temporal dynamics and regional
characteristics of small-scale Fisheries in Greece. Fish Res. 2005, 73, 147–158. [CrossRef]
27. Mitu, S.J.; Schneider, P.; Islam, M.; Alam, M.; Mozumder, M.M.H.; Hossain, M.M.; Shamsuzzaman, M. Socio-Economic Context
and Community Resilience among the People Involved in Fish Drying Practices in the South-East Coast of Bangladesh. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021, 18, 6242. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Kamruzzaman, M.; Hakim, M.A. Livelihood status of fishing community of Dhaleshwari river in central Bangladesh. Int. J.
Bioinform. Res. Appl. 2016, 20, 2–86.
29. Samanta, S. Metal and pesticide pollution scenario in Ganga River system. Aquat. Ecosyst. Health Manag. 2013, 16, 454–464.
[CrossRef]
30. Haldar, G.C.; Wahab, M.A.; Puvanendran, V.; Phillips, M.J. Potential sources of fry and fingerlings of Hilsa for aquaculture.
In Hilsa: Status of Fishery and Potential for Aquaculture, Proceedings of the Regional Workshop Held in Dhaka; WorldFish:
Penang, Malaysia, 2012; pp. 16–17.
31. Rahman, M.A.; Alam, M.A.; Hasan, S.J.; Jaher, M. Hilsa Fishery management in Bangladesh. In Hilsa: Status of Fishery and Potential
for Aquaculture, Proceedings of the Regional Workshop Held in Dhaka; WorldFish: Penang, Malaysia, 2012; pp. 40–60.
32. Department of Fisheries (DoF). National Fish Week Compendium; Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock:
Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2013; p. 144. (In Bengali)
33. Cepić, D.; Nunan, F. Justifying non-compliance: The morality of illegalities in small scale fisheries of Lake Victoria, East Africa.
Mar. Policy 2017, 86, 104–110. [CrossRef]
34. Bell, S.; Hampshire, K.; Topalidou, S. The political culture of poaching: A case study from northern Greece. Biodivers. Conserv.
2007, 16, 399–418. [CrossRef]
35. Ballesteros, H.M.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, G. Economic crisis and poaching: Advice on anti-poaching management from The
Galician Shellfish Sector. Deviant Behav. 2019, 40, 1508–1521. [CrossRef]
36. Islam, M.M.; Begum, A.; Rahman, S.M.A.; Ullah, H. Seasonal Fishery Closure in the Northern Bay of Bengal Causes Immediate
but Contrasting Ecological and Socioeconomic Impacts. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 1–13. [CrossRef]
37. Naser, N.M. Conserving trans-boundary migratory hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) fish: A review of Bangladesh experience. In Rivers
for Life. Proceedings of the International Symposium on River Biodiversity: Ganges-Brahmaputra River System, Ecosystems for Life,
a Bangladesh India Initiative, IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature; IUCN: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2014; pp. 215–221.
38. Mozumder, M.M.H.; Wahab, M.; Sarkki, S.; Schneider, P.; Islam, M.M. Enhancing social resilience of the coastal fishing communi-
ties: A case study of hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha H.) Fishery in Bangladesh. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3501. [CrossRef]