Cover photograph : Landed catch in the Cuddalore fishing harbour.

Photo by Philip Townsley

 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FOR
SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS (FIMSUL)
PROJECT IN TAMIL NADU AND PUDUCHERRY, INDIA
(FAO/UTF/IND/180/IND)

Work-Package 5
Fisheries Management Systems

MARINE FISH PRODUCTION IN TAMIL NADU & PUDUCHERRY

A Report based on a detailed analysis of
Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute Data

Authors
H. Mohamad Kasim and V. Vivekanandan

December 2011
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) or the World
Bank concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or of its authorities concerning the delimitations of
its frontiers or boundaries. Opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not imply any
opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO or the World Bank, or the Government of Tamil Nadu or the Government
of Puducherry.

Reproduction
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without special
permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. FAO would appreciate receiving a copy
of any publication that uses this publication as a source.

Copyright © 2011 : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The World Bank, Government of Tamil Nadu
and Government of Puducherry

Suggested Citation
FIMSUL (2011). Marine Fish Production in Tamil Nadu & Puducherry. A Report based on a detailed analysis of Central
Marine Fisheries Research Institute Data. (Authors : Kasim, H.M. and V. Vivekanandan). A Report prepared for the
Fisheries Management for Sustainable Livelihoods (FIMSUL) Project, undertaken by the UN FAO in association
with the World Bank, the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Puducherry. Report No. FIMSUL/
WP5:AR2. FAO/UTF/IND/180/IND. New Delhi, Chennai and Puducherry, India.
This publication is available from https://sites.google.com/site/fimsul/

Printed by
ACE DATA PRINEXCEL PRIVATE LIMITED
Coimbatore, INDIA

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Office of the FAO Representative in India
P.O. Box No. 3088, 55, Lodi Estate
New Delhi-110003, India
http://www.fao.org

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK

1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.
http://www.worldbank.org/

Government of Tamil Nadu

Department of Fisheries
DMS Complex
First Floor, Administrative Building
Teynampet, Chennai 600006, India
http://www.tn.gov.in/fisheries/

Government of Puducherry
Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare
Botanical Garden Premises
Puducherry 605001, India
http://www.pon.nic.in/
 PREFACE
Fisheries Management for Sustainable Livelihoods (FIMSUL), is a project implemented by the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) with the Government of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry in India under the
World Bank Trust Fund.
The project aims at establishing frameworks, processes and building capacities of various stakeholders especially
the Government, to facilitate the planning, design and implementation of appropriate fisheries development and
management policies.
The project includes a series of stakeholder consultations and consensus building apart from detailed review and
analysis in the areas of stakeholders, livelihoods, policy, legal and institutional frame work, fisheries management and
knowledge management. Based on this, the project comes up with various options.
Work Package 5 deals with Fisheries Management. The work package includes a detailed review of the marine
fisheries management systems and practices in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, detailed analysis of the marine fisheries
data to help decision making, case studies on different fisheries management unit approaches and finally based on
all these, to suggest different fisheries management options. This report is a detailed analysis of the marine fisheries
catch data from the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute. The report emphasises the importance of scientific
data and its analysis for arriving at decisions on appropriate strategies in fisheries management and fisheries policy.
The FIMSUL team thanks the successive Secretaries and Director/ Commissioners of Fisheries in Tamil Nadu and
Puducherry during the project period for all the support provided. The support of the Department of Fisheries
officers from Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is acknowledged with thanks. Thanks to Dr. Ahana Lakshmi for editing
the report. We thank the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi for providing the marine fisheries data.

Our thanks are due to Mr. Rolf Willmann, Senior Fisheries Planning officer, FAO, Rome, the lead technical officer
for the project, for his constant guidance and support. The team thanks Dr. Gavin Wall, FAO representative for India,
Ms. Renuka Taimni and other officers from FAOR office New Delhi for all support.

C.M. Muralidharan
National Project Coordinator
Fisheries Management for Sustainable Livelihoods (FIMSUL) project
FAO of the United Nations
Department of Fisheries, First Floor, Administrative Building
DMS Complex, Teynampet, CHENNAI 600 006

i
 FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS
2010-2011
TEAM MEMBERS

National Experts :
Mr. C.M. Muralidaran (National Project Coordinator)
Mr. V. Karthikeyan (Livelihoods Analysis)
Dr. H.M. Kasim (Fisheries Management)
Dr. Ahana Lakshmi (Knowledge and Communications)
Mr. G.M. Chandra Mohan (Stakeholder Analysis)
Dr. V. Sampath (Policy Analysis)
Mr. R. Srinivasan (Policy Analysis)
Dr. V. Suresh (Law and Institutions)
Mr. V. Vivekanandan (Fisheries Management)
Mrs. R. Buvaneswari (Operations Assistant)

International Experts :
Dr. A. E. Neiland (Technical Oversight and Policy Analysis)
Mr. P. Townsley (Livelihoods Analysis)
Dr. J. Catanzano (Economic Analysis)
Mr. B. Cattermoul (Knowledge Management)
Dr. S. Cunningham (Fisheries Management)
Ms. S. Walmsley (Fisheries Analysis)

Government Officers :
Mrs. N. Chandra (Joint Director of Fisheries, Tamil Nadu)
Mr. T.K. Sriraman (Assistant Director of Fisheries, Tamil Nadu)
Mrs. J. Vijaya Lakshmi (Inspector of Fisheries, Tamil Nadu)
Mr. S. Ravi (Assistant Director of Fisheries, Puducherry)

ii
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Continuous growth in TN marine fisheries is observed in the form of introduction of new fishing vessels, fishing
methods, new fishing gears and development of different infrastructure since 1950 leading to a five-fold increase in
catch and three-fold increase in active fishers. There is a continuous expansion of fishing operation to deeper and
distant waters. There has been a continuous discovery of new fishing grounds, new fishery resources and new fishing
methods. The entire shelf area off Tamil Nadu (TN) coast is covered by TN fishing fleet and there is no scope for
additional catch from the shelf area.
The landings grew continuously till 1997, witnessed a sharp fall during 1998-2004 and then a sharp increase in the
following years 2006-09 hitting the new peak of 5.39 lakh tonnes well beyond the potential yield estimate of 4.25
lakh tonnes by CMFRI. A section of the TN fishing fleet depend heavily on fishing in neighbouring waters and
nearly 20% of the catch comes from South Andhra and Sri Lankan waters. Deep sea fishing is already in vogue in
TN as Kanyakumari’s Thoothoor fishers with a fleet of approximately 500 long-liners cum gillnetters reigning all
over the west coast and landing their catch at Kochi. Chennai gillnetters and a tiny fleet of long-liners in Puducherry
have already started fishing beyond the shelf on the east coast.
There has been a continuous change in catch composition of dominant species. Pelagic resources have become
more dominant over demersal and other resources. This has led to the emergence of the low value oil sardine as
the number one species contributing to over 20% of the total TN production. The higher price increase of fish
and fishery products over other food products in our country has led to an unprecedented increase in demand and
supply. This has prompted the fishers to bring more catch at the cost of increased investment and operating cost
which in turn has led to over capitalization of the fishery sector. Lack of entry barriers and capacity controls has led
to an intense competition between sub-sectors and between units within each sub-sector. This also adds up to higher
investments to increase scale and shift towards more efficient gears like ring seine and pair trawling.
Keen competition has also led to an unfavourable distribution of fish catch among sub-sectors. The mechanised
sector with just 25% of the workforce has increased its share from less than 50% a decade ago to over 69.7% in 2010.
Inter-sectoral conflicts and adoption of banned gears by both mechanised and motorised sectors are considerable. All
these imply that there is an urgent need for improved and efficient management systems addressing over-capacity,
ecosystem degradation, sectoral conflicts, fisher rights, limited access, fleet reduction, , gear controls, deep sea fishing,
transboundary issues, conflict resolution, among others. This should be done by exploring the existing management
practices and traditional management systems, and should come out with practicable management options involving
co-management practices with active participation of the fishers.

iii
iv
 Contents
1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Objective............................................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Historical Developments in Marine Fisheries of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry................................................................... 2

2. FISH PRODUCTION IN TAMIL NADU................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Fish Production by sector................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1.1 Mechanised sector...................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.1.2 Motorised sector........................................................................................................................................................ 6

2.1.3 Non-Motorised sector............................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2. Fish production in Tamil Nadu by Species....................................................................................................................... 11

2.3 District-wise marine fish production................................................................................................................................. 12

2.3.1 Composition of pelagic and demersal resources...................................................................................................... 14

2.3.2 Emergence of oil sardine as No.1 resource.............................................................................................................. 15

2.3.3 Influence of clupeids............................................................................................................................................... 15

2.4 Production trend among the species/groups..................................................................................................................... 16

3. PUDUCHERRY. ................................................................................................................................................................ 17
3.1 Overview of the sector in Puducherry............................................................................................................................... 17

3.2 Marine fish production in Puducherry............................................................................................................................. 17

3.2.1 Composition of demersal and pelagic resources...................................................................................................... 18

3.2.2 Species dominance in top ten species/groups.......................................................................................................... 18

4. POTENTIAL YIELD AND ANNUAL FISH PRODUCTION. ............................................................................ 20

4.1 Overfishing....................................................................................................................................................................... 20

4.2 Over exploitation.............................................................................................................................................................. 20

4.3 Over capacity.................................................................................................................................................................... 20

4.4 Growth in the number of fishing fleets............................................................................................................................. 20

4.5 Conversion of excess fleet................................................................................................................................................. 21

4.6 Fishing down the food web.............................................................................................................................................. 21

4.7 Resource Crunch.............................................................................................................................................................. 21

4.8 Conservation..................................................................................................................................................................... 22

4.9 Better fishing practices...................................................................................................................................................... 22

4.10. Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................................ 22

References . .............................................................................................................................................................................. 23

v
vi
 1. Introduction

1. Introduction
Marine fishing in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is an age old avocation and the fishermen venture all along the Indian
coastline, even beyond the shelf into the deep sea.

Table 1 : Basic details about Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

Tamil Nadu Puducherry
Coastline 1076 45
Coastal Districts 13 2
Continental Shelf 44,412 km2 900 km2
Offshore area 2.2 x 105 hectares
Number of fishing villages 591 (includes 10 estuarine fishing villages) 25
Total fisher population 0.861 million 36,905
Active fishers 0.26 million 8,813
Production 5.34 lakh tonnes (2009) 30,502 tonnes
Value of export Rs. 17,722 million (2008-09)

Tamil Nadu ranks third in Marine fish production and has the potential to emerge as a major exporter of marine
products, as 68,397 mt of marine products valued at Rs.1,77,220 lakhs were exported during 2008-09 (Policy Note
2010-2011 of Tamil Nadu).
Out of 24,618 species of fishes occurring globally, about 2500 species (10.1%) have been reported to occur in
Indian waters of which 1570 the marine species are reported to be in Tamil Nadu waters. The table below gives a
list of commercially important species.

Table 2 : Commercially important species found off Tamil Nadu

Pelagic Resources Demersal Resources Crustaceans Molluscs Others
Clupeids : Elasmobranchs : Prawns : Cephalopods : Seaweeds
Wolf herring, Oil sardine, Other Sharks, Skates and Rays Penaeid Squids,
sardines, Hilsa shad, Other shads, prawns, Non- Cuttlefish,
Anchovies (Coilia sp., Setipinna sp, Penaeid prawns Octopus
Stolephorus sp, Thrissina sp., Thryssa sp)
Half Beaks & Full Beaks Eels Lobsters : Chanks :
Spiny lobsters, Sacred chanks,
Sand lobster other chanks
Flying Fish Catfish Crabs Bivalves :
Mussels, clams,
cockles, edible
oysters
Ribbon Fishes Lizard Fishes Squilla
Carangids : Perches: Stomatopods
Horse mackerel, Scads, Leather-jackets Rock cods, Snappers,
Pig-face breams,
Threadfin breams,
Sweetlip breams
Mackerels Goatfish

1
Fisheries Stakeholders and their Livelihoods in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

Table 2 : Commercially important species found off Tamil Nadu

Pelagic Resources Demersal Resources Crustaceans Molluscs Others
Seer Fish: Croakers
King seer, Spotted seer and Wahoo
Tunnies Silverbellies
Bill Fish Big-Jawed Jumper
Barracudas Pomfrets:
Black pomfret, Silver
pomfret and Chinese
pomfret
Sailfish Mullets
Unicorn Cod
Flat Fish:
Halibut, Flounders, Soles

1.1 Objective
In this paper, we analyse the data on the marine fish production in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry from 1956 onwards.
The data for this analysis have been gathered from published research papers, technical reports, annual reports and
other publications for the period before 2000. For the recent period from 2001 to 2010, the data have been obtained
from Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute through payment for data mining.
The data obtained through secondary and primary sources have been segregated into species-wise/group-wise,
district-wise, sector-wise and the species dominance in the catch, to study various aspects of the fishery. For speedy
processing and data mining, the primary data obtained from CMFRI for the period from 2001 to 2010 were
subjected to further processing and a series of four PIVOT Tables have been created. These Pivot Tables are available
for download from the FIMSUL website https://sites.google.com/site/fimsul/.

1.2 Historical Developments in Marine Fisheries of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

The total annual marine fish production in Tamil Nadu during 1956-2010 is divided into six phases as given in
Table 3 and Figure 1 shows the production graphic.

Table 3 : The six phases of marine fishing in Tamil Nadu

PHASE YEARS
Phase 1 1956-1965
Phase 2 1966-1975
Phase 3 1977-1986
Phase 4 1987-1997
Phase 5 1998-2005
Phase 6 2006-2010
The data reveal that from 1956 to 1997, there was a sustained increase, and thereafter a decline for the first time
in the history of Tamil Nadu marine fish production till 2004 when tsunami struck. From 2005 onwards there has
been a sharp increase in production reaching an all-time high of 5.39 lakh tonnes in 2009 and has continued to
remain above 5 lakh tonnes in 2010 also.

2
 1. Introduction

Fig.1. Historical developments in marine fish production in Tamil Nadu during 1956-2010

Annual marine fish production in Tamil Nadu during 1956-2010 may be divided into 6 important phases of
developments. The first phase during 1956-1965 may be considered as the pre-development phase, where only the
traditional non-motorised catamarans, vallams and canoes harvested the marine fishery resources in the near-shore
waters up to a depth of 50 m. There was a gradual increase in fish production and change in fish catch due to the
introduction of nylon nets. There was no mechanised fishing.The production trends of different species/groups
during the first phase are given in table 4.

Table 4 Change in fish caught during Phase 1

Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend No Change in Production
Barracudas, Carangids, Cephalopods Anchovies, Big jawed jumper, Flying fishes, Perches.
Cupeids, Elasmobranchs, Half & Bombay duck, Catfishes, Croakers,
full beaks, Hilsa & shad, Lizard Crustaceans, Eels, Goatfishes,
fishes, Mackerel, Molluscs, Mullets, Horse mackerel, Leatherjackets,
Oil sardine, Other sardines, Penaeid Non-penaeid prawns, Other
prawns, Scads, Soles, Threadfins, carangids, Other clupeids,
Tunnies, Wolf herring. Pomfrets, Ribbonfishes, Seerfishes,
Silverbellies, Thryssa.

The second phase during 1966-1975, may be called as the developing phase, when the beginning of the period was
dominated by the introduction of mechanised fishing by bottom trawling for prawns. The rate of fish production
gained momentum and the fish production increased rapidly.

3
Fisheries Stakeholders and their Livelihoods in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

Table 5 : Change in fish caught during Phase 2

Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend No Change in Production
Barracudas, Bombay duck, Catfishes, Cephalopods, Anchovies, Big jawed Silverbellies.
Clupeids, Crabs, Croakers, Crustaceans, Eels, jumper, Carangids,
Elasmobranchs, Goatfishes, Half & Full beaks, Flying fishes, Leather
Hilsa Shad, Horse mackerel, Lizardfishes, Mackerel, jacket, Oil sardine,
Molluscs, Mullets, Non-penaeid prawns, Other Pomfrets, Wolf herring.
carangids, Other clupeids, Other sardines, Other
Shads, Penaeid prawns, Perches, Ribbonfishes,
Seerfishes, Soles, Threadfins, Thryssa, Tunnies
The third phase during 1976-1985 may be called as the maturing phase, marked by the expansion of the traditional
boats and initiation of motorization of the traditional boats and catamarans. This period witnessed expansion of
fishing area by mechanized fishing.

Table 6 : Change in fish caught during Phase 3

No Change in
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend
Production
Anchovies, Carangids, Cephalopods, Auxis sp., Big jawed jumper, Billfishes, Black Barracudas,
Clupeids, Coilia, Flounders, Flyingfishes, pomfret, Bombay duck, Catfishes, Chinese pomfret, Crustaceans,
Goatfishes, Hilsa shad, K. pelamis, Crabs, Croakers, E. affinis, Eels, Elasmobranchs, Lobsters,
Leather jackets, Lizardfishes, Lobsters, Half & Full beaks, Halibut, Horse mackerel, Thryssa.
Mackerel, Molluscs, Oil sardine, Other Kingseer, Mullets, Skates, Non-penaeid prawns,
carangids, Other perches, Other tunas, Other clupeids, Other sardines, Other shads, Pig
Penaeid prawns, Perches, Pomfrets, face breams, Rays, Ribbonfishes, Scads, Seerfishes,
Rockcods, Setipinna, Silverbellies, Soles, Sharks, Silver pomfret, Snappers, Spotted seer,
Stolephorus, Wolf herring. Stomatopods, Streaked seer, T. tonggol, Threadfin
breams, Threadfins, Tunnies, Wahoo
The fourth phase during 1986-1997 is the fully matured period witnessing the expansion of motorization of the
traditional boats and diversification of mechanised fishing. It is marked by the emergence of oil sardine as one of the
top 10 species though it was yet to be noticed. Fish production during this period attained the peak of 4.72 lakh t
with rapid rate of production.

Table 7 : Change in fish caught during Phase 4

No Change In
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend
Production
Auxis spp., Barracudas, Billfishes, Black pomfret, Carangids, Anchovies, Bivalves, Big jawed
Catfishes, Cephalopods, Clupeids, Crabs, Croakers, Crustaceans, Bombayduck, Chinese jumper,
Eels, Elamobranchs, Flounders, Half & Full beaks, Hilsa shad, pomfret, Coilia, E. affinis,
Horse mackerel, K. pelamis, Leather jackets, Lizardishes, Mackerel, Flyingfishes, Goatfishes, Lobsters,
Molluscs, Mullets, Non-penaeid prawns, Gastropods, Oil sardine, Halibuts, Other Setipinna.
Other carangids, Acanthocybium sp., Other perches, Other shads, Other tunnies,
sardines, Penaeid prawns, Perches, Pig face breams, Pomfrets, Rays, Ribbonfishes, Scads,
Rockcods, S. commersonii, S. guttatus, S. lineolatus, Seerfishes, Stolephorus, Thrissina,
Sharks, Silver pomfret, Siverbellies, Skates, Snappers, Soles, Wolfherring.
Stomatopods, T. Tonggol, Threadfin breams, Threadfins, Thryssa,
Tunnies.

4
 1. Introduction

Fifty two species/groups were found to exhibit an increasing trend in production and only 15 species/groups
were observed to exhibit a declining trend. Four species were observed to exhibit neither increase nor decrease in
production during this phase.
The fifth phase during 1998-2004 was a period of decline in the catch from 4.72 lakh t to 2.8 lakh t and this
period may be called as the pre-tsunami period. This period witnessed the impact of overcapacity and intensive
capitalisation in the mechanised and motorised sectors. Despite an increase in the fishing capacity, there is a decline
in the fish production. This was mainly due to the decline in oil sardines and clupeids.

Table 8 : Change in fish caught during Phase 5

No Change in
Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend
Production
Barracudas, Big jawed jumper, Billfishes, Bivalves, Acanthocybium spp., Anchovies, Auxis Rockrod, Wolf
Black pomfret, Bombay duck, Carangids, Cephalopods, spp., Catfishes, Clupeids, Coilia, herring
Chinese pomfret, Crabs, Flounders, Flying fishes, Croakers, Crustaceans, E. affinis,
Halibuts, Hilsa shad, Horse mackerel, K. pelamis, Eels, Elasmobranchs, Goatfishes, Half
Leatherjackets, Lizardfishes, Mackerel, Molluscs, Non- & Full beaks, Lobsters, Mullets, Oil
penaeid prawns, Gastropods, Other perches, Other sardine, Other clupeids, Other shads,
sardines, Other tunnies, Perches, Pig face breams, Penaeid prawns, Rays, S. commersoni,
Pomfrets, Ribbonfishes, Scads, Sharks, Silver pomfret, S. guttatus, S. lineolatus, Seerfishes,
Skates, Stomatopods, T. Tonggol, Threadfin breams, Setipinna Silverbellies, Snappers,
Threadfins, Thrissina, Thryssa, Tunnies. Soles, Stolephorus.
Forty species/groups exhibited an increasing trend and 29 species/groups exhibited a declining trend. Two species
were observed to have neither increase nor decrease in production.
The sixth phase is the post-tsunami period from 2006-2010, which saw a change in the fishery resource and an
adaptive fishing pattern to exploit the emerging and existing deep sea fishery resources through further diversification
in fishing methods with an aim to catch the pelagic resource such as the oil sardine in the near shore waters and tuna
in the deep sea. This led to an all-time high production of above 5.39 lakh t from 2009 onwards. The unexpected
growth in oil sardine production was due to targeted fishing for oil sardine. Oil sardine has emerged as No.1 resource
and this formed 20% of Tamil Nadu total production.

Table 9 : Change in fish caught during Phase 5

Increasing Trend Decreasing Trend
Acanthocybium sp., Anchovies, Auxis sp., Barracudas, Carangids, Big jawed jumper, Bivalves, Black
Catfishes, Clupeids, Crabs, Croakers, Crustaceans, Cuttlefishes, pomfret, Bombay duck, Coilia Eels,
E. affinis, Gastropods, Goatfishes, Half & Full beaks, Hilsa shad, Elasmobranchs, Flounders, Halibuts,
Horse mackerel, Lizardfishes, Molluscs, Mullets, Oil sardine, Other Mackerel, Non-penaeid prawns,
carangids, Other clupeids, Other perches, Other shads, Other Pomfrets, Rockcods, S. commersonii,
tunnies, Penaeid prawns, Perches, Scads, Silver pomfret, Silverbellies, S. lineolatus, Seerfishes, Sharks,
Skates, Soles, Squids, Stolephorus, Threadfins, Thryssa Tunnies, Wolf Snappers, Stomatopods, T. Tonggol,
herring. Thrissina.
Thirty nine species/groups exhibited an increasing trend and 21 species/groups were observed to exhibit a declining
trend in production.

5
Fisheries Stakeholders and their Livelihoods in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

2. Fish Production in Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu marine fish production almost reflects the all India marine fish production which has increased from
a meager 0.38 million t in 1950 to 3.2 million t in 2008 which declined marginally to 3.16 million t in 2010
(CMFRI Annual Reports) (Fig.2).

Figure 2 : All India marine fish production

2.1 Fish Production by sector

Three major sectors, namely the mechanised comprised of trawl fleet, gillnetters, purse seiners and ring seiners etc.,
motorised such as the gillnetters of different types, long liners, boat seiners, mini trawlers and bottom set netters
and the traditional non-motorised sector comprised of catamarans, plank built boats, canoes and vallams contribute
to the marine fish landings along the Tamil Nadu coasts.

2.1.1 Mechanised sector

Among the mechanized units, trawlers landed 92.1% of the total catch followed by mechanized gillnets (4.2%),
mechanized bottom-set nets (1.3%), mechanized hooks & line (1.2%) and mechanized purse seine (0.5%).
The catch per hour of the purse seine was the highest 1272kg/hr followed by the bottom-set net at 469 kg/hr, hooks
& line at 94 kg/hr, gillnet at 59 kg/hr, trawlnet at 51kg/hr, and lastly the bottom set gillnet at 3 kg/hr.
The trend in trawl landings in Tamil Nadu during 1985-2008 shows that the catch continued to increase from
1 lakh t in 1985 to 2.54 lakh t in 1995, then it declined to 1.42 lakh t in 2004 and revived back to 2.38 lakh t in
2008 (Kasim, 2009). The catch per actual fishing hours (AFH) of mechanised sector during 2001-10 indicates that
the catch rate was better in all the districts except the three districts of Thanjavur, Pudukottai and Ramanathapuram
bordering the Palk Bay.

2.1.2 Motorised sector

The motorized units are comprised of out-board units of gillnet, hooks & line, bottom set nets, trammel net, purse
seine, traps and other gears, in which the gillnets landed the bulk of the total catch (59.0%) followed by hooks &
line (7.4%), ring seine (7.1%), bottom set nets (2.8%) and all other gears put together contributed the balance

6
 2. Fish Production in Tamil Nadu

6.1%. The trend in the catch and effort of motorized sector during 1986-2008 reflects a spectacular increase from
1991to 2001 and then a gradual decline till 2004 with a revival in later years. The catch rate by motorized units
indicates that the out board ring seine was the highest 735 kg/hr, followed by outboard purse seine (373 kg/hr) and
has also been observed to increase gradually with fluctuations.
The more commonly used gears in the motorized sector were drift/set gillnets, hooks and line, ring seine, boat seines
and shore seines (Kasim, 2009). As observed in the mechanised sector, the catch per AFH by motorised sector in
the 3 districts of Thanjavur, Pudukottai and Ramanathapuram is also the lowest when compared to other districts.
The poor catch rates by almost all the three sectors in the Palk Bay districts indicates the poor availability of the
fishery resources in Palk Bay as it is almost like a shallow salt water lake with a maximum depth of only 13 m. In
spite of the 3 and 4 day fishing agreement by the mechanised and traditional sectors which has reduced the total
fishing days to 120 and 140 days in a year for these two sectors respectively, the availability of the fishery resources is
comparatively the lowest. This shows that the fishery resources of Palk Bay have been exposed to severe overfishing
by all the fishing sectors which may be one of the main reasons for the cross boundary fishing problem in Palk Bay.

2.1.3 Non-Motorised sector

Non mechanized landings comprised 10.8% of the total catch by traditional units. The catch per hour indicates that
the catch rate of small shore seine (Olaivalai) is 247 kg/hr, bottom set net is 62 kg/hr, hooks & line is 12 kg/hr, drift
gillnet is 11 kg.hr, and boat seine is 1 kg/hr.
In contrast to both mechanized and motorized sectors, the catch and effort of traditional (non-motorized) sector
continued to decline from 1985 to 2008 with violent fluctuation in landings and minor variations in the effort
input. The catch per unit of non-mechanized traditional units registered a marginal increase from 1989 onwards
with a decline during early 2000 and a revival after 2005. The more common gears used in the traditional sector
were drift/set gillnets, hook and line, traps, boat seines, shore seines and scoop nets.

Figure3 : Sectorwise Total Marine Fish Landings in Tamil Nadu During 2001-2010
Total marine fish production by different sectors indicates that mechanised sector contributed the maximum catch
during 2001-2010. The percentage contribution by the three sectors is given in Fig 3, in which the contribution
by mechanised sector varied from 43.1% in 2006 to as high as 71.2% in 2009 with a decadal average of 56%.The
contribution by motorised sector varied from 26.1% in 2009 to 49.5% in 2006 with decadal average of 35.6%. The
contribution by the non-motorised sector continued to decline steadily and its percentage contribution to the total
catch varied from 18.4% in 2001 to 1.1% in 2010 with an average of 8.4%. The percentage contribution in 2010
by mechanised sector was 69.7%, motorised sector was 29.2% and non-motorised sector was a meagre 1.1% (Fig.3).

7
 Table 10 : Annual Average Production by three Different Sectors in Tamil Nadu during 2001-2010
Sl MECHANISED MOTORISED NON-MOTORISED TOTAL
No. Species Catch t Species Catch t Species Catch t Species Catch t
1 Silverbellies 35982 Other sardines 27479 Oil sardine 9914 Oil sardine 61006
2 Oil sardine 24818 Oil sardine 26274 Stolephorus 3755 Other sardines 42970
3 Penaeid prawns 15086 Indian mackerel 12586 Other sardines 3432 Silverbellies 39973
4 Other sardines 12059 Other carangids 7668 Crabs 2630 Other carangids 18368
5 Other carangids 9488 Pig-face breams 6557 Other carangids 1212 Penaeid prawns 17371
6 Other perches 8581 Crabs 4605 Indian mackerel 1098 Indian mackerel 16651
7 Rays 6086 S. commersoni 4070 Other perches 926 Crabs 12496
8 Goat fishes 5625 Thryssa 4020 Thryssa 772 Other perches 11989
9 Croakers 5573 Other clupeids 3928 Silverbellies 708 Pig-face breams 10565
10 Other clupeids 5304 Silverbellies 3283 Penaeid prawns 664 Other clupeids 9877
11 Threadfin breams 5300 E. affinis 3188 Other clupeids 645 Rays 9083
12 Crabs 5261 Stolephorus 3073 Cephalopods 554 Stolephorus 9026

8
13 Lizard fishes 4974 Other perches 2482 Rays 538 Croakers 8053
14 Cephalopods 4752 Rays 2459 Half & Full beaks 446 Thryssa 7190
Fisheries Stakeholders and their Livelihoods in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

15 Barracudas 4576 Barracudas 2282 Hilsa shad 381 Barracudas 7140

16 Scads 4402 Flying fishes 2150 Croakers 366 Goat fishes 6668
17 Ribbon fishes 4068 Croakers 2114 Sharks 338 S. commersoni 6029
18 Pig-face breams 3697 Wolf herring 1918 Pig-face breams 311 Cephalopods 5632
19 Squids 3652 Half & Full beaks 1915 Catfishes 299 Threadfin breams 5602
20 Cuttlefish 3077 Penaeid prawns 1621 Bivalves 284 Lizard fishes 5390
21 Indian mackerel 2967 Catfishes 1243 Barracudas 282 Ribbon fishes 5233
22 Non-penaeid prawns 2791 Sharks 1202 Goat fishes 259 Scads 5088
23 Catfishes 2550 Rock cods 1156 Scads 237 E. affinis 4627
24 Thryssa 2398 Snappers 1155 Cuttlefish 223 Squids 4284
25 Stolephorus 2198 Ribbon fishes 996 Wolf herring 193 Catfishes 4092
26 S. commersoni 1779 Other tunnies 927 Other shads 188 Cuttlefish 4035
27 Sharks 1750 Goat fishes 784 Squids 188 Sharks 3290
 Table 10 : Annual Average Production by three Different Sectors in Tamil Nadu during 2001-2010
Sl MECHANISED MOTORISED NON-MOTORISED TOTAL
No. Species Catch t Species Catch t Species Catch t Species Catch t
28 Snappers 1577 Cuttlefish 735 S. commersoni 180 Non-penaeid prawns 3040
29 Other tunnies 1471 Auxis. spp 718 Horse Mackerel 171 Snappers 2815
30 E. affinis 1299 Other shads 700 Ribbon fishes 169 Wolf herring 2803
31 Rock cods 1254 Leather-jackets 696 Leather-jackets 158 Half & Full beaks 2549
32 Silver pomfret 1162 Soles 651 E. affinis 140 Rock cods 2546
33 Stomatopods 1096 Bill fishes 623 Rock cods 136 Other tunnies 2424
34 Soles 808 Mullets 454 Mullets 116 Flying fishes 2223
35 Mullets 780 Scads 449 Snappers 83 Other shads 1637
36 Leather-jackets 772 Squids 444 Silver pomfret 80 Leather-jackets 1626
37 Other shads 749 Lizard fishes 404 Threadfins 67 Silver pomfret 1551
38 Wolf herring 692 Gastropods 372 Soles 65 Soles 1524
39 K. pelamis 624 Skates 361 Auxis. Spp 53 Mullets 1350

9
40 Black pomfret 472 Cephalopods 326 Big-jawed jumper 46 Auxis. spp 1160
41 Gastropods 423 Threadfins 318 Threadfin breams 35 Stomatopods 1110
42 Auxis spp 389 Silver pomfret 309 Flying fishes 28 Bill fishes 1000
43 Bill fishes 372 K. pelamis 276 Black pomfret 27 K. pelamis 901
44 Octopus 371 Black pomfret 273 Other tunnies 26 Gastropods 813
45 Skates 359 Threadfin breams 267 T. tonggol 19 Hilsa shad 792
46 Eels 347 Big-jawed jumper 233 Gastropods 18 Black pomfret 772
47 Halibut 252 Non-penaeid prawns 232 Non-penaeid prawns 17 Skates 726
48 Horse Mackerel 210 Horse Mackerel 225 Lizard fishes 12 Horse Mackerel 606
49 Threadfins 209 Hilsa shad 218 Coilia 9 Threadfins 594
50 Hilsa shad 193 Eels 178 S. guttatus 8 Eels 532
51 Half & Full beaks 188 T. tonggol 173 Eels 7 Big-jawed jumper 460
52 Big-jawed jumper 181 Other mackerels 142 Skates 6 Bivalves 412
53 Lobsters 181 Lobsters 95 Thrissina 5 Octopus 408
54 Coilia 155 S. guttatus 68 Bill fishes 5 T. tonggol 319
2. Fish Production in Tamil Nadu
 Table 10 : Annual Average Production by three Different Sectors in Tamil Nadu during 2001-2010
Sl MECHANISED MOTORISED NON-MOTORISED TOTAL
No. Species Catch t Species Catch t Species Catch t Species Catch t
55 T. tonggol 127 Halibut 62 Lobsters 5 Halibut 315
56 Bivalves 124 Coilia 53 Chinese pomfret 3 Lobsters 281
57 Carangids 110 Setipinna 38 Setipinna 2 Coilia 217
58 S. guttatus 108 Octopus 37 Seer fishes 2 S. guttatus 184
59 Chinese pomfret 76 Bombayduck 33 Stomatopods 2 Other mackerels 148
60 Bombayduck 45 Perches 16 Bombayduck 1 Carangids 110
61 Flying fishes 45 Unicorn cod 12 Other mackerels 1 Chinese pomfret 84
62 Thrissina 39 Stomatopods 12 K. pelamis 1 Bombayduck 79
63 Acanthocybium spp. 23 Acanthocybium spp. 8 Halibut 1 Setipinna 57
64 Flounders 19 Anchovies 5 Molluscs 1 Thrissina 44
65 Setipinna 17 Chinese pomfret 5 Clupeids 0 Acanthocybium spp. 31

10
66 Clupeids 7 S. lineolatus 4 Anchovies 0 Flounders 20
67 S. lineolatus 6 Bivalves 4 Perches 0 Perches 16
Fisheries Stakeholders and their Livelihoods in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

68 Crustaceans 6 Seer fishes 2 Carangids 0 Unicorn cod 12

69 Other mackerels 5 Clupeids 1 Pomfrets 0 S. lineolatus 10
70 Molluscs 2 Flounders 1 Mackerels 0 Clupeids 8
71 Anchovies 0 Crustaceans 1 S. lineolatus 0 Crustaceans 7
72 Perches 0 Thrissina 0 Acanthocybium spp. 0 Anchovies 5
73 Pomfrets 0 Carangids 0 Tunnies 0 Seer fishes 4
74 Mackerels 0 Pomfrets 0 Unicorn cod 0 Molluscs 3
79 Miscellaneous 19824 Miscellaneous 2323 Miscellaneous 1359 Miscellaneous 23506
TOTAL 224480 TOTAL 143248 TOTAL 33900 TOTAL 401628
Percentage 55.9 Percentage 35.7 Percentage 8.4 Percentage
Average annual marine fish production by the three sectors in Tamil Nadu during 2001-2010 is given in Table 10. On an average 4.01 lakh t are landed in
which the mechanised sector landed 55.9%, motorised sector 35.7% and the non-motorised sector 8.4%.
 2. Fish Production in Tamil Nadu

2.2. Fish production in Tamil Nadu by Species

Among the top ten demersal species/groups in the marine fish landings in Tamil Nadu during 2001-2010, silverbellies
were the most dominant followed by penaeid prawns, cephalopods, crabs, other perches and pig face breams, as these
groups contributed above 10000 t and the rays, croakers, goatfishes and threadfin breams contributed less than
10000 t. Among the top ten pelagic species /groups in the marine fish landings in Tamil Nadu during 2001-10,
oil sardine was the most dominant species followed by other sardines, other carangids, Indian Mackerel and other
clupeids as these groups contributed above 10000 t and the rest, Stolephorus, Thryssa, Barracudas, S. commersoni
and ribbonfishes, contributed lesser than 10000 t. Oil sardine formed nearly 25% of total Tamil Nadu landings and
has crossed 1 lakh t mark in 2009.

Table 11 : Top ten demersal and pelagic fishery resource obtained

from the average catch during 2001-2010 in Tamil Nadu
Demersal Species Average Pelagic Species Average
Silverbellies 40032 Oil sardine 61155
Penaeid prawns 17550 Other sardines 43356
Cephalopods 14044 Other carangids 18433
Crabs 12579 Indian mackerel 16833
Other perches 11948 Other clupeids 10191
Pig-face breams 10558 Stolephorus 9076
Rays 9124 Thryssa 7221
Croakers 8116 Barracudas 7170
Goatfishes 6654 S. commersoni 6084
Threadfin breams 5712 Ribbonfishes 5280

Annual production of the top ten demersal resources is shown in Fig 4 in the form of trend lines. Among the top
ten demersal species/groups silverbellies alone contribute the bulk of the landings and exhibit a fast increase in the
production trend. Though the remaining nine species/groups seem to have a moderate increase in the production
trend, penaeid prawns and cephalopods appear to be much higher.

11
Fisheries Stakeholders and their Livelihoods in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

The production trend lines of the top ten pelagic fishery resources landed during 2001-2010 are shown in Fig 5.
Oil sardine and other sardines were the two dominant groups followed by the Indian mackerel and other carangids.
Oil sardine was competing closely with the other sardines during the pre-tsunami period and was lower than the
other sardines in 2005. However, during the post tsunami period, especially since 2006, there was a sharp increase
in the production of oil sardine and the catch crossed 1 lakh t mark in 2009 and 2010. Except oil sardine and
other sardine, the rest of the pelagic species / groups seem to show neither an increasing nor a decreasing trend in
production.

2.2.1 Dominant resources

The important species/groups exploited by the mechanised sector are elasmobranchs, eels, catfish, lizardfish, perches,
snappers, threadfin breams, other perches, goatfishes, croakers, ribbonfishes, carangids, scads, silverbellies, pomfrets,
silver pomfret, chineese pomfret, S. guttatus, K. pelamis, other tunnies, barracudas, halibut, crustaceans, penaeid
prawns, non-penaeid prawns, lobsters, stomatopods, molluscs, cephalopods, squid, cuttlefishes and octopuses.
The important species/groups exploited by the motorised sector are other clupeids, wolf herrings, other sardines,
thryssa, half & full beaks, flying fishes, pigface breams, leather jackets, big-jawed jumpers, mackerel, seerfish, S.
commersoni, tunnies, Euthynnusaffinis, Auxis spp and billfishes.

2.3 District-wise marine fish production

There are thirteen coastal districts in Tamil Nadu. The percentage composition marine fish production by the three
sectors in the 12 Districts is given in Table 12 (Tiruvarur district’s marine fish catch is almost negligible). Tiruvallur,
Tirunelveli and Viluppuram districts do not have any contribution by mechanised vessels at all and Kanchipuram
district has a meagre 1.2% contribution by mechanised vessels. Districts with predominant contributions by
mechanised vessels are Ramanathapuram, Chennai, Pudukottai, Cuddalore, Nagapattinam, Thanjavur and
Kanyakumari. Tuticorin district has got almost equal contribution by mechanised and motorised vessels.

12
 2. Fish Production in Tamil Nadu

Table 12 : Percentage contribution by the three

sectors Tamil Nadu in 2010
Districts Mechanised Motorised Non-Motorised
Thiruvallur 0.0 100.0 0.0
Chennai 86.6 13.1 0.3
Kancheepuram 1.2 98.3 0.5
Villupuram 0.0 99.9 0.1
Cuddalore 77.2 22.8 0.0
Nagapattinam 63.0 37.0 0.0
Thanjavur 60.2 39.8 0.0
Pudukkottai 82.6 17.4 0.0
Ramanathapuram 93.2 4.8 2.0
Tuticorin 51.1 48.8 0.1
Tirunelveli 0.0 100.0 0.0
Kanyakumari 61.0 35.9 3.0
Total 69.1 29.8 1.1

Marine fish landings in 2001 and 2010 in all the 12 districts are given in Table 13 with the difference between
these two years to give an abstract status of change in fish production. Tiruvallur, Kanchipuram, Nagapattinam and
Pudukottai registered a decline of 5.8, 3.1, 17.6 and 1.4% in the landings in 2010 when compared with 2001 data.
Ramanathapuram, Cuddalore and Kanyakumari registered a whopping 52.1, 31.9 and 25.2% increase respectively
in the landings followed by Villupuram, Chennai, Thanjavur, Tinunelveli and Tuticorin by 6.2, 6.0, 4.1, 2.0 and
0.2% respectively.

Table 13 : Marine fish production in different Districts

during 2001 and 2010 with difference
Percent gain/
District 2001 2010 Difference decline in the
overall catch
Tiruvallur 12310 3190 -9120 -5.8
Chennai 28412 37989 9577 6.0
Kanchipuram 9102 4256 -4846 -3.1
Villupuram 7283 17262 9979 6.3
Cuddalore 26450 76938 50488 31.9
Nagai 53303 25459 -27844 -17.6
Thanjavur 12974 19434 6460 4.1
Pudukottai 23682 21478 -2204 -1.4
Ramanathapuram 51432 133940 82508 52.1
Tuticorin 66527 66772 245 0.2
Tirunelveli 9221 12382 3161 2.0
Kanyakumari 50013 89925 39912 25.2
Total 350709 509025 158316

13
Fisheries Stakeholders and their Livelihoods in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

2.3.1 Composition of pelagic and demersal resources

The composition of pelagic and demersal fishery resources in the landings during 1956-2010 reveals the apparent
developmental changes in the marine fisheries of Tamil Nadu during this period. The preliminary phase during
1956-69 indicates the dominance of clupeids in the pelagic resources as the fishing was restricted to the near shore
waters by non-motorised traditional crafts with nets made of cotton and hemp yarns. From 1970 onwards, the
demersal fishery resources emerged as the dominant group in the landings possibly owing to the introduction of
bottom trawling and expansion in the trawling grounds. Again from 1989 onwards the pelagic resources regained
their position as the dominant fishery resource owing to the motorisation of the traditional boats and introduction
of efficient gears made of nylon and mono filaments as these gears are efficient in tapping the pelagic fishery
resources. A decline in the landings of demersal resources is also apparent probably owing to over exploitation of
the demersal fishery resources in the trawling grounds of Tamil Nadu and limited scope for further expansion of the
trawling grounds (Please see Fig 6).

Table 14 : Composition of pelagic and demersal

fishery resources in Tamil Nadu: 2001-2010
YEAR DEMERSAL % PELAGIC % TOTAL
2001 160818 45.9 189865 54.1 350683
2002 183792 46.1 214874 53.9 398666
2003 161213 45.4 193950 54.6 355163
2004 192191 48.9 200562 51.1 392753
2005 146846 52.5 133118 47.5 279964
2006 168976 46.7 192797 53.3 361773
2007 182338 42.6 245891 57.4 428229
2008 200606 47.1 225251 52.9 425857
2009 228156 41.1 326805 58.9 554961
2010 208164 40.9 300861 59.1 509025
Average 182674 45.1 222397 54.9 405071

During 2001-2010, pelagic fishery resources were dominant constituting always more than 50% in all the years
except in 2005 when the demersal fishery resources comprised 52.5% of the catch. (Table 14).

14
 2. Fish Production in Tamil Nadu

2.3.2 Emergence of oil sardine as No.1 resource

Oil sardine, Sardinella longiceps, popularly called as ‘maththi’ in Tamil was unknown as a fishery resource prior to
late 1980s and has been recognised as a fishery only in 1988. Now, this single species has emerged as the number
one resource, contributing more than one lakh t during 2009 and 2010. Marine fish landing during 1956-2010 in
Tamil Nadu with and without oil sardine is shown below, where the red line indicate the total fish catch including
oil sardine and the blue line total catch without oil sardine. There appear to be of no oil sardine landings till 1988
and later there has been a steady increase in oil sardines constituting almost 20% of the total marine fish catch in
Tamil Nadu during 2009 and 2010. The bulk of the catch comes from Ramanathapuram and Cuddalore districts
landed by pair trawlers and ring seines in the former and ring seine in the latter (Fig 7).

Fig 7 : Total marine fish production Figure 8 : Role of Clupeids in total fish production
with and without oil sardine

2.3.3 Influence of clupeids

Group-wise analysis of the data reveal that the clupeids including oil sardines have had a major contribution to the
total fish catch in Tamil Nadu since 1956 (figure 8). This shows that the success and failure of the marine fisheries
mainly depended on the quantum of landings of clupeids. On an average 1,35,632 t of clupeids are landed. The
mechanised sector landed 48,629 t forming 35.9% and exhibit an increasing trend. The motorised sector landed
67,707 t forming 49.9% and exhibit an increasing trend. The non-motorised sector landed 19,296 t forming 14.2%
and the production continued to decline year after year.

Table 15 : Species/group composition of clupeids in the marine fish landings

of Tamil Nadu during 2001-2010
Species 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average
Coilia 222 227 306 394 47 57 583 60 149 126 217
Hilsa shad 23 109 0 12 44 191 1096 4067 1038 515 710
Oil sardine 42407 30922 42143 54948 17444 38839 65824 62491 135918 120619 61155
Other clupeids 12819 13197 7669 6795 5588 10696 9664 8140 14107 13240 10191
Other sardines 36656 53848 55889 29400 33831 43484 48007 41506 48992 41949 43356
Other shads 374 428 754 564 487 1976 3087 2314 1700 4690 1637
Setipinna 9 14 33 73 0 0 445 2 0 0 58

15
Fisheries Stakeholders and their Livelihoods in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

Table 15 : Species/group composition of clupeids in the marine fish landings

of Tamil Nadu during 2001-2010
Species 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average
Stolephorus 13958 11083 8025 8669 5066 4573 11006 5615 11060 11709 9076
Thryssa 6098 10124 6577 4113 4645 9318 10137 5427 4822 10950 7221
Wolf herring 2580 3220 2545 2673 1812 2621 2513 4435 2602 3202 2820
Grand Total 115146 123172 123941 107641 68964 111755 152364 134057 220388 207000 136443

The details of species/group composition of the clupeids in marine fish landings in Tamil Nadu during 2001-2010
is given in Table 15 and it is evident that the dominant species/groups are oil sardine, other sardines, other clupeids,
Stolephorus and Thryssa.

2.4 Production trend among the species/groups

The production trends exhibited by different species and groups of fishery resources have been analysed during the
six phases for the period from 1956-2010 and summarised in Table 16. There seems to be no correlation between the
number of species which increased or decreased during these phases and it is the quantum of landing by individual
specie or group that influenced the biomass decline or increase in production.

Table 16 : Number Species/Groups Exhibiting Increasing and

Decreasing Trend during the Six Phases from 1956-2010
INCREASING
1956-65 1966-77 1978-86 1987-97 1998-04 2005-10
19 31 28 52 40 39
DECREASING
1956-65 1966-77 1978-86 1987-97 1998-04 2005-10
18 8 38 15 29 21

16
 3. Puducherry

3. Puducherry
The Union Territory of Puducherry with a 45 km coastline and a combined continental shelf of 100 sq. km which
support a rich marine fishery potential exhibits close similarity in almost all aspects of Tamil Nadu in marine
fisheries and other related activities. The mechanised, motorised and non-motorised crafts and gear are similar to the
adjoining Tamil Nadu state, though the types of gear employed are much restricted. Among the traditional gear, gill
nets predominate in number followed by hooks & line and encircling bag net especially Edavalai. The operations of
shore seines and boat seines have been considerably reduced in recent years but more efficient gill nets like Pannuvalai
and Mani valai have made their appearance. Catamaran seems to be the main artisanal craft. Purushothaman (1981)
has given a vivid account on the status of small-scale fisheries in Puducherry covering the developmental programmes
during the plan period, fishery resources and fishing seasons, craft and gear, infrastructures, and socio-economics.

3.1 Overview of the sector in Puducherry

Puducherry and Karaikal have 25 fishing villages and 24 landing centres of which 15 villages and landing centres
are in Puducherry district and the remaining 10 villages and 9 landing centres are in Karaikal. One of the landing
centres is a fisheries harbour located at Puducherry. As per CMFRI 2005 census, there are 7,513 fisher families
in Puducherry with a population of 27,047 and 2,858 families in Karaikal with a population of 9,858. There are
5,888 and 2,925 active fishermen in Puducherry and Karaikal respectively and 15,349 and 5,048 engaged in fishery
related activities in these two districts respectively. The Status Report of the Puducherry Government states that the
fishermen population is 1,50,000 of which 28,750 are active from 27 marine fishing villages including one each
located in Yanam (located in Andhra Pradesh state) and Mahe (located in Kerala state).
The UT has a total of 4,457 fishing crafts in which 2,957 and 1,199 are spread over Puducherry and Karaikal
respectively. There are 86 trawlers, and 68 gillnetters among mechanised vessels and 305 motorised and 1000 non-
motorised vessels. The Karaikal fishermen own 195 trawlers and 86 other crafts among mechanised vessels and 756
motorised and 308 non-motorised crafts and the rest are owned by people other than the fishermen. Total number
of gears are estimated to be 20,549 of which 674 are trawlnets, 1,355 drift nets, 16,966 gillnet pieces, 913 hooks &
lines, 416 long lines, 6 ring seines, 16 shore seines, 30 scoop nets, 3 troll lines, 14 fixed bag nets, 1 boat seine and
the rest 155 are other gears. Karaikal has 15,041 gears comprised of 744 trawlnets, 14,276 gillnet pieces, 13 troll
lines, 5 hooks & lines and 3 long lines.
Out of 35 Cooperative Societies functioning in the UT, 10 are in Puducherry, 8 are in Karaikal and the rest 17 are
located in Mahe. There are 8 ice factories in the UT of which 2 are in Puducherry and 1 in Karaikal and the balance
5 are in Mahe and there is a cold storage in Puducherry. There is no boat building yard, freezing plant, canning
plant, curing yard, peeling shed or fishmeal plant.

3.2 Marine fish production in Puducherry

The annual marine fish production with effort for Puducherry during 1956-1968 is merged with Tamil Nadu
production. The annual landings including Tamil Nadu varied from 0.8 lakh t in 1957 to 1.33 lakh t in 1968 and
the annual total catch from 1969 to 2010 is available independently for Puducherry. In Puducherry there was a
continuous increase in effort input from 2.6 lakh units in 1981 to 4.0 lakh units in 1984-85 and the marine fish
production was 10,637 t in 1969 which declined to 6,462 in 1978, then gradually increased to attain the all-time
maximum of 21,274 t in 1997 and during the latter period, upto 2009, it fluctuated between 12,013 t in 2001 and
19,459 t in 2002.
The effort expended during 1984-85 and from 2005-2009 indicates that effort of almost all the gears exhibited an
increasing trend over a period of time except in the case of the non-mechanised sector which showed a declining
trend as in Tamil Nadu. The increase in the trawl effort in Puducherry may be owing to various subsidies and welfare
measures extended by the Department of Fisheries and Fishermen Welfare. In spite of an apparent increase in the

17
Fisheries Stakeholders and their Livelihoods in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

effort input, the marine fish production does not seem to show a similar increasing trend, as the catch fluctuated
between 10,775 t in 1981 and 14,941 t in 1984-85 and 2008 except a conspicuous low landing of 5,512 t in 2005,
the year after the tsunami, when the effort input was higher than that of 1981.

3.2.1 Composition of demersal and pelagic resources

The total annual catch of demersal and pelagic fishery resources in the marine fish landings of Puducherry and their
percentage composition are given in Table 17. Unlike in Tamil Nadu, the pelagic resources were observed to be more
dominant than the demersal resources as the percentage composition of demersal varied between 15.1 in 2005 and
47.6 in 2006 and the percentage composition of pelagics varied from 52.4 in 2006 to 84.9 in 2005 (Table 17).

Table 17. Composition of total annual catch of demersal and

pelegic fishery resources in Puducherry during 2001-2010
Year Demersal Total % Pelagic Total % Total
2001 4733 39.4 7280 60.6 12013
2002 8584 44.1 10875 55.9 19459
2003 4449 29.7 10519 70.3 14968
2004 4648 25.2 13768 74.8 18416
2005 1636 15.1 9183 84.9 10819
2006 5940 47.6 6538 52.4 12478
2007 3055 20.8 11651 79.2 14706
2008 6573 44.1 8348 55.9 14921
2009 5628 44.5 7009 55.5 12637
2010 3395 31.3 7469 68.8 10864
Average 4865 34.4 9264 65.6 14129

3.2.2 Species dominance in top ten species/groups

The top ten species/groups in the marine fish landings in Puducherry during 1980s, 1990s and 2000s given in
Table 18 indicate that other sardines, oil sardine, and Indian mackerel were the dominant species during 1980s in
Puducherry, silverbellies (the most dominant species in Tamil Nadu during the same period) is ranked fourth and
penaeid prawns, eighth. During 1990s the order of dominance was oil sardine, Indian mackerel, other sardines, other
carangids, penaeid prawns and silverbellies. Surprisingly during 2000s, cephalopods which never appeared in the top
ten dominant species/groups of fish during 1980s and 1990s, emerged as one of the dominant groups in fourth
position following oil sardine, Indian mackerel, other sardines; and were followed by silverbellies, other carangids,
penaeid prawns etc. In contrast to Tamil Nadu, among the dominant ten species/groups, pelagics were dominant,
forming 78.9, 89.2 and 70.7% during the successive decades respectively and the demersals formed a meagre 15.1,
3.8 and 10.3% respectively. There has been a consistent increase in the crustacean composition from 6% to 7% and
further to 9% during 2000s and the molluscans (cephalopods) formed 10.1% during 2000s (Table 18).

18
 3. Puducherry

Table 18. Top ten dominant species/groups of marine fishes landed in

Puducherry & Karaikal during 1980s, 1990s and 2000s
Sl.No 1985-1989 Average 1990-1999 Average 2000-2010 Average

1 Other Sardine 1868 Oil Sardine 4481 Oil Sardine 3045

2 Oil Sardine 1391 Indian Mackerel 2275 Indian Mackerel 1724

3 Indian Mackerel 1338 Other Sardines 1470 Other Sardines 974

4 Silverbellies 829 Other Carangids 585 Cephalopods 969

5 Other Carangids 635 Penaeid Prawns 489 Silverbellies 664

6 Other Clupeids 627 Silverbellies 418 Other Carangids 619

7 Flying Fishes 583 Thryssa 399 Penaeid Prawns 459

8 Penaeid Prawns 528 Other Clupeids 335 Flying Fishes 441

9 Ribbon Fishes 490 Crabs 280 Crabs 404

10 Thryssa 453 Stolephorus 279 Threadfin Breams 330

Pelagic : 78.9%, Pelagic : 89.2%, Pelagic : 70.7%,

Demersal : 15.1%, Demersal : 3.8%, Demersal : 10.3%,
Crustaceans : 6.0% Crustaceans : 7.0% Crustaceans : 9.0%,
Demersal Molluscs : 10.1%

The details of species/group composition in the clupeid landings in Puducherry are given in Table 10 where it is
clearly seen that oil sardine is the most dominant species.

Table 19. Details of species/group composition of clupeids in the marine

fish landings of Puducherry during 2001-2010
Species 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Average

Oil sardine 1425 1212 5779 6879 5027 2348 4194 2900 2634 3463 3586

Other sardines 1319 1472 1161 2081 920 343 1509 301 514 7 963

Thryssa 106 54 112 178 114 122 220 525 554 1218 320

Other clupeids 327 430 248 272 102 190 227 178 107 32 211

Stolephorus 52 303 171 42 2 143 172 209 106 99 130

Wolf herring 129 23 31 100 16 94 44 17 43 40 54

Coilia 1 1 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 1

Other shads 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Grand Total 3361 3497 7504 9555 6182 3242 6366 4130 3958 4859 5265

19
Fisheries Stakeholders and their Livelihoods in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

4. Potential Yield and Annual Fish Production

Potential yield within 200 nautical miles in Tamil Nadu has been estimated to be 4.25 lakh t. On the other hand
the marine fish production in 2009 was 5.34 lakh t and 2010 it was 5.09 lakh t. It is well known that the Chennai
and Palk Bay trawlers fish in Andhra Pradesh and Sri Lankan waters respectively. The catch over and above 4.25
lakh t may be assumed to have been from the waters of Andhra Pradesh and Sri Lanka, plus a nominal portion
from the deep sea of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. It is clear that the Tamil Nadu fishers have already crossed
the potential yield of the region and therefore, there is no scope for increasing the fish production from Tamil Nadu
waters.

4.1 Overfishing
It is understood from detailed studies on various fishery resources by the scientists of CMFRI that in Tamil Nadu
waters 65% of the commercially important varieties are overfished. Approximately 20% of the resources have been
fished at the optimum level and the remaining 15% of the resources alone are being fished close to optimum levels.

4.2 Over exploitation

Critical analysis of the data on 53 exploited species/groups for the period 1950-2002 on the annual mean trophic
level (TrL) of marine fish landings along the Indian coast by Vivekanandan et al., (2009) indicated a backward-
bending signature in the landings versus TrL plot for the SE coast in the last 6 years. This indicates fisheries-
induced changes in the ecosystem owing to low productivity of the coastal waters and high density of fishing craft.
The landings of most of the large predators increased along the Indian coast, but higher removals appear to have
helped proliferation of their prey - the mid-level carnivores. Fishing down the food web has been influenced by
environmental fluctuations, advanced fishing technologies, and market-driven, deliberate fishing on low-trophic
level (TL) invertebrates such as the penaeid prawns.

4.3 Over capacity

The number of mechanised and motorised vessels went on increasing due to the increase in demand for seafood
and consequent price appreciation. Various developmental programmes of Central and State Governments such
as subsidies for diesel engines, new gears and gear materials, vessels and financial assistance to fishermen and co-
operative societies (Srivastava et al., 1991) speeded up the mechanisation and motorisation process. Present estimated
number of fishing vessels of almost all the types seem to be far excess than the actual number required to produce
the sustainable yield (E.Vivekanandan, CMFRI Scientist, Personal communication). So far no concrete steps have
been initiated to control and reduce the number of fishing vessels and there is not even an effort to put a cap on the
number of fishing vessels at the present level. Only the fishermen themselves have resolved in a few places such as at
Kasimedu in Chennai and Rameswaram not to introduce new mechanised trawlers and to only allow replacement of
the obsolete condemned trawlers. Post tsunami study by the United Nations Team for Recovery Support (UNTRS)
has revealed that some of the Palk Bay fishermen are willing to come out of fishing provided that there is an
attractive buyback offer by the State or Central Government for their existing fishing vessels and fishing implements,
and also there is a provision for an alternative livelihood. Orissa is the only state that has determined the optimum
number of mechanised vessels of various categories for different fishing ports in their Marine Fishing Regulation Act
(James, 1992), though it has not been followed.

4.4 Growth in the number of fishing fleets

Marine fishing sector in India has metamorphosed from a humble subsistence level to the status of a multi-crore
industry during the last six decades. The contribution of this sector is estimated to be 1.07 percent to the country’s
GDP and 5.03 percent to the Agriculture GDP of the country. Steady increase in the number of trawl units during
1981-2009 (Table 20) and in other fishing vessels also with fluctuations have been seen, whereas, the effort of non-
motorised sector has been declining continuously. The progressive increase between 1960 and 1990 in the artisanal

20
 4. Potential Yield and Annual Fish Production

crafts was by 110% whereas the increase in mechanized crafts was an astounding 570% thus resulting in overcapacity
of the fleet operating in the inshore waters. This uninterrupted increase in the strength of fishing fleet has led to a
decline in catch per unit effort and increase in the cost of operation, which has resulted in uneconomical operation
of the fishing fleet, even forcing a few fishers out of the business (Srinath and Pillai, 2006).

Table 20 : Effort in units expended in Puducherry during 1981-85 and 2005-2009

Mechanised Non
Year Total Effort Total Catch
Trawl Gillnet H&L Others Motorised
1981 33,766 1,120 2,23,897 2,58,783 10,755
1982-83 33,285 2,636 120 2,60,833 2,96,874 12,058
1983-84 35,949 2,830 3,50,368 3,89,147 14,902
1984-85 29,301 4,892 3,69,646 4,03,839 14,941
2005 19,185 1,71,889 37,986 74,411 3,03,471 10,819
2006 88,344 4,21,494 30,186 5,945 53,208 5,99,177 12,477
2007 91,591 3,37,872 1,10,361 8,920 76,293 6,25,037 14,721
2008 71,383 4,07,421 31,670 5,270 2,900 5,18,644 14,941
2009 75,216 2,59,359 1,09,357 3,319 19,165 4,66,416 13,240
Source : CMFRI’s Marine Fisheries Information Service No.41,52,67 and 91

4.5 Conversion of excess fleet

The conversion of the mechanised wooden trawlers by modifying the super structure so as to make use of them for
the operation of gill nets and hooks & line for tuna, billfishes, pelagic sharks and other scomberoids is reported by
Balasubramanian (2000) with details on the estimated catch of tuna and the species composition along the Tuticorin
coast. This kind of transformation may help reduce the excess effort of mechanised boats and reduce the adverse
impact on the bottom fauna and flora.

4.6 Fishing down the food web

Vivekanandan et al., (2009) have analysed the trophic level (TrL) of 707 species of exploited finfishes, crustaceans
and cephalopods along the Indian coast. The maximum exploitation was at the TrL of 3.01-3.50 which constituted
midlevel carnivores constituting 43.0%. At basal TrL of 2.00-3.00 the exploited resources were herbivores, detritrivores
and omnivores forming 27.3% and at higher TrL of 3.51-4.52, the high level carnivores and top predators were
exploited at 29.7%. Overfishing at the bottom of the food web would lead to shortage of food up in the food web.
On the other hand, overfishing at the top of the food web, which is demonstrated to occur in almost all fished areas
around the globe (Pauly et al., 1998; Vivekanandan et al., 2005), would lead to increase in the biomass of fish groups
lower in the food web thereby resulting in severe competition for food at that level.

4.7 Resource Crunch

The marine fish production continued to increase year after year owing to the increase in the number of fishing
effort and introduction of different advanced fishing technologies leading to the depletion of the marine fishery
resources due to overfishing. The catch rate obtained since 1956 till 2009 indicates that the catch per man hour
increased steadily from a meagre 1.08 kg/hr in 1957 to 2.93 kg/hr in 1967. There is lack of information on the
effort up to 1981, when the catch rate was 17.65 kg/AFH (Actual Fishing Hours). During 1981-2009 the catch
rate declined from 17.88 kg/hr in 1982-83 to a mere 6.20 kg/AFH indicating a steady regressive reduction in the
availability of marine fishery resources. This clearly indicates that the sustained increase in the fishing effort in
mechanised and motorised sector has led to overfishing of many component species and consequent reduction in
the benefit sharing among the fishing units.

21
Fisheries Stakeholders and their Livelihoods in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

4.8 Conservation
Extensive and indiscriminate exploitation of marine natural resources, during the last three decades is leading to a
situation where no more commercial fish stocks may be left in the sea by year 2050 unless ecosystems are protected
and the biodiversity is revived, warns a new study cataloguing the global collapse of marine ecosystems (Worm et al.,
2006). Marine fisheries is basically harnessing a natural resource and therefore its management must be anchored on
knowledge- based interventions generated through close monitoring of their distribution, abundance, exploitation,
population dynamics and fluctuations of fish stocks in relation to natural factors and anthropogenic interventions
(Pillai et al., 2007)

4.9 Better fishing practices

A shift from monofilament nylon to plastic nets by increasing the mesh size from 85 to 130 mm along the
Kayalpattinam coast in Gulf of Mannar yielded better and larger sized lobsters during 2004 as reported by
Manickaraja (2004) and this type of report on better fishing practice will encourage other fishers also to adopt such
tactics in other fisheries also.
Another better fishing method is the trap fishery of Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay. Lal Mohan (1985) has described
the methods of fabrication of different types of traps with one, two and three mouth openings, out of the split sticks
of ‘Odai’ tree (Acacia planifrons), ‘Eecha’ (palmyrah) tree’s sticks, roots, leaves and polypropylene tapes, locally known
as ‘wire’, employed in the trap fishery of Gulf of Mannar at Rameswaram, Keelakarai, Ervadi and Mandapam. This
could help in promoting trap fishing elsewhere with similar habitat for harvesting live food fish and ornamental fish
for export and captive breeding, albeit following strict self-regulation. Marine ornamental fish trade is a lucrative
small scale commercial venture and the fishermen will be able to get better economic return out trap fishing if
introduced in other areas also (Molly et al., 2008).
Inshore waters earmarked for the traditional fishers’ all along the TN coast have been severely impacted by the
adverse effect of bottom trawling by the mechanised trawlers for prawns and finfish. Recent experiences have
revealed that deployment of artificial reefs at 15 different locations along the TN coast by TN Fisheries Department
have been very effective in improving the inshore water ecosystems biologically with enrichment of biodiversity and
enhancement of fishery resources. It is reported that these artificial reefs have served as fishing areas for traditional
fishers, who could save fuel expenditure as they need not go in search of fish as the fishing grounds are closer to their
fishing villages. They could land the fish catch in fresh condition and realise better price, as the voyage time after
fishing is less than an hour from the fishing ground. High quality fish were available throughout the year and this
has improved the livelihoods of the traditional fishers. Almost all the artificial reefs have been observed to serve as
the micro Marine Protected Areas (MPA) since bottom trawling in these areas have been totally prevented. All these
beneficial proactive results have prompted the traditional fishers to demand for more artificial reefs at different places
of TN coast. Now the TN Fisheries Department has entered into an MoU with CMFRI for the deployment of 19
more artificial reefs at different locations along the TN coast. Tamil Nadu may become the leading coastal state in
the conservation of coastal fisheries of India and this experience may be replicated in other sites wherever suitable
for the deployment of artificial reefs for ecosystem reconstruction and enhancement of fishery resources with an aim
to improve the livelihoods of coastal fishers.

4.10. Conclusion
All these imply that there is an urgent need for a better and more efficient marine fisheries management system
addressing over capacity, ecosystem degradation, sectoral conflicts, fisher’s rights, limited access, fleet reduction, gear
controls, deep sea fishing, transboundary issues, conflict resolving etc. This should be done by exploring the existing
management practices, traditional management systems and should come out with practicable management options
involving co-management practices with active participation of the fishers.

22
 References

References
Balasubramanian, T.S.2000 Modifications of craft and gear in diversified tuna fishery undertaken at Tharuvaikulam,
Gulf of Mannar, India.Mar.Fish.Infor. Serv. T & E Ser., 164:19-24.
CMFRI. 2007. Annual Report 2006-07. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, 126 p.
CMFRI. 2008. Annual Report 2008. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, 133 p.
CMFRI. 2009. Annual Report 2009. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, 122 p.
CMFRI. 2010. Annual Report 2009-10. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, 169 p.
Gurusamy, R., H.M.Kasim and PonSiraimeetan, 1989. A note on the subsistance fishery of Periasamipuram in Gulf
of Mannar. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv., T &E Ser., No. 102: 9 11.
Hornell, J. 1920. The Origins and Ethnological Significance of Indian Boat Designs.Memors of the Asiatic Society
of Bengal, Calcutta.Re-issued by South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies, Trivandrum.pp 74.
Hornell, J, 1950. “Fishing in Many Waters,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 149.
James, P.S.B.R., 1992b. A review of the existing regulations in the maritime states of India in relation to exploitation
of fishery resources and their conservation and management. Journal of Marine Biological Association of India 34,
84-89.
Lal Mohan, R S (1985) A note on the changing catch trend in the traditional Trap-fishery of Keelakarai and Rameswaram.
Indian Journal of Fisheries, 32 (3). pp. 387-391.
Manickaraja, M. 2004. Lobster fishery by a modified bottom set gill net at Kayalpattanam. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv. T
& E Ser. 181: 08-Jul.
MohamadKasim, H.,2009. Management of Tamil Nadu Marine Fisheries.Personal communication. Paper presented
in the workshop on wellbeing of fisheries, conducted by Institute of Developmental Studies, U.K., 19 pp.
Molly Varghese,Kasinathan, C. and Gandhi, A. 2008. Trap fishing in the Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay. Mar. Fish.
Infor. Serv. T & E Ser. 197: 08-Jul.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., Torres, J.F., 1998.Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279,
860-863.
Pillai, N G K and Jayaprakash, AA and Ganga, U (2007). Status and scope of research on pelagic fisheries of India.
In: Status and Perspectives in Marine Fisheries Research in India. Mohan Joseph, M and Pillai, N G K., (eds.)
CMFRI, Cochin, 52 -114.
Prabhu, M.S., 1954. The perch-fishery by special traps in the area around Mandapam in the Gulf of Mannar and
Palk Bay.Indian J. Fish. 1: 94-129.
Purushottaman, E. 1981.“Present status of small scale fisheries in Pondicherry”, pp 39-46 in in “Present status of
small scale fisheries in India and a few neighbouring countries”, CMFRI Bulletin 30-B, September 1981.
Sam Bennet, P and G.Arumugam, 1993.Advancement in traditional fishing methods for nearshore fisheries around
Tuticorin, Gulf of Mannar. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India, No:35 (1&2); 105-108.
Srinath, M. and Pillai, N.G.K. 2006. Marine Fisheries of India: An approach to responsible fisheries management.
Fishing Chimes.26(4):23-28.
Srivastava, U.K., B.H. Dholakia, S. Vathsala and K. Chidambaram, 1991.“India Fishery Sector Study”, Review and
Analysis, IIM-Ahmedabad. Study sponsored by the World Bank through the Min of Food Processing Indistries, GoI.
Chapters 7-12 and Annexures

23
Fisheries Stakeholders and their Livelihoods in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry

Thirumilu, P., Pillai, P.K. Mahadevan, Poovannan, P and Krishnan, K.S., 1991. The fishing gears used in the
exploitation of marine and freshwater fishery resources along Tamil Nadu coast. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv. T & E Ser.
114:16-28.
Thirumilu, P., Pillai, P.K. Mahadevan, Poovannan, P and Bose, M., 1994. Specifications for different artisanal and
mechanised fishing crafts employed in marine fisheries along Tamil Nadu coast. Mar. Fish. Infor. Serv. T & E Ser.
128:8-12.
Vivekanandan, E (1992) Catch trend and and maximum sustainable yield of demersal fishes off Madras. Journal of the
Marine Biological Association of India, 34 (1&2). pp. 10-13.
Vivekanandan, E., M. Srinath and S. Kuriakose, 2004. Fishing the marine food web along the Indian coast, Fisheries
Research 72(2): 241-252
Vivekanandan, E., S. Gomathy, P. Thirumilu, M. M. Meiyappan and S. K. Balakumar, 2009.Trophic level of fishes
occurring along the Indian coast.J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India, 51 (1) : 44 – 51.
Vivekanandan, V. 2010. (personal communication) Nearing completion- a Modern structure on top of ancient
foundation.pp 6.
Worm Boris, Edward B. Barbier, Nicola Beaumont, J.Emmett Duffy, Carl Folke, Benjamin S. Halpem, Jeremy
B.C.Jackson, Heike K. Lotze, Fiorenza Micheli, Stephen R. Palumbi, Enric Sala, Kimberley A. Selkoe, John J.
Stachowicz and Reg Watson, (2006) “Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services”. Science, 314 (5800):
787-790.

24
FIMSUL : FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS
FIMSUL PROJECT, FAO OF THE UNITED NATIONS
www.acedata-india.net

Department of Fisheries, First Floor, Administrative Building

DMS Complex, Teynampet, CHENNAI 600 006
http://sites.google.com/site/fimsul/
Email: [email protected]