K. T. Thomson 1 Development policies, state interventions and struggle for livelihood rights: A study of coastal communities in Kerala, India

Transcription

1 K. T. Thomson 1 Development policies, state interventions and struggle for livelihood rights: A study of coastal communities in Kerala, India Post independent development interventions and recent neo-liberal policies in developing countries have exerted severe pressure on natural and environmental resources and have excluded a large section of coastal and tribal communities from the main stream of development (Kurien, 1993; Thomson, 2006a; Kothari et.al., 1998; Baumann, and Sinha, 2001; Chhatre and Saberwal, 2006; Sumi Krishna, ed., 2007). Studies indicated that intensive uses of coastal resources to meet the demands of international markets have resulted in irrational distribution of resources among contesting actors and led to livelihood vulnerabilities and resource degradation (Kurien, 2003; Thomson, 2006). It is however unfortunate to note that despite sincere attempts to resolve these issues by involving affected parties, progressive civil organisations, political parties and state, realistic solutions are far ahead. In the Indian sub continent, such failures are explicit in the allocation and use of minor minerals in estuaries like clam fishery where state fails to ensure a socially acceptable distribution of mining rights between local communities and modern users. While local resources are necessary for rapid industrialisation, traditional producers most often contest such forced diversions as these transfers affect resource sustainability, ecological stability of the island and their livelihoods. Such fears result in conflicts between modern and traditional resource users. This paper provides a descriptive analysis of how traditional communities engaged in clam fishing in an island in Cochin estuary in Kerala (see location map annex 1) resisted state sponsored development initiatives and demanded sustainable resource uses. The paper examines whether traditional communities possess customary rights over local resources and if so under what conditions are these resources channelled into industrial activities? What impacts did transfer of mining rights make on people s livelihood today and how did they adapt to such external interventions? The paper is organised as follows. The ecological and social setting of the study area is presented in section 2. Section 3 describes how local clam fishing communities derive livelihoods and details the 1 Reader, School of Industrial Fisheries, Cochin University of Science and Technology, Cochin, Kerala, India 1

2 organising practices of clam fisheries. In section 4 we examine how state decided to grant exclusive mining rights to a public sector company. The responses of local communities against forced diversion of resources towards industrialisation are discussed in section 5. A conclusion follows. 2 Ecological and social setting of the study area This study was organised in Perumbalam village, an island situated in Cochin estuary, Kerala, India (Thomson, 2002; 2003; Thomson and Berkes, 2006). The island is accessible from the main land by passenger transport boats and traditional canoes. The total population of this village is 9352 of which 4651are men and 4701 are women. The average literacy rate in the island is 83 percent with women 80 percent and men 87 percent. Despite surrounded by brackish water, the island is self sufficient in fresh drinking water resources. Local communities of this island undertake diverse sets of land and water based activities like farming, fishing, clam mining, and wage labour for making a living. For instance, communities located in the central region of the island, known as Karakkaars, are engaged in farming and coir making while households settled along the banks of the water body, kayalpanikkar, undertake estuarine related activities. Nairs, traditional landowners who were very active in farming until the mid sixties do not cultivate their lands as paddy cultivation is not economically viable. Ezhavas, who were the tenants of this land owing class in the past, were mainly engaged in coir retting, toddy tapping and only a few of them were involved in clam mining in the past. They also own agriculture lands, especially after the introduction of land reforms. Dheevaras, the fishing cast, are engaged in fishing in the lagoon (Thomson, 2003). Apart from these major casts, a few Muslim and Christian households also live in this village. There were 4600 registered fishermen engaged in clam fishing and a substantial proportion of rural households around this area are engaged in illegal clam fishing. Harijans are engaged in manual work, Muslims specialised in trade and the Christians are engaged in petty business and carpentry. Today the majority of the population on the island depends on clam fisheries for their livelihood 2

3 Clam fisheries: Spatial distribution and ecological functions The black clam fisheries of Cochin estuary, which spread across an area of 1855 hectares, stretch out between Panangad in the north and Komalapuram in the South (Laxmilatha and Appukuttan 2002). The most productive clam habitats of this region (maadu) are normally formed on the organic matter that got accumulated from the incoming rivers Ithipuzha and Murinjapuhza. Although black clam fisheries were the major occupation in many fishing villages along the southern zone of Cochin estuary, it was not a major occupation in the Perumbalam village until the mid seventies. Clam fishery in this area was developed only around the mid seventies due to the construction of Thanneermukkam bund. As the construction of bund reduced the flow of water from rivers, sediments and silt accumulated around this area forming a rich habitat conducive for the growth of black clam fisheries. Clams beds are also found in deeper waters but the growth rate will be lower than the premium habitats. The depth of the estuary near the clam bed (maadu) is around 1-2 metres where as in deeper waters, the depth ranges between 3-5 metres. The clams are normally available in the water depth of two to three metres. Immediately after the settlement of larvae, the bottom soil becomes very sticky and after one month it turns back to sandy. The clam juveniles will take seven to eight months to reach the harvestable size of 15mm. The survival and the growth of clams are directly influenced by the quality of water, temperature, salinity, currents and the thickness of the formation (Achary, 1987; Pillai, 1991 Rasalaam and Sebastian, 1976, Lakshmilatha and Appukkuttan, 2002). An interesting feature of the clam deposits of this region is that the black clam layer of this region has an average depth of one foot while white clam deposits are below this layer with an average depth of eight feet. White clams are dead and these deposits are the primary raw material of the cement industry. Black clams formed on top of the fossil white clams, on the other hand, are live and targeted by millions of clam fishers for meat and shells. It is obvious that interests of traditional clam collectors directly clash with the mining rights of industries. Clam habitats, apart from providing an uninterrupted supply of clams, also provide many useful ecological services to the region. The nearby islands, particularly the study village, Perumbalam, are stabilised on the clam beds. Clam deposits prevent large scale soil 3

4 erosion and stabilise soil. This ecological function is highly valuable and accrues to the entire communities without much additional investments for soil protection and stabilisation. This implies that the real implicit value of clam habitats includes the value of the clam goods extracted by local communities and the ecological services supplied to local populations in its various forms. 4

5 3 Social organization of clam fisheries and community livelihoods 5

6 Clam fishing was not the dominant activity of communities of this region until The construction of a permanent barrier at Thanneerkukkam to prevent salinity intrusion into the paddy fields of Kuttanad, the rice bowl of Kerala has reduced water flow from the rivers and affected the local capture fisheries badly. At the same time, the barrier offered an entirely new economic resource (clam fisheries) to the people of Perumbalam. When clam fishing started in the island during 1970s there weren t many people involved in this activity. Soon, many households entered into clam fishing. Today, clam fisheries have been undertaken both by both fishing and non-fishing castes. Dhevara fishermen and members from the Ezhava community who were traditionally engaged in coir making shifted to clam fishing. Around 800 households from Perumbalam Island are engaged in clam fishing today. Men collect live clams from nearby grounds using bamboo baskets, Vatta vala and Kollivala and women extract and sell clam meat in local markets. Property regimes over clam fisheries The question is whether local communities possessed livelihood rights over the newly formed clam fisheries and how the state responded to such community claims over resources. Local communities perceived the newly formed resource as a common pool resource and were evolving and perfecting institutional processes for an equitable sharing process with neighbouring settlements. The sharing was guided on the principle of livelihood rights and care was taken to include economically weak households and women. Since the fishery was a free gift of nature developed due to the ecological transformations of this area, local communities decided to share the resources within themselves and with other villages as common pool resources. Communities evolved a variety of informal rules necessary to set in institutional processes for a viable and sustainable clam fishery. They developed boundaries and local institutions, and transformed the dynamics of clam fisheries. Perumbalam clam fishers treated clam fishing grounds as common property resources and granted access to fishers from neighbouring Panchayaths. This sharing enabled the communities to mange mining beds collectively and to enforce local regulations effectively. Rules to sustain clam habitats were locally drawn and complied by beneficiaries. For instance fishermen from other 6

7 villages were not allowed to harvest clam within the area of 20 meters near to the shore. Similarly, fishermen banned fishing juvenile clams less than 10mm size and decided not to market juvenile clam shells through the Cooperatives. 4 State property, development policies and state interventions Although clam resources are common pool resources abundantly available in the backwaters of Kerala, the state did not accept such communitarian property rights. Instead, it believed that Minerals lying underneath the soil belong to Government and royalty should be paid to the government for quarrying leaser. Following this principle, the Central government enacted the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957, and took over the control over these resources. Following the Central law, the Kerala government passed a bill in 1967 and consolidated its monopoly rights over clam fisheries and authorised the Department of Mining and Geology to issue formal licenses to the uses of fossil and black clam mining. The Department does not have a clear policy for allocating clam resources between rural communities for livelihoods and to industrial uses. This resulted in sharp contradictions in the resource uses between traditional communities and modern users. For example, during the early sixties, the department granted lease rights over 2590 hectares, 320 acres and 1103 hectares of clam beds in Alleppy and Kottayam districts to the Travancoore Cements Limited, Pallathara Bricks and Tiles Limited and Travancoor Electro-Chemical Industries Limited respectively for a period of twenty years (Raslam and Sebastian, 1976). The demand for clams increased during the mid sixties due to the growth of industries using clamshells as raw material in Kerala and Tamilnadu. These industries had an annual consumption of lime shell between 50,000 tonnes to 20,000 tonnes respectively. Apart from these industrial giants there were 142 small lime shell furnaces, which supply heated lime for industries. Growth in industrial demand for clam attracted more people into this fishery as it provided additional income to their livelihood. Initially state promoted the entry of more people into the fishery and encouraged forming cooperative societies as granting 7

8 individual licenses was not practical and time consuming. Mining rights were procured by the lime-shell cooperative societies of this area and these were in turn redistributed to its members who harvested these resources. Seven cooperative societies are now active in the Alleppy district for the marketing of black clams. Clam fisheries of Perumbalam Island come under the jurisdiction of the Kuthiyathode Kakka Society. Very few households are members of this society. Since the island is quite far from the society, it does not collect clamshells from the members. Instead, it has issued licenses/passes and allowed traders to take clams directly from the island. Traders resort to a variety of methods to reduce the price and fishermen are unhappy about such product-credit linkages. A shift in the policy was introduced in 1965 where the Government decided to lease out the clam bed mining rights to industrial enterprises in an attempt to lower their input costs. For the first time in the history of clam mining, mining rights were granted to the Travancore Electro Chemicals and the company resorted to mechanised dredging to extract clam beds in the Perumabalm region. Local communities did not object to dredging initially, as the fishery was not their major source of livelihood and they were unaware of the consequences. Soon they realised that mechanised dredging could badly affect small-scale fishing and destroy live clam beds of that region. Mechanised dredging made large gutters in the bottom area and affected ecological stability of the region. Fishermen reported that these grounds could not populate clam fisheries any further. As industrial dredging increased the depth of the estuary, fishing activities also got affected very badly. The uneven bottom due to mechanised dredging made fishing impossible in this region and thick clay deposits affected the sustainability of black clam habitats of the area. They recalled that the trenches made by TEC Ltd are still there and this bitter experience compelled them to agitate against the TEC Ltd. Another company, Travancoore Cements Ltd, which procured mining rights from the Government, on the other hand was doing mechanised dredging in the southern side of Thanneermukkam bund without much social resistance as the lake was very wide and the communities were scattered and weak to object such state intrusions over their resources. In 2001 the government granted license to the Travancoore Cements for dredging in the Perumbalam 8

9 region. The company brought mechanised dredgers from the southern side of Thanneermukkm for starting dredging for fossil clams. However, communities objected to such initiatives through mass mobilisations and agitations. 5 Struggle for livelihood rights The decision to lease out clam fishing grounds to local industries without recognising the economic value of the ecological services and local community s livelihood rights has been contested by local communities vehemently. The major conflict over transfer of resources from community domain to industrial uses occurred in 2001 when the state gave dredging rights over clam beds to a public limited company Travancoore Cements. Local communities alleged that fossil clam beds form the base for live clams and fishing of fossil clam reduce the productivity and availability of live clam resources. Second, fishermen claimed that commercial exploitation of the strong fossil clam beds which stabilised the island could result in irreversible damage to their village. The state on the other hand claimed that as traditional fishermen were using live clam beds on the top layer of the bottom soil of the estuary, granting license to industries for dredging fossil clams might not contradict their interests in any significant manner. Contrary to their expectations, fishermen opposed this move and challenged the state s authority to lease out clam mining rights to other parties. They pointed out that industrial dredging by Travancoore Electro Chemicals 40 years back created large pits, uneven bottom and damaged the ecological setting of that area. The uneven bottom and clay deposits on these pits changed water currents and affected the productivity of small-scale fishing in this region. With these learning, local communities decided to protest against the new state policy which permitted industrial dredging for fossil clam. The community claimed that if the dredger disturbs the bottom of estuary, the live clam and their livelihood would be vanished. Despite these objections and local resistance, the company decided to implement its plans and brought dredgers for mining. The news spread among nearby settlements and a radical political party- CPI (ML) announced a meeting of all fishermen from Perumbalam Island and nearby Panchayaths. The meeting decided to resist mechanised dredging and 9

10 constituted a joint action committee to obstruct operations of the company. Other trade unions and progressive civil society organisations also supported the movement. When dredging started the next day, fishermen came in their traditional canoes and prevented operations. The political leaders and revenue officers negotiated with communities but the people insisted on the withdrawal of the dredger. As no solution emerged in political mediations, the company approached the court for a legal solution. Allowing the company to continue dredging the court asked Revenue Department to offer police protection in case of objections. A month later the company came with police protection to operate dredgers and was again objected by local people. Fishermen threatened to commit suicide on the spot if the Company resumed mechanised dredging. Finally the revenue officers asked the company to remove the dredger from the backwaters. A committee was appointed to examine the impact of dredging and to resolve the issue. Although the committee recommended for experimental dredging to study the impacts of mechanised dredging to the local habitat and communities, resistance still continues in the area against such interventions. This incident clearly revealed that communities affirm their livelihood rights over natural resources even by challenging the state s sovereign rights over these resources. The struggle of coastal island communities against state policies which negated their livelihood rights over natural resources was legitimate on a number of grounds. First, it was a struggle to sustain their livelihoods and defend customary rights over common pool resources. A detailed examination of community livelihoods and income reveals that different gear groups earn annual gross revenue of Rs , 68567, and from stake nets, gill nets, caste nets and clam mining respectively (Thomson and Berkes, 2006). Second, state interventions have suppressed the smooth play of market mechanisms in the allocation of clam fisheries. The Department of Geology collects Rs 500 from fishermen cooperatives and Rs 400 from the Company as fee for dredging one tonne of clam from the estuary. The company is not ready to buy clam shells from local producers at market prices. Although factories from other states offer high prices, the local company is willing to pay only half the market price. As a result, local communities most often sell their product to outside companies. This process clearly reveals that the 10

11 company has been irrationally harvesting clam beds with a price much lower than the price determined by market forces. It may be mentioned that this is a clear example of under-pricing of natural resources which could ultimately result in over use and misallocation of clam resources. Local communities alleged that by granting exclusive fishing rights to the company, the state fastened resource degradation and ruined their livelihoods. The transfer could also affect resource sustainability as modern users adopt destructive modern technology for dredging clam beds. Although communities were fighting for recognising their livelihood rights, they were also trying to adapt to new situations in a number of ways. First, they evolved private clam beds by culturing juvenile clams in waters close to their settlement. These clams are harvested as and when required by local households. Second, most of the clam fishers diversified into other fishing activities especially when the Thanneermukkam bund opens during monsoon season. Third, fishermen formed self-help groups and resorted to collective marketing by pooling clam landings of members and distributing proceeds to members in need. Calculations revealed that such selling strategies are beneficial to the team members as a whole. Six such self help groups are very active in the village today with a total membership of fifty to seventy fishermen. Finally many fishermen migrate to other islands for fishing when fishing is not possible in the village. Since Perumbalam is an isolated village this tendency is in the infant stages. But it is feared that such extreme forms of worker exodus could occur if the state pursues its anti-community policies. Summary and Conclusions The study reveals how village communities along the southern side of Cochin backwaters defeated the move by the state to takeover and transfers their clam beds to another industry in an attempt to save the latter from closure. The study is a clear example of how state sponsored development projects fail when authorities do not consult communities who possess customary use rights to such natural resources. According to the mining rules prevailing in this country, all mineral resources are state property and it has freedom to make policies for the best use of these resources. Although the state has 11

12 legal claims on such resources, local communities contested enforcement of state law as these decisions affected their livelihoods. The analysis revealed that local communities were managing clam-mining activities off their island for the last 30 years through a variety of formal and non-state institutions and organisations. Declaring clam mining as a state regulated activity, and by deciding to lease it out to commercial industries without recognising the customary rights over clam fisheries, the State disrupted the long traditions and customary rights of local communities. Local communities through large-scale political and civil society interventions however, resisted the actions of the state. Realising the rationality of such social actions the state has suspended its decision for the time being. A variety of options are opened before the state to ensure sustainable and equitable use of natural resources. First, the state should ensure the smooth play of markets in the allocation of resources. Appropriate valuation of resources by accepting various ecological services and functions to society at large and an appropriate pricing of goods and services must be attempted for rational allocation. Environmental subsidies and other incentive regimes should be introduced to ensure the same. Moreover, market failures must be resolved by designing appropriate property regimes, subsidies or through appropriate policy making. Finally partnership arrangements between communities and modern industrial users must be promoted as ideal forms of organisations that reduce conflicts and maximise social benefits of development. Conflict management and resource governance could improve through promoting watershed partnerships comprising communities, private industry and the state. However, since the existing legal codes are favourable to the state and to the company the evolution of such partnerships might be delayed. Economic rationalisations through environmental subsidies to communities for the loss incurred in selling clam shells to the local industry could also produce wonderful results. If these state interventions are not possible, the only option opened to a civilised society is to accept the livelihood rights and customary rights of local producers and initiate a process of negotiation between traditional and modern users on different modernisation projects that use natural resources. In the mean time the state 12

13 should abstain from any efforts that affect the self-organising practices of local communities for making their livelihoods. Annex 1 Location Map 13

14 References Achary, G.P.K., (1987) Characteristics of clam resources of Vembanad lake- a case study, In Proceedings of National seminar on shell fish resources and farming. Session- 1. Bull. No 42, Baumann, P. and Sinha, S. (2001) Linking development with democratic processes in India: political capital and sustainable livelihoods analysis. Natural Resources Perspectives 68. London: ODI. Chhatre, A. and Saberwal, V Democratizing Nature, Politics, Conservation and Development in India: Oxford University Press. New Delhi. Kocherry, T Biodiversity And Communities that Live on Subsistence. Submission made to the Thematic Working Group on Livelihoods NBSAP. National Fish Workers Forum, Thiruvananthapuram. Kothari, A., Anuradha, R.V., Pathak, N., and Taneja, B. (eds.) 1998 Communities and Conservation. Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia. Sage Publications. New Delhi. Kurien, John, (1993) Ruining the commons: Coastal overfishing and fish workers actions in South India The Ecologist Vol 23, No.1, pp: 5-11 Lakshmilatha, P and K.K. Appukkuttan, 2002, A review of the black clam (villorita cyprinoides) fishery of the Vembanad Lake., Indian J Fish. 49 (1): Raslam E. J. and M. J. Sebastian. 1976, The lime shell fisheries of the Vembanad Lake, Kerala. Journal of Marine Biological Association of India vol.18, No

15 Sumi Krishna, ed. (2007), Women's Livelihood Rights: Recasting Citizenship for Development Sage Publications, New Delhi Thomson,K.T.( 2002) Economic and Social Issues of Biodiversity Degradation in Cochin Backwaters Technical report, KRPLLD Program, Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum Thomson,K.T.( 2003) "Socio Economic Management of Biodiversity in Indian Estuaries" funded by the World Bank/ Ministry of Envt. and Forests, Delhi. Available online see Thomson,K.T.( 2006a) Cooperation In The Context of Crisis: Public-Private Management of Marine Fisheries in Kerala IDPAD working Paper available online Thomson,K.T.( 2006b) The role of public-private cooperation in the management of estuarine fisheries: Learning from the Kerala model of co-management (Paper presented at the 11th biennial conference, of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP), Bali Indonesia June 19 23, 2006) dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/ /00/thomson_kt.pdf Thomson, K.T., and Berkes, Fikret (2006) Public and Private Sector Cooperation in the Management of Estuaries of South India Technical report of Shastri Indo-Canadian Project (SHARP) 15