Monday, July 27, 2009
Who is a "Fisherman"
The term fisherman has now been perceived in more ways than what the lexicon would interpret. From the innocuous poor rod wielding person to a multimillionaire entrepreneur all in a way come under the gamut of the meaning conveyed by the term "fisher". The arguments targeting this issue always end up inconclusive. But they always throw up defining assumptions and purposes which brings some finiteness to the whole exercise. It would always be helpful if we could initiate healthy debate on who all should be labelled as a fisherman if the information seeker happens to be a state/ government which has welfare motive as its primary focus.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi ,
ReplyDeletethe term is simply nebulous
To me the term fisherman is not gender friendly
it could be fisherbeing or fisherperson
and how to deal with another term fishworker?
Is there a difference?
Ramchandran
ramchandrancnair@gmail.com
Parallel comparison can lead to terms like Agriculturist, Landlord, Tiller, Farmer, Zameendar etc.Ironically none of the terms have explicit gender flavour. fisherman and fishworker sound the same for me. Only thing is the second reference loosens the attachment to the job. Something like policeman and policing staff. But certainly there is a scope in terms of broadening the coverage in the second option. An entrepreneur may not be happy with the term fish worker but still sadder with fisherman tag. The danger of gender innuendos in the very name can be glossed over if framed after some decent consensus.
ReplyDeleteTo me the gender is not important in the context of defininig a "FISHERMAN". Whether man or woman, the definition has a lot of significance from various angles. Therefore, a CLEAN definition is needed. It should be simple, devoid of legal and technical jargon and acceptable to all. My 40 years in the sector and working with fishers acress the world has taught me one lesson: A fisher (Fisherman/ fish person/fishmonger/fisher) is one who depens on capture and sale of fish for his daily bread. Allothers are fishbusinessmen.
ReplyDeleteSome time ago (nearly 2 decades, but I don't have an exact date), Australian government publications moved to use the term 'fisher' rather than 'fisherman' for a person who caught fish. In my eyes, fishworker would more likely refer to someone working elsewhere in the fish supply chain - pre or post harvest, rather than someone actually doing the fishing. Yes, it is interesting how many occupations don't have gender specific terms.
ReplyDeleteI recently wrote a book chapter (still in press) on gender in marine fisheries, challenging the 3 myths (1) that “women don’t fish,” (2) that recognizing the rights of the male household head will create sufficient “trickle down” of benefits to all household members, and (3) that the transition to modern fishing and fish trading creates good work opportunities for women (in processing factories).
thnks for the comments of Dr Mohan and Dr Meryl ...it adds to the required clarity in defenitions....
ReplyDeletehw about the following
"any one whether male or female who depends on fishing or fishing related actvity as a direct source of his or her livelihood "
I feel in a thrid world context the dfenition should be as inclusive as psoiible ...esp when yu want to define the term for a national exercise like census...then we can have diffrent subcategories that would qualify them in a more targted way for availing welfare /social security benefits if any...
we will get better clarity if anyone could help in giving the legal /constitutional defenitions in vogue elsewhere especially developed countries
Ram
Ramchandrancnair@gmail.com
I for one firmly believe that gender and the profession chosen to eke out a living have regressions only to the ephemeral level. It is true that older reports have failed to account for the female hands which were involved in the fishing cycle. But beyond identifying that point the gender probably says no better. My point of contention is man or women it has to be seen as an unit and probably our energy budget should be readjusted and reworked. Another silent contributor is the younger group- Children. As Prof Modayil pointed out an objectivity angle would be to just differentiate the subsistence group from the business group.
ReplyDeleteDr Ramachandran has given shape to his ideas in a fairly inclusive manner. But I always have been feeling that the welfare angle or for that matter the State's view point should be overbearing.
ReplyDelete1).Fisherman is one whose occupation is catching fish (for livelihood?). When are taking marine fisheries please do consider only those coastal (marine)fisherfolk whose occupation is catching/trading fish caught from the sea and who are residing in the identified( by the respective maritime states) coastal marine fishing villages/hamlets.
ReplyDelete2). If you want to take census on community basis (that is fishing community) you have to cover the whole country because there may some coastal (marine) fisher families who would have settled inland from time to time. Pl check whether fishing community(marine) is a standard classification employed in all India Census -2001.
I would take 1. for marine fisheries census
Yes, I agree with Srinath, that fishing community is a very difficult concept and it would need to be somehow defined as having a certain percentage of people/occupations/economy due to fish production and the supply chain.
ReplyDeleteOne reason for differentiation the gender of the hands is to see whether certain changes might be needed in the given cultural and economic setting in, for example, targeting extension services, access to credit (sometimes men have a harder time than women in getting credit), and other assistance. Gender disaggregated information can be very useful to help get a better and more complete diagnosis of the situation and how to improve it.
With respect to distinguishing the business/commercial side from the other types, yes, this is very important often and the different people have different means and access to resources and this needs to be understood.
spatial angle is interesting....but it has practical difficulties ..say we start from a landing centre and find out who are all the seagoing fishermen from a craft....suppose one fellow has come from a nonfishing background ( say in our case there are plenty of crew from Bihar, an inland place about 2000 km from the coast)...should we not call him a fisherman?
ReplyDeleteso there are problems if we follow the residential argument
It is important to get gender disaggregated information also...since most of the women in our context is from either the secondary or tertiary sector they will not be classified as fisherman/person if our definition is inclusive
sorry there is correction in my last sentence
ReplyDeletePlease read ..."not inclusive"
C has made a genuine point. I understand in Mumbai also in West Bengal, there is a significant population of migrant workers from Bihar and other inalnd areas especially during the peak fishing season. But they cannot be classified as marine fisherfolk in the true sense but should necessarily be accounted as labourers contributing to marine fisheries. Perhaps, it would be good idea include this as a separate entity while carrying out marine fisheries census. But marine fisheries in India is conducted during the lean fishing season and you may not always get the opportunity to have access to these migrant labourers. Correct me if am wrong.
ReplyDeleteMeryl has made a significant point regarding the need for gender disaggregated data in fisheries, which is now not existing. Women may not have access to exploit directly the marine fish resources owing to various social and religious taboos. But certainly they have access to the landings and control over trading and disposal. Similarly, the extent of their access to credit and other support services need to be highlighted and analysed for evolving gender friendly policies.
Taking the local fisheries context into account
ReplyDeleteC and M. Srinath bring up very important points – especially the point of inclusiveness (but how far to go?) and spatial/seasonal dynamics that is a fact of life in fisheries. Politicians and even the public are often seeking the simple answer in what to do to make fisheries more sustainable/valuable/equitable etc etc. But a single magic bullet solution or package of fixes does not exist because of the great variety of fisheries settings and their problems and opportunities.
When recently reviewing the World Bank’s PROFISH fisheries development program, my review panel colleagues and I were faced with the challenge of advising on ‘how to’ reform fisheries. After much consultation and a great deal of discussion, we concluded that the ‘one-two-three’ of how to reform fisheries is:
1. Focus on governance and institutions
2. Make sure that fisheries and aquaculture are on the mainstream agendas. This means especially political, social and economic agendas, and likely environmental agendas too.
3. Apply good practical tools: do an in-situ problem diagnosis, sequence your interventions, try out ideas in practice and learn from the experiences (good and bad).
The third point contains the practical part of what to do. It means that you need to understand the whole setting first. And this means coming to grips with who has a role or stake in the fishery, right through the supply chain and including the women, and how this varies seasonally and with other factors, even distant ones like market demand.
Sequencing interventions is also important. Some actions, such as buying out fishers, will not be possible until others, such as registering the eligible fishers, are achieved. Often, pilot or demonstration projects can help test new approaches and provide good lessons into what works and does not, and what to do to improve the outcomes.
The third point pointed out by Dr Meryl Williams is the crux of any exercise to collect first hand information on fishers and fisheries. Countries with significant coast lines and a tradition of fishery have always attempted to get a frame of those who have to be targeted for any welfare measure. Going by the classic FAO definition of fishery -"people involved, species or type of fish, area of water or seabed, method of fishing, class of boats, purpose of the activities or a combination of the foregoing features", fishers have to be those who are closely woven to these activities. Probably governments would be happy to target those who survive on fishing the core activity. But when it comes to evolving strategies for the betterment of fishery in the sustainability point of view probably the gamut of stakeholders gets amplified. Hence the clinch point here is whether it is to seen as a pure socio-cultural activity whose betterment can probably be tackled by welfare missions or as a hybrid setup where entrepreneurial interests also play a huge role alongside subsistence so that it becomes a priority for any planner to do the balancing between the judicious exploitation of fish as well as fish catchers. Of course as much of disaggregation as possible is a must on gender and other existing social categories. But in my opinion it should be first understood as to whom the definition is going to serve. I think it is better not to strive for a fit-for-all definition. Probably parallels can be drawn with the wealth, welfare and growth definitions put forth for Economics.
ReplyDelete