One end of Chennai's Kasimedu fishing harbour, almost entirely abandoned, has gone silent ever since the 61-day fishing ban came into effect in April. Boats are moored on the shore, fishing nets lie in a dry state, tricycles that transported diesel for the fishing boats can be seen parked at a corner, the ice factory has been closed for over a month, and cleaning ladies—who usually clear trails of murky fish water—sit idle by the shore.
The ban is a government-imposed regulation that prohibits mechanised trawl boats from venturing into the sea for two months, from April 15 to June 14, to protect the fish during their breeding season from bottom trawling.
Bottom trawling—a fishing method that involves dragging large nets along the seabed—is notorious for catching vast quantities of fish as well as unintentionally capturing non-target species. It is widely regarded as one of the most destructive practices to marine ecosystems. While a ban on trawlers offers the sea much-needed respite, it brings hardship to the many who rely on fishing for their livelihood.
“Our livelihood is a Soodhaattam (a game of dice), sometimes we net fish, sometimes we don’t. But the ban period leaves us empty-handed,” said 58-year-old Velmurugan, a trawl boat owner and fisherman.
'You can only rely on fishing for five months a year'
Velmurugan spoke about how everyone assumes trawl boat owners earn a good income but it is not always true. “There are fishermen who do well and some who suffer. Those who suffer, suffer more during this ban period,” he said.
"We don't gain much by operating the boats. Not anymore. There is the enforcement of the ban. Besides that, we have the off seasons—for instance, the onset of monsoon—besides skyrocketing prices of diesel and other challenges, which form a vicious cycle that wrecks the livelihood of fisherfolk who are dependent on trawl boats," he continued.
“The sea provides for the first three months following the ban, but after that, we can’t go out again for another two months because of the monsoon,” said 48-year-old Jayakumar, fisherman and trawl boat owner.
The Regional Meteorological Centre and government advisories routinely caution fishermen against venturing out into the sea during the northeast monsoon (October to December) due to rough weather conditions.
The off season is soon followed by a period of good catches, which again is short-lived as it is quickly succeeded by a season of low catches due to overfishing and inadequate regulations. “If you count off seasons and months of low catch, you can rely on fishing for livelihood only for five months a year,” Jayakumar said.
The lack of a regular income often pushes fishermen into heavy debt as they struggle to meet their daily expenses. “We can’t move forward without taking a loan. It has become a necessity to meet household expenses,” said Jayakumar. However, as a boat owner, he acknowledges how he is often able to repay such loans—unlike many fishermen who work on trawl boats for their livelihood and struggle to repay loans.
Unhelpful banks and all-guzzling diesel costs
Velmurugan explains that banks most often refuse to give loans to fishermen due to the uncertainty of their profession and concerns about their ability to repay.
“I have little knowledge about banks and loans and I don’t understand what they say most of the time. I only know fishing,” he said, explaining how difficult it is to navigate through such times.
For a single journey to the sea, trawl boats require 2,000 litres of diesel. For one hour, a boat rides on 10 litres of diesel.
Jayakumar explained that the money he earns is only enough to support his family and pay for diesel, leaving him without any opportunity for financial growth. “Fisherfolk’s lives are like this. No one is doing well; eat, work, eat, that is how it is. No one is progressing,” he said.
'If there were no trawlers, all fishermen would have been rich'
The ban exempts artisanal fishermen who use piper boats, canoes, or motorised country boats—catamarans fitted with modern engines. Since these smaller boats yield relatively modest catches that do not significantly strain fish populations, they are allowed to continue fishing during the 61-day period.
Life then is entirely different on the their end of the Kasimedu fishing harbour. Country boats unload their catch and dock their boats. Auctioneers, sellers, and buyers gather together and bargain over the fresh haul.
These small-scale fishermen's daily catches are now sold at the market at a profitable rate as mechanised boats do not bring in the fish because of the ban.
The two-month fishing ban period is a blessing in disguise for them.
“We only catch a limited number- maybe 1,000 or at most 5,000 fishes; but trawlers overfish and net fishes in lakhs. Nothing gets destroyed because of us,” said 42-year-old Iyappan, highlighting how small-scale fishing by local fishers is not harmful to the sea.
Iyappan, a seasoned fisherman from Thiruvattoor Kuppam in Tamil Nadu, has spent 12 years navigating the coastal waters in his two motorised country boats. These boats, with a limited range of 5 to 10 nautical miles (approximately 10 to 18 kilometres), restrict his fishing activities to near-shore areas. In contrast, mechanised trawlers, which can operate farther offshore and haul significantly larger catches, have become a formidable challenge for small-scale fishers like Iyappan.
The disparity in fishing capabilities has led to economic hardships for traditional fishers. Iyappan notes that while his catch is sold for around Rs 1,000 during the fishing ban period, it fetches only Rs 400 to Rs 500 during other months, reflecting the oversupply of fish in the market due to trawler activities.
Iyappan's experience reflects a broader issue faced by traditional fishing communities across India. The mechanised trawlers intruding into the waters where they fish, coupled with lack of regulations, worsens the challenges for small-scale fishers.
“If there were no trawlers, fishermen would all become rich; everyone would be millionaires,” he said in parting.
Unequal distribution of resources
"Tamil Nadu has one of the largest number of sea-going fisherfolk in India and the state’s coastline is the second longest in the country at around 1,076 km. This makes it challenging for so many people to sustain themselves with the limited resources available along the coast," said V Vivekanandan, Secretary of the Fisheries Management Resource Centre (FishMARC).
He said, citing studies, that around 70 percent of the catch in the sea goes to mechanised (trawl) boats while the remaining 30 percent goes to small boats, making the competition between them intense.
“Outside the ban period, might is right. If you have a bigger net, you catch more fish,” he said.
The income from the catch is further distributed unequally among the fishing community as mechanised boats employ only 20 to 22 per cent of fishermen while the rest of the fishermen depend on small crafts for a living.
“Fishermen and the government have not discussed two of the most important policy decisions: first, how to limit the fishing fleet so that catches do not exceed the sea’s sustainable capacity, and second, how the catch should be shared among different types of boats, fishermen, and states,” said Vivekanandan.
He suggested that scientists and experts could recommend a sustainable catch limit to restrict fishing activities in a way that ensures future fish stocks remain unaffected.
A dialogue, discussion or consensus has still not reached between different groups of fishers or the government about how one is going to restrict fishing operations at sea.
Is the ban a success?
Although there are a number of measures to regulate fishing at sea, the government has only implemented one measure—the annual fishing ban.
The other measures, such as restricting fishing beyond a certain depth, the size and types of nets, the size of fish that can be caught and a dozen other restrictions are not properly implemented by the government.
“Implementing such restrictions require political will and the cooperation of fishermen,” said Vivekanandan.
“You won't get the desired result if you employ only one option from a dozen others to restrict fishing,” he said.
The country’s resource management is overseen by UN organisations such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), and governments face criticism if fish resources are poorly managed. Western countries, including the European Union, restrict fish imports from countries with inadequate fisheries management.
“To tackle resource depletion, the government extended the annual fishing ban from six to eight weeks, up to two months. However, this move backfired and was met with resistance from the fishing communities," he said.
According to Vivekanandan, the ban period is becoming increasingly necessary because alternative regulatory instruments for fisheries are not being utilised. He noted that the ban could even be extended if fishing activities remain unregulated. “If all other regulations are properly implemented, we can eventually avoid the ban altogether,” he added.
Business during ban
“Rs 800 for one basket!”
Amidst the frenzy, 52-year-old Desamma, a seasoned fish vendor, sits among her fellow traders near the fishing harbour. She says that the prices of popular fish varieties have surged—Vanjiram (Seer) now costs Rs 1,600 per kilo, Vavval (Pomfret) is at Rs 900, and Kavalai (Sardine) is priced at Rs 300. Desamma attributes this hike to the declining catch from smaller boats, noting, “The catch from the piper boats and motorised boats is poor.”
She anticipates a better supply once the trawler boats with gill nets resume operations next month.
Desamma’s husband, a trawl boat worker, has been out of work for the past couple of months due to the annual fishing ban. This hiatus has left him idle, highlighting the seasonal uncertainties that fisherfolk face.
Desamma reflected on the challenges of managing a household with such unpredictable income, saying, “We have to survive these two months on whatever we earned during the other ten. We have no savings. How can I marry off my two daughters with such an uncertain income?”
Ban across borders
The annual fishing ban, although widely known as a measure to facilitate fish breeding, was introduced decades ago after clashes emerged at sea between mechanised trawlers and small-scale fishers.
The small-scale fisherfolk of southern Kerala started a militant struggle against mechanised trawlers in 1980 blaming them for ruining their livelihoods.
This was the genesis of an experimental ban introduced in Kerala in 1980 for six weeks during the southwest monsoon (June to August). Thus Kerala became the first state in India to introduce a fishing ban. The success paved the way for a permanent fishing ban in the state in 1990.
As the sea doesn’t have visible boundaries, the implementation of a fishing ban required coordination with neighbouring states.
Hence, the government of India convened a meeting of West Coast states and they all agreed to implement an annual fishing ban in the 1990s. A decade later, East Coast states joined, launching a fishing ban in 2000.
Impact on marine ecosystem
Trawling is not just about catching juvenile fish. It threatens the marine ecosystem too.
“In Kasimedu, you can see hundreds of gastropods lying around. These are snails from the seabed that get dragged to shore when fishermen engage in bottom trawling,” said Dr RJ Ranjit Daniels, Co-founder and Trustee of Care Earth Trust.
"No one has assessed how many of these species have become endangered because of bottom trawlers," he said.
Dr Ranjit also spoke about how the big-jawed jumper, locally known as Kuthippu or Sorumbu, almost became extinct due to overharvesting by fishers. However, the ban period has helped this species reappear.
“If you cut open a Seer fish you will see millions of eggs. Among these millions only 10 percent survive to become adults. And if you don't allow that 10 percent to survive, then within the next two to three generations, the fish will disappear,” he said.
Shallow waters are the most productive part of the sea and bottom trawling is usually done there. “You cannot do bottom trawling at 1 km depth. You will do that in less than 60m or 100m, that's the most productive zone. That is within the continental shelf,” he said.
A continental shelf is the gently sloping area of land that continues under the sea and is a crucial habitat to marine species.
Rs 8000 compensation during the ban period
The Tamil Nadu government has been providing a subsistence allowance of Rs 8,000 to trawl boat owners and workers during the two-month ban period.
According to the state fisheries department officials, the allowance benefits 17,800 fisher families in the state.
However, fisherfolk complain that it is insufficient for a family to run for a period of two months.
“Will Rs 8000 for two months be enough for our families?” asked an angry Desamma. She said the money was insufficient to feed and run her family of four.
“No fisherman has ever run his family with Rs 8,000. Is it possible to run a family? Is it possible to educate our kids?” asked Jayakumar. He explained that his monthly expenses range from Rs 20,000 to 30,000, and that Rs. 8,000 is not nearly enough for him to run his household and raise his two daughters.
Vivekanandan said the aim of the ban is not to put a burden on the fishers. "Instead, they will be the beneficiaries in the long run. The ban acts as a conservation measure that ultimately leads to an improvement in the annual catch," he said.
However, this outcome depends on good fisheries management. "If fisheries are managed well, fishermen’s annual income should increase despite the ban."
"But that is not happening, and it is a cause for great concern,” he said.
(With inputs from Praneetha Gopalakrishnan and Akshay Lal)
