Aquaculture Law and Policy
Show Less

Aquaculture Law and Policy

Global, Regional and National Perspectives

Edited by Nigel Bankes, Irene Dahl and David L. VanderZwaag

With aquaculture operations fast expanding around the world, the adequacy of aquaculture-related laws and policies has become a hot topic. This much-needed book provides a three-part guide to the complex regulatory landscape. The expert contributors first review the international legal dimensions, including chapters on law of the sea, trade, and access and benefit sharing. Part Two offers regional perspectives, discussing the EU and regional fisheries management organizations. The final part contains eleven case studies exploring how leading aquaculture producing countries have been putting sustainability principles into practice.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 12: Sustainable aquaculture in India: looking back to think ahead

Tony George Puthucherril


Farmers and fisher folk in India have practiced aquaculture since time immemorial. References to these practices can be found in ancient Indian texts like Kautilya’s Arthashastra. In eastern India, traditional fish culture was carried out in small ponds – testimony that aquaculture was a major vocation for local communities. Even today, it is hard to find a household in rural Bengal that does not have a fishpond. Alongside these developments in inland aquaculture, coastal communities also developed unique aquaculture practices. For instance, in the coastal state of Goa, traditional tribal communities reclaimed wetlands, salt marshes and mangroves to create the unique khazan ecosystem. In existence for the last 3500 years, the khazan has been developed through a system of dykes, canals, furrows and sluice gates. Its architectural design and engineering system is unique, unassuming and utilizes local resources. More importantly, the system is remarkably sustainable for it integrates agriculture, aquaculture and salt-panning, and caters to the diverse dietary and livelihood requirements of local coastal communities. In the backwaters and agriculture fields in the state of Kerala rural farmers traditionally grew rice for six months each year (May to October) and thereafter cultivated shrimp (November to April). Often referred to as rice-shrimp rotational cropping, this technique proved to be most sustainable as it helped utilize fallow land, idle labour, increase organic content in the soil, reduce insects and pests and served to supplement animal protein in the dietary requirements of the local population. Despite its antiquity, aquaculture in India remained largely dormant and was restricted to a few regions. The technology was traditional, rudimentary and production was largely directed at satiating food demands at the household level. An increased demand for shrimp in western markets in the late 1980s dramatically changed this scenario. At around this time, spurred by the success in attaining food security through the green revolution, the country shifted its attention to the blue revolution. In due course, there was a sharp increase in marine exports. Aquaculture was touted as a potential saviour due to higher investment returns, shorter time frames and access to expanding high value markets. In many ways, aquaculture emerged as a beacon of hope. Nevertheless, behind the façade of these positive economic developments, there were serious environmental and socioeconomic upheavals, which culminated in a path-breaking Supreme Court decision in 1996 that led to the banning of non-traditional shrimp aquaculture in India’s coastal zone. Even though environmentalists and affected communities hailed this decision, the executive and the legislature were unhappy as they felt that the judiciary had failed to strike a balance between environment protection, social justice and economic development. The legislature and the executive accordingly sought to rectify this situation by re-writing the regulatory framework for aquaculture development. This regulatory model deviated partly from the terms of the Supreme Court judgment.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.