Basic issues in fisheries sector remain unaddressed, feel stakeholders

Oil sardine kept for auction at Kalamukku fisheries harbour near Kochi on Friday. Fishers say the price of oil sardine was ₹25 a kg on the Budget day at many auction centres in the State and it was pure exploitation of the fishing community. | Photo Credit: THULASI KAKKAT

The State Budget presented by Finance Minister K. N. Balagopal failed to capture problems facing coastal life and fisheries, and it neither imbibed the flavour of the sector nor addressed the plight of fishermen, the vast majority of whom are fighting a livelihood battle, said Charles George of Matsya Thozhilali Aikya Vedhi, an independent trade union of traditional fishermen.

The Budget does not address basic issues in the fisheries sector. There is little hope that the Budget will be of much help going forward, said Jackson Pollayil of Swathanthra Matsya Thozhilali Federation.

Joseph Jude of the political affairs committee of the Kerala Region Latin Catholic Council said the Budget did not speak of coastal protection, while the Punargeham programme, for which ₹16 crore had been set aside, was not an attractive housing scheme for people in coastal areas. In addition to this neglect is the fact that the Budget allocations over the past few years have not been fully utilised, he said.

Mr. Jude welcomed the allocation of ₹27 crore for the Saving-cum-Relief Scheme, which aims to provide relief to fishermen during lean seasons.

However, the trade union leader said that Budget had not mentioned the loss of substantial number of fishing days during the pandemic and subsequently due to bad weather.

Both Mr. George and Mr. Pollayil said the fishing community expected the government to focus on the issue of fishermen getting fair price for the catch. The price of oil sardine was ₹25 a kg on the Budget day at many auction centres in the State. This is pure exploitation of the fishing community, said Mr. Pollayil.

Fish sale is tilted in favour of traders, said Mr. George. He added that the fishing community expected the government to announce building of infrastructure to store the catch to ensure fair price.

Another grouse against the Budget is that the Finance Minister and those involved in the preparation of the Budget had neither consulted trade unions in the fisheries sector nor the Fisheries Management Council, which is tasked with overseeing the sector and suggesting measures to help the fishing community.

Mr. Jude said the Punargeham rehabilitation programme had little response from coastal residents. What they need is a special housing package that will meet their aspirations. Mr. George said the ₹10 lakh being offered for relocation was not sufficient. It is neither sufficient for buying a plot nor for constructing a decent house, he added.

Mr. Pollayil said the Budget had given some importance to infrastructure. But there is no clarity on what projects will be taken up under the head. Besides, he said the most significant issue raised by the fishing community was fuel subsidy. While diesel and petrol prices will now go up, there is no subsidy for kerosene in the Budget.

Mr. George said the government had not paid attention to the conservation of the Vembanad Lake. The size of the lake has shrunk by one-third over the years. Incessant silting and pollution are posing a threat to profitable fisheries in the waters.

On the positive side, the Budget proposes to induct Artificial Intelligence-based technology to improve cage culture and to expand existing food parks for value-addition in seafood.