AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF MARINE FIHSING IN

THARUVAIKULAM, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT,

TAMIL NADU

Thesis submitted in part fulfillment of the requirements of the Degree of

Master of Fisheries Science in Fisheries Economics
to the Tamil Nadu Fisheries University, Nagapattinam.

[Link], [Link].
[Link]. MFT 1317 (FEC)

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES ECONOMICS

SCHOOL OF FISHERIES INFORMATION AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
FISHERIES COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE
TAMIL NADU FISHERIES UNVERSITY
THOOTHUKUDI-628008

2015

i
 ABSTRACT

Title : An economic analysis of marine

fishing in Tharuvaikulam,
Thoothukudi district, Tamil Nadu
Name of the student : [Link]

Degree : [Link].

Chairman : Dr. M. Rajakumar

Department : Fisheries Economics

School : Fisheries Information and Social

Sciences
College : Fisheries College and Research
Institute
Year and University : 2015, Tamil Nadu Fisheries
University

The present study was taken up to analyse the economic aspects of marine
fishing in Tharuvaikulam, Thoothukudi district, Tamil Nadu during the period 2014-15.
The specific objectives of the study were to study socio-economic profile of fisherfolk, to
estimate costs of and returns from marine fishing, to investigate marketing aspects of
marine fish, identify production and marketing related constraints felt by the fisherfolk
and to suggest policy interventions needed for the development of marine fishing and
welfare of the fisherfolk. The required data were collected from 120 randomly selected
fishermen representing 30 from Single Day (SD) motorised, 30 from Multi Day (MD)
motorised and 60 from Multi Day (MD) mechanized sectors.
The pre-dominant age group of the selected fishermen was middle aged group in
the study area (SD motorised-76.6%, MD motorised- 43.5% and MD mechanized-
53.3%). The majority of respondents had fishing experience of above 15 years (SD
motorised-63.3%, MD motorised- 73.3 % and MD mechanized- 66.6%). Similarly, for
SD motorized (63.4%), MD motorised (66.6%) and MD mechanized (66.6%) sectors
ii
primary level education was maximum. Majority of fishermen were large sized family
(SD motorised- 73.3%, MD motorised-46.6% and MD mechanized-53.3%). The SD
motorised sector generated lower share in the income distribution of respondents.
Majority of the MD motorised sector respondents earned moderate income and
fishermen of MD mechanized sector earned high income.
The average distance to fishing ground for SD motorised was 30 miles and for
MD motorised and MD mechanized sector it was 60 miles. The overall average crew
strength of marine fishing varied from 4 to 10. While fishing trips for SD motorised
ranged from 15 to 20. It was 3 to 4 per month for MD motorised and MD mechanized
sectors due to variation of fishing days per trip.
It was observed that, capital investment of fishing units varied with the size of
craft, type of engine and the number gear owned. Among the three fishing units, cost
towards capital investment was higher for MD mechanized sector.
Fuel cost and auction charge paid by fishermen took the major share among the
variable items of all the fishing sectors. Similarly, among the fixed items of all fishing
units in the study area, depreciation on fishing gear and interest on capital cost
occupied the major costs. Of the selected three fishing sectors, the average total
returns to was the highest for MD mechanized sector (` 89.06lakhs/per year). However,
the average net return per year was higher for MD motorized sector (` 39.77 lakhs/year)
when compared to MD mechanized sector due to less total cost for fishing. The benefit
cost ratio (BCR) of marine fishing was recorded higher for MD motorised sectors (2.72).
Marketing cost was comparatively higher for all the three fishing sectors due to
unregulated marketing practices adopted.
Among the reported eleven factors, lack of crew was the immense constraint in
fishing faced by the fisherfolk with the garret score of 82. Lack of government support
was found to be the prominent constraint in fish marketing in the study area.

iii
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis entitled, “An economic analysis of marine fishing

in Tharuvaikulam, Thoothukudi district, Tamil Nadu,” submitted in part fulfillment of the

requirements of the degree of Master of Fisheries Science in Fisheries Economics

to the Tamil Nadu Fisheries University, Nagapattinam, is a record of bonafide research

work carried out by [Link], MFT 1317 (FEC) under my supervision and

guidance and that no part of thesis has been submitted for the award of any other

degree, diploma, fellowship or similar titles or prizes and that part of thesis has been

published peer reviewed journal(s) and copy / copies appended.

Place : Thoothukudi CHAIRMAN

Date :
RECOMMENDED

Place :

Date :
EXTERNAL EXAMINER

APPROVED BY

Chairman : [Link]

Members
: 1. [Link]

: 2. [Link]

Place :

Date :

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am very much indebted to [Link], Professor, Dept. of Fisheries

Economics and my guide for his wholehearted devotion in my study. His profound

comments have been extremely useful in completing my thesis. His care has greatly

helped not only to improve my thought but also stimulated me with a bigger passion to

study fisheries economics. I have learnt a great deal, both from his expertise, working

attitude and his true adore for research.

I am also very much grateful to my members [Link], Professor,

Dept. of Fishing Technology and Fisheries Engineering and Mrs.T. Umamaheswari,

Assistant Professor, Dept. of Fisheries Economics, who have always inspired,

encouraged and supported me during the course of the study. Their discussions and

comments have been of great values for my thesis completion.

I record my sincere thanks to Dr. R. Jayaraman, Director, Coastal Aquaculture

Authority, Govt. of India, Chennai, Dr. R. Senthiladeban, Director (i/c), Fisheries Staff

Training Institute, TNFU, Chennai and Mr. R. Ramkumar, Associate Professor (Retd.)

who taught me the basics of thesis writing. My thanks are due to [Link],

Inspector of Fisheries and Ms. Sumathi, Sub Inspector of Fisheries, Office of the

Assistant Director of Fisheries (Marine), Thoothukudi who helped me in secondary data

collection.

My heartfelt appreciation to Mrs. J. Amali Infantina and Mr. [Link],

the doctorate fellows of the department who enthusiastically helped me in interview

schedule preparation and in the process of data analysis. I would like to thank my batch
v
mates Mr. Tejavat Jagadeesh and Mr. [Link] who helped me for this work. I

wish to express my greatful thanks to my friends [Link], [Link], Hema, J.

Canciyal, Neetha Shenoy, Brita Nicy, [Link], A. Poonkodi, J. Hilda, Baby, P.

Ruby, Jane Jacob, R. Abisha, and P. Abinaya, who enthusiastically motivated me in

data entry and care taking in my physical and mental health especially during thesis

work.

I thank Mrs. V. Saraswathy, Data Entry Operator, Mrs. Krishnammal,

Attendant, Mrs. Kalyaani Kumaraswamy, Assistant and all other staff members of the

Department of Fisheries Economics for their help and friendliness during the course of

my study period. I greatly acknowledge all the fishermen for their cooperation rendered

during my survey period.

There are no matching words to express my heartfelt indebtedness to my

beloved parents and brother for their kind understanding, unflinching encouragement

and support with an astonishing forbearance throughout my study period.

vi
 CONTENTS
CHAPTER
TITLE PAGE NO.
NO.
I INTRODUCTION 1-7
1.1 Marine fisheries of India 1
1.2 Tamil Nadu marine fisheries 2
1.3 Scope of the study 5
1.4 Limitation of the study 6
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8-14
2.1 Socio-economics of fishermen 8
2.2 Economic analysis of marine fishing 9
2.3 Marine fish marketing 11
2.4 Constraints 12
2.5 Policies 12
III MATERIALS AND METHODS 15-33
3.1 Concepts 15
3.1.1 Socio-economic characteristics of fishermen 15
3.1.2 Total cost 15
3.1.3 Fixed cost 16
3.1.4 Variable cost 16
3.1.5 Depreciation 17
3.1.6 Opportunity cost 17
3.1.7 Gill net 18
3.1.8 Mechanized fishing craft 18
3.1.9 Motorized fishing craft 19
3.1.10 Middlemen 19
3.1.11 Marketing channel 19
3.1.12 Auctioneer 20

vii
CHAPTER
TITLE PAGE NO.
NO.
3.1.13 Wholesaler 20
3.1.14 Retailer 21
3.1.15 Fish Marketing 21
3.1.16 Marketing cost 22
3.2. Design of the study 22
3.2.1 Choice of the study area 22
3.2.2 Sampling procedure 23
3.2.3 Tools of analysis 23
[Link] Tabular analysis 23
[Link] Functional analysis 24
[Link].1 cost and returns of marine fishing 24
[Link] Ratio Analysis 24
[Link].1 Fixed cost ratio 24
[Link].2 Gross return ratio 25
[Link].3 Operating cost ratio 25
[Link].4 Profit margin ratio 25
[Link].5 Benefit cost ratio 25
[Link] Non-Parametric statistics tools 26
[Link].1 Garrett’s ranking technique 26
[Link].2 Rank based quotient (RBQ) 27
3.3 Description of the study area 27
3.3.1 Geographical location 27
3.3.2 Profile of Tharuvaikulam fishing village 28
3.3.3 Marine capture fishing activities 29

3.3.4 Major Infrastructure facilities 29

IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 34-68

viii
CHAPTER
TITLE PAGE NO.
NO.
4.1 Socio-economic profile of the fisherfolk 34
4.1.1 Distribution of respondents by age 34
4.1.2 Distribution of respondents by experience 35
4.1.3 Distribution of respondents by education 36
4.1.4 Distribution of respondents by family size 38
4.1.5 Distribution of respondents by income 39
4.2 Costs and returns of marine fishing 40
4.2.1 Key factors in marine fishing 40
[Link] Time of leaving and return for marine
fishing 40
[Link] Distance to the fishing ground 40
[Link] Crew strength 41
[Link] Duration of fishing trips 41
[Link] Fishing gear 42
[Link] Crew share 42
[Link] Fishing trips per month 42
4.2.2. Capital investment 42
4.2.3. Fixed cost 45
4.2.4. Variable cost 48
4.2.5. Total cost 51
4.2.6 Percentage distribution of cost in marine
fishing 56
4.2.7 Ratio analysis 57
4.3 Marketing aspects of marine fishing 59
4.3.1 Marketing details of marine fishes 59
4.3.2 Marketing cost details of the marine fishing 60
4.4 Production and marketing constraints of marine
fishing 64

ix
CHAPTER
TITLE PAGE NO.
NO.
4.4.1. Production constraints 64
4.4.2. Marketing constraints 66
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 69-77
5.1. Summary 69
5.1.1. Socio - economic profile of fisherfolk 70
5.1.2 Key factors in marine fishing 71
5.1.2 Economic analysis of marine fishing 72
5.1.3 Marketing aspects of marine fish 74

5.1.4 Production and marketing related constraints 75

5.2. Conclusion 75
5.3. Policy implementation 76
VI REFERENCES 78-89

x
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE
TITLE
NO. NO.
1.1 Marine fisheries profile of India 2
1.2 Zonal distribution of Tamil Nadu coastline 3
1.3 Marine fisheries profile of Tamil Nadu 3
3.1 Profile of Tharuvaikulam fishing village 28
4.1 Age composition of the fishermen 35
4.2 Fishing experience of the fishermen 36
4.3 Educational status of the fishermen 37
4.4 Family size of the fishermen 38
4.5 Income of the fishermen 39
4.6 Fishing details 41
4.7 Estimation of capital cost for fishing 43
4.8 Estimation of fixed cost 46
4.9 Estimation of variable cost 49
4.10 Estimation of total cost 52
4.11 Ratio details in marine fishing 57
4.12 Marketing costs of marine fishing per year 62
4.13 Production constraints for fishermen 65
4.14 Marketing constraints of fishermen 66

LIST OF FIGURES

xi
FIGURE PAGE
NO. TITLE NO.
3.1. Map showing the study area 30

4.1 Fixed cost for SD motorised sector 53

4.2 Fixed cost MD motorised sector 54

4.3 Fixed cost for MD mechanised sector 54

4.4 Variable cost for SD motorised sector 54

4.5 Variable cost for MD motorised sector 55

4.6 Variable cost for MD mechanised sector 55

4.7 Total cost for craft sectors 55

4.8 Fish marketing channel - Tharuvaikulam 61

4.9 Marketing cost contribution in total cost - SD motorised 61

4.10 Marketing cost contribution total cost - MD motorised 62

4.11 Marketing cost contribution in total cost - MD mechanized 62

LIST OF PLATES

xii
Plate
Title Page No.
No.
I TYPES OF FISHING CRAFTS
A. Single day motorised craft 31
B. Multi day motorised craft 31
C. Multi day mechanised craft 31
II TYPES OF FISHING GEAR
A. Nandu valai 32
B. Mural valai 32
C. Paru valai 32
INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES AT MARINE
III
FISH LANDING CENTER
A. Ice plant 33

B. Ice crusher 33

C. Net mending hall 33

D. Auction hall 33

xiii
 I. INTRODUCTION

Fishery resources are important for global nutrition and particularly to food

deficient and low income countries. Fisheries are locally important as source of food,

trade, income earning and provide employment opportunities for considerable number

of the people, particularly in the less developed and employment scarce coastal

countries (Delgodo et al., 2003). Capture fisheries and aquaculture contributed about

148 million tonnes of fish in 2010 with a total value of US$217.5 billion, of which about

128 million tonnes was utilized as food for people, and preliminary data for 2011

indicated increased production of 154 million tonnes, of which 131 million tonnes was

destined as food (FAO, 2012).

1.1 Marine fisheries in India

Fisheries sector plays a vital role in the Indian economy. This sector is also a

principal source of livelihood for a large section of economically under privileged

population of the country, especially in the coastal areas. It has been observed that

agriculture sector is gradually diversifying towards high value enterprises including

fisheries (Sexena, 2011). Agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector production in 2013-

14 has shown a growth rate of 4.7% as against the growth rate of 4.6% in the advance

estimates (Net Indian News Network, 2014). Marine fisheries are exploited by non-

motorized industrial sector using a multitude of fishing gears like trawls, drift and bottom

set gillnets, hooks and lines, purse seiners and certain regional fishing gears like

dolnets, ring seines etc. The details of marine fisheries profile of India is given in table

1.1.

xiv
 Table 1.1. Marine fisheries profile of India
Length of coastline (km) 8,118
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (million sq. km) 2.02
Continental Shelf (‘000 sq. km) 530
Number of fish landing centers 1,537
Number of fishing villages 3,322
Number of fishermen families 8,74,749
Fisherfolk population 40,56,213
Fishing crafts 1,99,141
Marine fish potential (million tonnes) 3.93
Inland fish potential (million tonnes) 4.5
Total fish production (million tonnes) 9.57
Marine fish production (million tonnes) 3.44
Inland fish production (million tonnes) 6.13
Source: Hand Book of Fisheries Statistics (2013-14)

Species diversity is the hallmark of Indian fisheries, wherein nearly 1,570 species

of finfish and about 1,000 species of shellfish are available. The marine fisheries

resources of the EEZ comprised of shrimp, lobsters, crabs, tuna, squid, pomfret and

most of other varieties of fish. Rapid economic growth and the resultant expansion of

the domestic retail sector in India have created a large market for fresh, processed and

value added fishery products within the country and also new opportunities for

international trade in seafood.

1.2 Tamil Nadu marine fisheries

Fisheries have emerged as an important food production sector of Tamil Nadu

state contributing to the livelihood and food security of a large section of the people

xv
(Johnson, 2014). Tamil Nadu has a coastal length of 1,076 km (13% of the country’s

coastline), 0.19 million [Link] of EEZ (9.4% of the India’s EEZ) and a continental shelf of

about 41,412 [Link] and is one of the leading state in marine fish production. The

marine fisheries potential of the state is estimated at 0.719 million tonnes i.e., 0.369

million tonnes from less than 50 m depth and 0.35 million tonnes beyond 50 m depth

(Department of Fisheries, Tamil Nadu, 2014). The different coastal zone and marine

fisheries profile of Tamil Nadu is given Table 1.2. and Table 1.3.

Table 1.2. Zonal distribution of Tamil Nadu coastline

Zones Region Length (km)
Coromandal Coast Chennai to Point Calimere 357.2
Palk Bay Point Calimere to Pamban 293.9
Gulf of Mannar Pamban to Kanniyakumari 364.9
West Coast in Arabian Sea Kanniyakumari to Neerodi 60.0
Total 1,076
Source: Department of fisheries, Tamil Nadu (2014)

Table 1.3. Marine fisheries profile of Tamil Nadu

Length of coastline (km) 1,076
Continental Shelf (‘000 sq. km) 41
Number of fish landing centres 407
No of Fishing villages 573
No of fishermen families 1,92,697
Fisherfolk population 8,02,912
Traditional crafts 10,436
Traditional motorized crafts 24,942
Mechanized crafts 10,692
Source: Department of fisheries, Tamil Nadu (2014)

xvi
 In 2011-12, the total catch from marine capture fisheries in Tamil Nadu was 0.71

MT, of which 24.7 % came from Ramanathapuram district followed by Nagapattinam

(19.8 %), Kanyakumari (13.5 %) and Tuticorin (11.6 %) districts (CMFRI Annual Report,

2012-13). In Tamil Nadu, the infrastructure facilities include three major fishing

harbours, three medium fishing harbours and 407 fish landing centers. Three major

sectors, namely the mechanized, motorized, non-motorized contribute to the marine fish

landings along the Tamil Nadu coasts. Thoothukudi is the one of the important coastal

districts of Tamil Nadu having coast length of 163.5 km has 21 fishing villages with a

total fisherfolk population of 69,558. It stretches from Vembar in north to Manappad in

south (between 8° 9' 00" to 9° 7' 30" N latitude and 78° 2' 30" to 78° 25' 00" E longitude)

and houses 352 mechanized and 2,197 non- mechanized crafts (CMFRI, 2010).

Tharuvaikulam is one of the fishing villages of Thoothukudi district adopting eco-friendly

fishing methods in marine capture fishing especially gillnet fishing method and has been

successfully adopted by the fisherfolk over years. Under this perspective, the following

objectives were proposed.

i. to study socio-economic profile of fisherfolk,

ii. to estimate costs of and returns from marine fishing in the study area,

iii. to investigate marketing aspects of marine fish,

iv. to identify production and marketing related constraints felt by the fisherfolk

and

v. to suggest policy interventions needed for the development of marine fishing

and the welfare of the fisherfolk.
1.3 Scope of the study

xvii
 Trawling has been the principal driving force behind the sharp escalation in the

marine fish landings, particularly shrimps, cuttlefish, squids, lobsters, etc. It has been an

export driven and earns considerable foreign exchange. However, it has caused

irrepairable damage to the marine fishery resources as well. Therefore, it is necessary

to look for alternative methods of fishing that are environment-friendly yet profitable.

Gill netting is a passive and environment friendly fishing method. It has been

successfully adopted by the fisherfolk in Tharuvaikulam fishing village for several years.

Hence, it is proposed to study its profitability so that it could be used by the fisherfolk

elsewhere in Tamil [Link] study would throw light on the current status of marine

fishing undertaken by the respondents and the constraints faced by them. This

information would be highly useful for planners and policy makers in formulation of

policies for the development of marine fisheries in Tamil Nadu, particularly for promoting

gill netting as an alternative livelihood tool for the fisherfolk who have been depending

on trawling for their living and looking for alternative fishing methods.

1.4 Limitation of the study

The proposed study was carried out only in Tharuvaikulam of Thoothukudi

district, Tamil Nadu. Recent literatures relevant to the study were not available as much

of. Moreover, the study has the limitation of covering only a part of the representative

fishermen in the village due to lack of time and logical constraints. The information

collected for the study was from the memory of the respondents and not based on the

records. Fishermen were hesitant to reveal the information on the costs and the returns

for various reasons and also difficult to collect marketing constraints from the fishermen

xviii
as they do not know the real constraints in marine fish marketing. Hence, the findings

of this study could not be over generalized.

Organization of the thesis

Chapter 1 : Introduction - Objectives, scope and limitations.

Chapter 2 : Review of literature - Review of the earlier studies.

Chapter 3 : Materials and methods – Concepts, methodology and

tools of analyses used and a short profile of the study

area.

Chapter 5 : Results and discussion - Results of the study followed by a

brief discussion.

Chapter 6 : Summary and conclusion - Summary of the study along with

conclusion and policy implications

Chapter 7 : References

xix
 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Review of earlier studies encompasses economic aspects and profitability of

marine fishing by the farmers. To understand the directions of this research, earlier

studies are reviewed as follows:

2.1 Socio-economics of fisherrmen

Narayana Kumar et al. (2000) studied the socio-economics of marine fishermen

in India. It revealed that mechanisation of fishing fleet could increase the yield, but at

the same time it seriously affected the employment status and income level of artisanal

fishermen who depend wholly on indigenous crafts and gears.

The socio-economic status of fishermen in Orissa was studied by

Balasubramanian (2001). The precise measurement of socio-economic status of

fishermen in fishing villages indicated that less developed fishing infrastructure and

social welfare components in each village should be taken as bench mark before

initiating welfare development programmes.

Prabhakar (2007) studied socio-economic conditions of marine fishermen in

Vishakapattinam region of Andhra Pradesh. He found that the socio-economic

conditions of traditional fishermen in the study area were far from being satisfactory due

to lack of infrastructure and communication facilities. The level of earnings confined

them to the category of weaker sections of the society.

Basavakumar et al. (2011) studied the profile of fishing community of a village in

Karnataka. The result revealed that male population constituted a higher percentage

than the female population. He suggested that the social and educational status of the

fisherfolk could also be improved by educating them in various aspects.

xx
 Khambete (2012) studied the socio-economic organization of the fisherfolk in

Kerala and the special relationship the fisherfolk have with the sea. The results of the

study revealed that Kerala’s fishing communities have shared the ocean’s resources

and maintained close social and economic ties, despite cultural and religious

differences since a very long time. This had led to increasing clashes between the new

class of mechanised boat workers and the traditional fish workers, which had become

more acute with the area becoming a fertile ground for the spread of social and

communal tensions along the Kerala coast.

Amutha and Rathi (2012) studied socio-economic profile of Vellapatti village in

Tuticorin district. Lack of awareness and viable alternative livelihood programmes are

the major hindrances for improving their socio-economic status which also threaten the

sustainable use of the fishing resources.

Aruloli and Jeevitha (2012) studied the socio-economic status of the fisherfolk of

Thoothukudi district, Tamil Nadu. The result revealed that fishers with lower level of

literacy, poor housing conditions, uncertain credit facilities, unsecured fishing

employment, inadequate marketing facilities, lack of infrastructure facilities, non

availability of government assistance, lack of awareness on fisheries information/

communication technology were found to be the major indicators of a lower level of well

being and overall poor socio-economic condition of the fisherfolk.

2.2 Economic analysis of marine fishing

xxi
 Squires, et al. (2002) studied technical efficiency in the Malaysian gillnet artisanal

fishery. The study found that most fishers exhibit a high degree of technical efficiency.

Moreover, the factors explaining efficiency significantly differ by region and overall level

of economic development. For instance, in the poorer and less developed east coast,

primary schooling of the skipper, smaller vessel size and larger family size showed

significantly increased technical efficiency, but this is not true for west coast.

Raju (2003) analysed economics of fishing crafts in Andhra Pradesh. The fishing

craft technology played an important role for the difference in catches. The study

suggested that government should promote suitable craft oriented technology to each

poor fishermen group.

Sathiadhas et al. (2005) assessed economic loss and gains of marine fishing

along Kerala coast. The economic aspects of various craft-gear combinations,

economic loss incurred from juvenile fishing and scope for a better input utilization were

addressed in the study.

Mattos et al. (2006) undertook bio-economic analysis of the hand-line and gill-net

coastal fisheries of Pernambuco State of north-eastern Brazil. The results of the study

revealed that the fisherman strategy to increase profit is always dangerous for the

maintenance of the bio-economic equilibrium that seems to effectively occur in the

Pernambuco fisheries, if resource exploitation levels are above the maximum

sustainable yield. If fleet reduction is done properly, it should result in an increase in net

profit (rent) from the resources, as predicted by the basic theory of bio-economics.

Aswathy et al. (2011) studied the economic viability of mechanized fishing units

and socio-economics of fishing ban in Kerala. The study suggested that mechanized

xxii
trawlers, purse-seiners and single day gillnetters in Kerala are economically and

financially viable and generate sufficient revenue to cover the cost of depreciation, the

opportunity cost of capital and thus generate sufficient funds for reinvestment.

Raju (2012) studied catch and income of fishing units in Andhra Pradesh. The

study showed that mechanized fishing units were found to be more profitable. A huge

gap in net income among the mechanized and traditional households might be due to

high technology adoption. Motorization was more suitable for equitable and sustainable

use of marine resources.

Jeyakumar and Sreedevi (2013) made an economic analysis of the performance

of marine fish production in India and Tamil Nadu. They reported that the low production

level with a negative growth rate was observed during 2004-05 because of the

occurrence of Tsunami, which altered the fish production totally.

Geetha et al. (2014) studied the economic efficiency of mechanized fishing in

Chennai, Tamil Nadu (Case study) and the results revealed that efficiency measures in

terms of labour, input-output ratio and fuel have established the supremacy of

mechanized gillnetters. Targeted fishing without damage to juveniles, less labour

dexterity, high fuel efficiency and marginal engine depreciation by gillnetters lead to

sustainable fishing when compared to trawlers.

2.3 Marine fish marketing

Narayanan and Thakkar (2004) studied the domestic fish marketing in Gujarat.

The bulk landings in the State used to be diverted to the neighboring Mumbai. The two

major markets in Bharuch city alone sold 500-600 tonnes of freshwater and marine fish

annually. In most of the places, the retailers sit on the roadsides, exposing their produce

xxiii
to dust and unclean surroundings which in turn cause contamination, fish spoilage and

quality degradation of the fish being supplied to the consumers. Due to this reason, fish

price was low in this area.

Kumar et al. (2008) studied domestic fish marketing in India in relevance to

changing market structure, performance and policies. It stated that only a few states

had a policy specifically aimed at fish marketing. The only legislation for fish marketing

is the West Bengal Fish Dealer’s Licensing Order, 1975. The act had a variety of legal

procedures to control the process of supply of fish to other states from West Bengal. It

was constituted as a welfare measure for the people of the state, with amendments

from time to time till 1997.

Aswathy and Samad (2012) studied price behavior and marketing efficiency of

marine fish in Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. The study showed that barracudas and pig face

breams had the highest marketing efficiency and maximum percentage share of

fishermen in the consumer’s rupee whereas seer fishes showed the highest percentage

share of marketing margins in consumer’s rupee. The involvement of too many

intermediaries need to be curbed in order to increase the efficiency of fish marketing

and ensure remunerative price to the fisherfolk.

Viswanatha (2012) assessed the marketing efficiency of fish markets in

Bangalore city. The study explained that the producer share in consumer’s rupee, cost

of marketing service and price spread indicated the high level of inefficiency.

2.4 Constraints
Onemolease and Oriakhi (2011) studied the prospects and constraints of

artisanal fishing in selected communities in delta state of Nigeria. The results revealed

xxiv
that the economic potential of the enterprise was constrained by several factors notably

high cost of fishing inputs such as motorized boats, insufficient capital, storage

problems, spoilage of fish caught and declining catch.

Rahaman et al. (2013) studied the problems and constraints in production and

marketing of fish in West Bengal. The results revealed that government intervention in

addressing the major problems mentioned to increase the domestic production might

have over dependence on market middlemen.

Purcell et al. (2014) studied the constraints and solutions for managing Pacific

Island sea cucumber fisheries with an ecosystem approach. The result revealed that

Pacific Island management institutions have severe constraints to deal with coastal

fisheries.

2.5 Policies
Kumar et al. (2008) studied the domestic fish marketing in India changing market

structure, performance and policies. He recommended that efforts must be made to

convey the daily prices prevailing at the nearby fish markets for various species through

appropriate media. Modern retail outlets have to be promoted vigorously through public-

private partnership in every major city so that fish consumption becomes an easier

proposition in days to come. There are a number of organizations and policies related to

promotion of fish marketing in the country and hence there is a need to formulate a

uniform market policy for fishes so that it becomes easier for operation and regulation.

Bose and Kotni (2010) reviewed the government policies in marine fisheries

sector. Even though fisheries sector is an important sector of the Indian economy, it is

facing many problems for various reasons. In order to overcome the problems, the

xxv
government has made an effective legislation in order to control and develop the

fisheries sector.

Baiju et al. (2010) analysed the conversion of mechanised fishing vessels to tuna

long liners. In India more than 300 fishing boats have been converted to long liners

under MPEDA (Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Kerala, and Karnataka). Conversion to long liners

has obvious advantages in terms of fuel savings, lower maintenance cost and lower

crew requirements and high value catches, in addition to benefits in coastal resource

conservation and better utilisation of oceanic tuna resources.

Aswathy et al. (2011) studied the economic viability of mechanized fishing units

and socio-economics of fishing ban in Kerala. The study recorded that mechanised

workers were found employed in fishing in the traditional sector during the ban period

and the incentives given by the trawl owners and public bodies were inadequate for

many of the trawl workers. Since fishing is the only source of livelihood for these

workers, alternative employment opportunities in traditional fishing vessels through

community based arrangements during the ban period, repairs and maintenance of

fishing equipments and fish processing industries may be created for protecting the

livelihood security of mechanized workers. Creation of savings cum relief scheme using

the additional income generated in the non-ban period was also suggested for providing

a regular income for the workers in the mechanized sector during ban period.

Sheela Immanuell and Rao (2012) identified the social status of hook and line

fishermen in Visakhapatnam. They suggested that the areas of operation of motorized

and non motorized craft are to be demarcated and should be strictly implemented by the

government. Regulations should be brought out in the registration of boats in a

xxvi
particular area to avoid overcrowding of boats leading to reduction in per capita

availability of fish and area of operation. The constraints faced by the fishermen should

be minimized to improve their standard of living by implementing developmental

schemes.

xxvii
 III. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Concepts
In any research, conceptualization is essential for addressing a specific problem.

The concepts would help to understand the objectives and the basic issues of the

chosen study and permit comparisons with the concepts of similar studies. The

concepts used in the present study followed by a short review of previous studies are

discussed in this chapter.

3.1.1 Socio-economic characteristics of fishermen

According to Pandey and Upadhayay (2012), the socio-economic parameters

include family size, age, education, social participation, income and experience.

Socio-economic status of the fishermen includes community, caste, age and

education as explained by Panigrathi and Bakshi (2014).

In the present study, the socio-economic characteristics of fishermen include

age, education, experience, family size and income.

3.1.2 Total cost

Nadar and Vijayan (2010) defined total cost as combination of fixed and variable

costs.

Sexena (2011) defined total cost as when variable costs and fixed costs are

added together they are called total cost.

In the present study, the total cost is the sum of total fixed costs and total

variable costs involved in marine fishing.

xxviii
3.1.3 Fixed cost
Johl and Kapur (2007) defined fixed costs as those which do not change in

magnitude as the amount of output of the production process and changes are incurred

even when production is not undertaken.

Nadar and Vijayan (2010) explained that total fixed costs include all expenses

made on the payment of salaries for the administrative staff, depreciation of machinery

and expenses made on repairs and machinery.

Sexena (2011) defined fixed cost as those which do not change with change in

output and include all costs, which an entrepreneur has to bear even when there is no

production such as interest on capital invested, land, building, machinery and salary of

permanent staff.

In the present study, fixed cost is the cost which does not change with the level

of fish catch. It includes depreciation of fishing crafts, fishing gears and other

machinery, interest on capital investment, insurance and repairs and maintenance.

3.1.4 Variable cost

Salim et al. (2005) defined variable cost which change with the level of

production. It is the cost incurred for buying the items that is used in the production.

Johl and Kapur (2007) considered variable cost as the cost of using for the

variable inputs. These costs vary with the level of production. Higher the production,

more will be the variable costs; lower the production, lower will be the variable costs.

According to Nadar and Vijayan (2010), the total variable costs include all

expenses made on the payments for raw materials, cost of direct labour, the running

expenses on fuel and ordinary repairs and maintenance.

xxix
 Sexena (2011) defined variable cost as the cost which vary or change with the

variation of output; they are direct costs and include items such as price of the raw

material, wages paid to labours etc.

Variable cost in the present study is defined as the expenditure incurred per

fishing trip. It includes expenditure on fuel, food, ice, transport cost, auction charge and

other expenditure and it exclude crew wage.

3.1.5 Depreciation
Reddy et al. (2012) recorded depreciation as the decline in the value of an asset

due to usage, accidental damage and time obsolescence.

Sharma et al. (2014) considered depreciation as the decline in the value of long

life assets due to its use, wear and tear, obsolescence and accidental losses.

In the present study, depreciation is calculated as the usage value of assets like

craft, gear, engine and other machinery at time obsolescence. The straight line method

was used to compute depreciation of capital items, equipments, fishing nets and

machinery. The formula used is,

3.1.6 Opportunity cost

Jhingan and Stephen (2004) defined opportunity cost as the cost of sacrifice of

the best alternative forgone in the production of goods.

Ammualson and Markets (2008) reported opportunity cost as associated with

choosing a particular decision measured by the benefits forgone in the next best

alternative.

xxx
 Pathania et al. (2012) defined opportunity cost as producing any commodity

which is the next best alternative cost.

In the present study, opportunity cost is defined of the income forgone by fishing

craft owner from various non-fishing investment widely by the level of operation.

3.1.7 Gill net

Surekha Gupta (2010) considered gillnet as a passive gear of fixed type and are

made up of cotton or nylon threads with small meshes. The nets are suspended

vertically in water, in a wall shaped manner so that the advancing fishes enter the mesh

and get entangled by their gills.

Biswas (2012) defined gillnet as single sheet of netting that is extended out

through the water with a float line and floats attached to the upper edge and a sinker

line and sinkers attached to the lower edge in a delicate balance that is designed to hold

the net fully extended in a perpendicular plane in the water.

The above concept is followed in the present study.

3.1.8 Mechanized fishing craft

According to Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983, “mechanized

fishing vessels” means a craft fitted with mechanized means of propulsion having an

engine not less than fifteen horse power but not more than one hundred and twenty

horse power and measuring in length not less than eight metres and not more than

fifteen metres length.

Badapanda (2012) recorded mechanized fishing craft as the one in which the

power is utilized not only for the purpose of propulsion, but also for the operation of the

fishing gears, processing, preservation, etc.

xxxi
 The present study explains that the craft where the power is utilized for

propulsion and hauling fishing net is called mechanized fishing craft.

3.1.9 Motorized fishing craft

According to Badapanda (2012), motorized fishing craft is one where in power is

utilized only for the purpose of propulsion of crafts i.e., to reach the fishing ground only.

The craft where in the power is utilized only for propulsion is called motorized fishing

craft and the same is followed in the study.

3.1.10 Middlemen
Acharya (2011) defined middlemen as those individuals or business concerns that

specialize in performing the various marketing functions and rendering such services

and are involved in marketing of goods.

In the present study, middlemen are the intermediaries performing different

marketing functions between fishermen and consumer in the marine fish marketing.

3.1.11 Marketing channel

According to Kalidas (2003), fish marketing channel is the path taken by the fish

from fishermen to the consumer through various market intermediaries.

Senthiladeban and Rajakumar (2004) defined marketing channel as a route

through which goods and services are moved from the place of production to the place

of consumption.

Armstrong et al. (2009) considered marketing channel as a set of interdependent

organization involved in the process of making a product available for use or

consumption by the consumer.

xxxii
 According to Badapanda (2012), different hands through which the product

passes through from the producer to the consumers for marketing is called marketing

channel.

In the present study, marketing channel refers to the pathway through which the

fish passes from fishermen to the ultimate consumer.

3.1.12 Auctioneer
According to Kalidas (2003), auctioneers were middlemen or his staff called

‘vattakaran’ who auction the catch and take a commission on the sale proceeds.

Badapanda (2012) defined auctioneers as persons who negotiate the sales

between the buyers and sellers and are rewarded with a fee for the services they

perform.

In this present study, auctioneer means a person who collects fishes from

fishermen, auction the catch and take a commission on the catch value usually 10 % in

the study area. Auctioneers provide credit to fishermen for boat maintenance and other

needs of fishing.

3.1.13 Wholesaler
Senthiladeban and Rajakumar (2004) highlighted the wholesalers as those who buy

commodities in bulk from the producers and sell them either to secondary wholesaler or

to retailer. However, they do not sell a significant amount to ultimate consumers.

Badapanda (2012) defined market intermediaries as those who sell fish to the

retailers and other petty merchants but not to the consumers. They take the risk of

finance to buy, store and distribute the product and are duly rewarded with good market

margin.

xxxiii
 In the present study, wholesalers are the personnel who collect fishes from landing

centre and sell them to secondary wholesalers on behalf of fishermen.

3.1.14 Retailer
Senthiladeban and Rajakumar (2004) explained that retailers provide linkage

between the wholesalers and the consumers. According to them, retailers were the

merchant middlemen whose main business is selling fishes directly to the consumers.

Badapanda (2012) defined retailer as last in the marketing channel from whom

goods are purchased by the consumers. Retail merchants buy in bulk from the

wholesalers and supply consumers as per their need.

In the present study, retailer is the one who purchase fishes from landing centre

and sell the fishes to consumers directly.

3.1.15 Fish Marketing

Salim et al. (2005) defined fish marketing as the scheme of strengthening of

infrastructure for fish marketing which aims at establishing cold storages, ice plants, fish

handling sheds, retail marketing outlets, etc; besides providing insulated vans for

transportation of fish and bi-cycles with insulated boxes for facilitating retail trade.

Lekhi and Singh (2011) defined marketing as activities involved in the creation of

place, form, time and possession utilities.

All the operations those are carried out to make available the products from the

landing centers right up to the point, till it reaches the consumption centers is included in

fish marketing (Badapanda, 2012).

In the present study, fish marketing covers all functions involved from the point of fish

catch to the final disposal to consumers.

xxxiv
3.1.16 Marketing cost
Jino (2006) defined marketing costs as the cost which include transportation charge

from wholesalers receive and the retailers receive of the consumers’ rupee for different

species/groups of marine fish.

Praveen Kumar Verma and Banafar (2013) said marketing cost is the cost involved

in the movement of products from the producer to the ultimate consumers.

In this study, marketing costs include cost of transport from the sea to the sea

shore and commission charge to auctioneer for auctioning the fish catch.

3.2. Design of the study

Designing a suitable methodology is very important for the meaningful analysis of

any economic problem. In this chapter, methods adopted in the selection of the

respondents, collection of data and the types of statistical analysis carried out are

presented.

3.2.1 Choice of the study area

Tharuvaikulan fishing village, Thoothukudi district, Tamil Nadu was selected as

the study area where the gillnet fishing was successfully adopted long period by

fishermen in marine capture fishing. Gillnet is passive gear and gillnet fishing method

was one of the eco-friendly methods in marine fishing. Gillnet fishing will help to

maintain the sustainable level in marine fishery resources. They operate mechanized

and motorized fishing crafts because of its profitability and economic feasibility.

3.2.2 Sampling procedure

Total sample size of the study was 120 which were distributed as 30 for SD

motorized, 30 for MD mototrised and 60 for MD mechanized sectors. The above stated

xxxv
samples were selected randomly for data collection. A survey schedule was designed

based on the objectives of the study and it was used for collection of data from the

fishermen. The fishermen were contacted individually and the objectives of the study

were explained to them before conducting the data collection to ensure their co-

operation. The collected data were tabulated and analysed using the appropriate

statistical tools.

3.2.3 Tools of analyses

[Link] Tabular analysis

Tabular analysis were used to analyze the general characteristics of the

fisherman and household characteristics such as age, education level, size of family,

income and experience in marine fishing. Percentage and frequency analyses were also

used in this study.

[Link] Functional analysis

[Link].1 Cost and returns of marine fishing

The analysis of the economic performance of fishing methods was assessed by

working out the fixed cost, operating cost, gross benefits and net returns per year. The

operating cost (OC) was thus calculated as follows:

Operating cost /year = Fuel cost + Food expenses + Ice cost + Transport cost +
Auction charge + Other expenses

The fixed cost (FC) was calculated as sum of depreciation of craft, gear and

engine, interest on capital cost, repairs and maintenance and insurance.

xxxvi
 The gross revenue is calculated from the species composition of the catch and

price per species. The gross revenue is estimated as follows:

where,

qi is the quantity of catch in kg of the ith variety

pi is the price per kg of fish of the ith variety

Net profit is the profit obtained after deducting operating expenses and fixed cost from

the gross income earned per year (Geetha et al., 2014).

[Link] Ratio Analysis

[Link].1 Fixed cost ratio

Fixed cost ratio is the proportion of fixed expenses in gross income of fishing

(Reddy et al., 2004).

[Link].2 Gross return ratio

Gross return ratio is the total cost of the fishing to the gross return (Reddy et al.,

2004).

[Link].3 Operating cost ratio

Operating cost ratio relates variable costs to gross income. The gross income of

a craft is the sum total of value by multiplying the quantities of different species/groups

with respective price (Aswathy et al., 2011).

xxxvii
[Link].4 Profit margin ratio

It is a closely related indicator of economic performance, which expresses the

net profit as a percentage to the total revenue. A ratio of more than 10% can be

considered as good business (Tietze et al., 2005).

[Link].4 Benefit cost ratio

If the benefit cost ratio is greater than 1, the fishing activity is profitable and if it is

exactly 1, it means the fishing is at breakeven, i.e., neither making profit nor loss. When

the ratio is less than 1, the project is operating at a loss.

xxxviii
[Link] Non-Parametric statistics tools

[Link].1 Garrett’s Ranking Technique

The garrett’s ranking technique was adopted to identify the production

constraints encountered by the fishermen. The respondents were asked to identify the

various constraints affecting the marine capture fishing and according to order of

severity rank given by them. Garrett‘s ranking technique provides the change of orders

into numerical scores. The prime advantage of this technique over simple frequency

distribution is that the reasons and factors are arranged based on their importance from

the point of view of respondents. The percent position of each rank was converted into

scores referring to the table given by Garrett and Woodworth (1969). Garrett‘s formula

for converting ranks into percent is given below:

where,

Rij= Rank given for ith factor by jth individual

Nj= Number of factors ranked by jth individual

For each factor or problem, the scores of the individual respondents were added

together and divided by the total number of respondents who gave scores called mean

scores. These mean scores for all the factors were arranged in descending order and

the most important factor was ranked first and the least important problem was ranked

as the last.

xxxix
Rank Based Quotient (RBQ)
Rank Based Quotient (RBQ) was used to quantify the marketing constraints

encountered by fishermen in marine fisheries. For calculating the Rank Based Quotient

(RBQ) given by Sabarathnam (1988), the following formula was used.

where,

Fi = Number of fishers reporting a particular problem under ith rank

N = Number of fishermen

n = Number of problems identified

Based on the mean scores, all the factors were arranged in descending order and

the most important factor was ranked first and the least important problem was ranked

as the last.

3.3 Description of the study area

An understanding of the study area would help to interpret the results of research

investigation. This chapter describes the study area as geographical location, profile of

marine fishing village, fishing activities and major infrastructure facilities for marine

fisheries.

3.3.1 Geographical location

Tharuvaikulam fishing village, Ottapidaram taluk, Tuticorin district is located in

the southern part of the Tamil Nadu. Coastal length of the Tharuvaikulam fishing village

has 6 km with a total area of 1,728 ha. It is located between the latitude 8°53'32.02”N

and longitude 78°10'14.50”E. Tharuvaikulam fishing village have Pattinamaruthur on

xl
north side, Vellapatti and Ayanarpuram on south side, Athimarapatti on west side and

sea on the east side as boundaries (Fig. 3.1)

3.3.2 Profile of Tharuvaikulam fishing village

Marine capture fisheries are the important livelihood to fisherfolk in the study

area. They are involved in capture fisheries, fish marketing, net mending and in

preparation of dry fishes. The fishing profile of the Tharuvaikulam fishing village is given

in table 3.1.

Table 3.1. Profile of Tharuvaikulam fishing village

Area (ha) 1,728

Fisherfolk population (nos.) 6,713
Female population (nos.) 3,112
Male population (nos.) 3,601
Literate (nos.) 5,288
Illiterate (nos.) 804
Total number of families 1,646
Christian families (nos.) 1,229
Hindu families (nos.) 415
Other families (nos.) 2
Total fishing gears (nos.) 175
Gillnet (nos.) 168
People Mechanized fishing 1,500
engaged in Motorized fishing 1,350
fishing and Fishing related activities 2,150
other activities Total 5,000
Source: Tamil Nadu Marine Fisherfolk Census, CMFRI (2010)

xli
3.3.3 Marine capture fishing activities
There are three types of fishing crafts operated in study area such as vathai

(small-motorized craft), motorized, and mechanized fishing crafts. Motorised fishing

crafts are engaged in Multi Day (MD) fishing and Single Day (SD) fishing. Mechanized

fishing crafts are largely used for MD fishing in the study area. Vathai is used only for

transport of fish catch from mechanized craft to landing centre or shore area. A total of

408 crafts including 108 mechanized and 300 non- mechanized crafts are operated in

the study area. Different types of fishing gears such as paru valai (gillnet), mural valai

(gillnet), kanava thondil (hook and line fishing), and nandu valai (crab net) are used in

the study area.

According to Tamil Nadu marine fisherfolk census data (2010), 175 fishing gears,

mostly gill nets are in operation at Tharuvaikulam fishing village. About 5,000 people are

engaged in fishing and related activities. For their livelihood, about 1,500, 1,350 and

2,150 fisherfolk are engaged in mechanized and motorized fishing and fishing related

activities.

3.3.4 Major infrastructure facilities

Tharuvaikulam fishing village has two auction halls for auctioning, of which one

auction hall is in use and another new one is yet to be declared open. Seven net

mending units for net repairing, two ice storage units, 12 ice crusher units and 15

modified motor cycles for diesel transportation are also found in the village.

xlii
 THARUVAIKULAM
FISHING VILLAGE

Fig 3.1. Map showing the study area

xliii
PLATE – 1 TYPES OF FISHING CRAFTS

A. Single Day Motorised Craft

B. Multi Day Motorised Craft

C. Multi Day Mechanised Craft

xliv
PLATE 2. TYPES OF FISHING GEAR

A. Nandu Valai

B. Mural Valai

C. Paru Valai

xlv
PLATE 3 INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES AT FISH LANDING CENTRE

A. Ice Plant B. Ice Crusher

C. Net Mending Hall D. Auction hall

xlvi
 V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the analyses of the data gathered from the fishermen at

Tharuvaikulam fishing village, Thoothukudi and inferences drawn are represented and

discussed in this chapter. The findings of the study are organized as follows:

Section 4.1 Socio- economic profile of fisherfolk

Section 4.2 Cost of and returns from the marine fishing

Section 4.3 Marketing aspects of marine fish

Section 4.4 Production and marketing related constraints of marine fishing

4.1 Socio-economic profile of fisherfolk

In fisheries sector, socio-economic status of fisherfolk plays a key role in fish

production activities. Socio-economic parameters such as age, fishing experience,

education, family size and income of the fishermen of three sectors such as SD

motorized, MD motorized and MD mechanized sectors are presented below.

4.1.1 Distribution of respondents by age

Age is one of the important socio-economic factors. A better understanding of the

role of age in determining levels of economic and social participation may be of great

importance when it comes to targeting intervention (Pandy and Upadayay, 2012). The

age composition of the respondents is given Table 4.1. Table 4.1 reveals that the

majority of the fishermen of SD motorized sector were middle aged (76.6%) followed by

young (19.9%) and old age (3.5%) groups. In MD motorized sector, most of the

fishermen were middle aged (53.5%) followed by young (29.9%) and old age (16.6%)

groups.
xlvii
 Table 4.1. Age composition of the fishermen
Mechanized
Motorized crafts
Age composition (years) crafts
SD fishing MD fishing MD fishing
Young (20-39) 6 (19.9) 8 (29.9) 38 (63.2)
Middle (40-59) 23 (76.6) 17 (53.5) 20 (33.5)
Old (above 60) 1 (3.5) 5 (16.6) 2 (3.3)
Total 30 (100) 30 (100) 60 (100)
(Figures in parentheses indicate percentage)
For MD mechanized sectors, the largest part of respondents were young aged

(63.2%) followed by middle (33.5%) and old age (3.3%) groups. It could be concluded

from the study that most of the middle age group fishermen were involved in motorized

sector when compared to mechanized sector. This finding is in line with the findings of

Sujathkumar (2000), Tyagi et al. (2007) and Sarma and Bose (2008).

4.1.2 Distribution of respondents by experience

An ounce of experience is better than a pound of knowledge. Experience of

fishermen plays an important role in the adoption of techniques and instrument

operation in marine fishing. Experience gives strength and confidence to face the risk

during fishing. Fishing experience of respondent is given in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 showed the fishing experience of fishermen. In the present study,

63.4% of fishermen had an experience of above 15 years followed by 20%, 13.3%,

3.3% in 11-15, 6-10 and below 5 years of fishing experience category in SD motorized

sectors, respectively (Table 4.2).

The similar observation was also found in MD motorized sectors where the
majority of the respondents (73.4%) had above 15 years of fishing experience.

xlviii
 Table 4.2. Fishing experience of fishermen
Motorized crafts Mechanized crafts
Fishing experience
SD fishing MD fishing MD fishing
below 5 1 (3.3) 0 (0) 1 (1.3)
6-10 4 (13.3) 3 (10.0) 9 (15.5)
11-15 6 (20.0) 5 (16.6) 10 (16.6)
above 15 19 (63.4) 22 (73.4) 40 (66.6)
Total 30 (100) 30 (100) 60 (100)
(Figures in parentheses indicate percentage)

About 26.6% of the respondents had less than 15 years of experience in fishing.

In multiday mechanized fishing sector, majority of the respondents had fishing

experience of above 15 years (66.6%). About 33.4% fishermen had less than 15 years

of fishing experience. It could be concluded from the study that most of the fishermen of

the three sectors had more than 15 years of experience in marine fishing. This

observation is in line with the conclusion of Kiron (1992), Sujathkumar (2000) and Arul

Oli (2004) who reported that most of the fishermen had more than 10 years of

experience in fishing.

4.1.3. Distribution of respondents by education

Education is an important socio-economic factor, which has a bearing with

understanding and adopting the new technologies in capture fisheries and sustainable

fishery management (Pandy and Upadayay, 2012). The educational status of fishermen

in the study area is given in Table 4.3.


xlix
 Table 4.3. Educational status of the fishermen
Motorized crafts Mechanized crafts
Educational level
SD fishing MD fishing MD fishing
Illiterate 10 (33.4) 9 (30.1) 9 (15.0)
Primary 19 (63.6) 20 (66.6) 40 (66.6)
Middle school 1 (3.0) 1 (3.3) 8 (13.4)
High school 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (5.0)
Higher secondary 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Degree 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
Total 30 (100) 30 (100) 60 (100)
(Figures in parentheses indicate percentage)

From the Table 4.3, it is clear that, in SD motorized sector 63.6% of fishermen

had education upto primary level and 33.4% of the respondents were illiterate. Further

3.0 % of the respondents were found to have education upto middle school. None of the

respondents reported high school, higher secondary and degree education in SD

motorized sector. In case of MD motorized and MD mechanized sector, 66.6% of

fishermen had education upto primary school. 3.3% of MD motorized sector and 13.4%

of MD mechanized sector fishermen were found to have middle school education.

Further, 5% of MD mechanized sector fishermen had high school education. In MD

mechanized sector none of the respondents reported higher secondary and degree

level education and the same could be observed in MD motorized sector also.

Additionally, none of the respondents reported high school education in MD motorised

sector. This finding is in line with the findings of Deepthi Ande, (2011). It showed that

most of the respondents had primary level education due to easy accessibility to

primary school in the study area.

l
4.1.4 Distribution of respondents by family size

The size of the family has a direct influence on the expenditure and income

patterns of the family. As marine fishing is a labour intensive activity, family size

influences the fish production. The family size of the fishermen is discussed below and

presented in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4. Family size of the fishermen

Family Size Motorized crafts Mechanized crafts

(members) SD fishing MD fishing MD fishing
low (1-3) 0 (0) 1(3.4) 2(3.3)
medium (4-5) 8 (26.6) 15(50.0) 26(43.3)
large (above 5) 22(73.4) 14(46.6) 32(53.4)
Total 30 (100) 30 (100) 60 (100)
(Figures in parentheses indicate percentage)
It could be observed from the table that the SD motorized sector fishermen had

large family (73.4%) followed by medium family size (26.6%). In MD motorized sector,

50% of the fishermen were found to be in medium size family. The rest of the fishermen

were in large (46.6%) and small family size (3.3%). The corresponding values for MD

mechanised sector was 53.4%, 43.3%, and 3.4% for large, medium and small family

size, respectively. The present study revealed that majority of the fishermen family had

more than five members.

li
4.1.5 Distribution of respondents by income

Income plays a pivotal role in the economic status of the fishermen family. Table

4.5 showed the income details of the fishermen in the study area.

Table 4.5. Income of the fishermen

Mechanized
Motorized crafts
Income (`) crafts
SD fishing MD fishing MD fishing
Low (<50,000) 24 (80.0) 0 (0) 1 (1.6)
Medium (50,001-1,00,000) 5 (16.6) 27 (90.0) 2 (3.4)
High (>1,00,000) 1 (3.4) 3 (10.0) 57 (95)
Total 30 (100) 30 (100) 60 (100)
(Figures in parentheses indicate percentage)

Table 4.5 revealed that in SD motorized sector, majority of the fishermen (80%)

was earning an income of less than ` 50,000 per year followed by 16.6% earning upto `

1.00 lakh per year. Only 3.4% of the fishermen were earning above ` 1.00 lakh. This

observation is in the line with the conclusion of Deepthi Ande, 2011. In MD motorized

sector, most of the respondents (90.0%) were earning an income ranging from ` 0.50 to

1.00 lakh, followed by 10% who were earning above ` 1.00 lakh. About 95% of the

respondents were within the high level income group and 3.4% under medium level

income group in MD mechanized sector. Only 1.6% of the fishermen were earning low

income. Amutha and Rathi (2012) revealed that 70% of the fishermen earned from upto

` 4000 due to the operation of small size motorized crafts in the study area. The

present study showed that SD motorized, MD motorized and MD mechanized sectors

earned low, medium and high income in marine fishing, respectively.

4.2 Cost of and returns from marine fishing

lii
 The economic performance plays a crucial role in the investment decisions at

micro-level. The economic performance of marine fishing operations is affected by

various factors viz., diminishing catch per unit of effort, fluctuations in revenue, and

unforeseen increase in the cost of key inputs as well as catch and effort restrictions. For

judicious exploitation of resources and for formulating proper fishery policies, it is

imperative to study the comparative economics of various types of fishing units engaged

in fishing. In this context, the present study compares the economic efficiency of SD

motorised, MD motorised and MD mechanized sectors. The study analyses the viability

of various fishing units of Tharuvaikulam fishing village using different economic and

financial indicators.

4.2.1 Key factors in marine fishing

[Link] Time of leaving and return for fishing

The time of leaving is one of the key factors which influence marine

fishing. In case of SD motorized sector, the time of leaving and return for fishing lie

between 2.00 am to 12.00 noon on the same day. Fishermen of MD motorized and MD

mechanized sectors went for fishing between 8.00 and 11.00 am and return before

12.00 noon after an interval of 6 to 8 days of fishing. The active auctioning time was

observed from 9.00 am to 12.00 noon every day in the village.

[Link] Distance to the fishing ground

The distance to the fishing ground is a vital factor disturbing the economics of

operations of a vessel and varies with the type of crafts and resources exploited. SD

motorised fishing vessels were generally operated within 30 miles from the shore. The

liii
MD motorised and MD mechanized fishing crafts ventured on an average of 60 miles

from the shore.

[Link] Crew strength

The type of fishing craft and operation decides the manpower of a vessel. The

crew strength is a key factor of production. Except mechanized crafts which use

mechanical power (winches) to shoot and haul the net, all other types of fishing units

depend on human power for the operation of gears. The average crew strength for SD

motorized, MD motorised and MD mechanised sectors were 4, 6 to 8 and 8 to10

members, respectively (Table 4.6).

Table 4.6. Fishing details

Mechanized
Motorized crafts
Factors crafts
SD fishing MD fishing MD fishing
Size of crew (no.) 4 7 10
Crew share (ratio) -- 50:50 50:50
Average no. of fishing trip (no./month) 15-20 3-4 3-4
Time to reach the fishing ground (hrs) 2 -3 6-8 8-10
Distance of fishing ground ( miles) 10 60 60
Crab net,
Type of gears used Gill net, Gill net,
Squid hook
Mural net Mural net
line

[Link] Duration of fishing trips

The number of days per fishing trip has a bearing over the average number of

fishing days per year. The SD motorised sector usually had daily fishing operations

whereas MD motorized and MD mechanized sectors had multiday fishing operation and

fishing days per trip varied from of 6 to10.

[Link] Fishing gear

liv
 The gears like mural valai, nandu valai, kanava thondil and paru valai were used

for marine capture fishing in the study area. While mural valai and paru valai were used

by MD motorised and MD mechanized sectors, nandu valai, kanava thondil and mural

valai were used by SD motorised sector .

[Link] Crew share

The crew share for MD motorized and MD mechanized sectors was decided

based on mutual understanding between owner and labour in marine fishing. In the

study area, crew share ratio was 50:50 which means 50 % for owner and 50% for

labour from the catch value after covering the operating cost. Datta and Dan (1992)

recorded that the sharing ratio was 45:55 between boat owner and labours in marine

fishing. In case of SD motorized fishing sector, labour cost was `500 per day and it is

called as batta in marine fishing. Geetha et al. (2014) reported that the owner and crew

share was 60 & 40% for MD gillnetter at Chennai.

[Link] Fishing trips per month

Fishing trips for SD motorized fishing sector varied from 15 to 20 per month.

Further, for MD motorized and MD mechanized sectors was 3 to 4 fishing trips due to

variation of fishing days per trip as mentioned earlier in the study area.

4.2.2 Capital investment

The capital investment of a fishing unit varied with size of craft, type of engine

and the numbers and pieces of gear owned. Most of the fishing units in operation were

old. There was considerable cost difference in the initial investment of old and new

units. The capital investment details of different fishing craft categories are shown in

Table 4.7.

Table 4.7. Estimation of capital cost

lv
 (` in lakhs)
Items Motorized crafts Mechanized crafts
Overall
SD fishing MD fishing MD fishing
Craft 2.70±1.59 5.56±4.25 16.18±0.94 20.31±11.62
Original 0.50-7.00 2.00-15.00 7.00-50.00 2.00-51.00
cost 58.8 76.5 58.4 57.2
Present 1.25 ±0.77 3.05±2.84 8.61±6.82 10.76±8.21
worth 0.20-3.00 0.10-11.00 0.50-30.00 0.60-35.70
61.7 93.3 79.2 76.3
Gear 0.77±0.53 3.06±2.51 9.18±5.36 11.09±5.98
Original 0.35-2.40 0.30-10.00 1.00-20.00 1.00-32.90
cost 69.1 82.3 58.2 53.3
0.14±0.13 1.03±1.40 1.72±9.68 2.31±0.25
Present
0.30-0.50 0.01-5.00 0.52-5.00 0.25-8.20
worth
72.2 81.3 56.1 63.4
Engine 1.01±0.39 1.00±0.32 0.53±0.42 2.65±1.09
Original 0.50-2.50 0.10-3.00 0.10-2.00 1.09-1.30
cost 38.2 91.3 80.4 41.5
0.17±0.12 0.42±0.59 0.07±0.12 0.69±0.63
Present
0.07-0.80 0.05-2.00 0.07-0.50 0.12-0.50
worth
71.8 82.3 63.2 91.3
(The values in first, second and third rows indicate mean and S.D, range and C.V in
percentage, respectively)
The overall mean Original Cost (OC) of crafts was estimated at ` 20.31 lakhs

with the Co-efficient of Variance (C.V) of 57.2% (Table 4.7). The mean OC of fishing

crafts varied from ` 2.00 to ` 51.00 lakhs. The mean OC for SD motorized, MD

motorized and MD mechanized sectors were ` 2.70, ` 5.56 and ` 16.18 lakhs,

respectively. The overall mean present worth (PW) for fishing crafts was estimated at `

10.76 lakhs with the co-efficient of variance of 76.3%. The overall mean PW of fishing

lvi
crafts varied from ` 0.60 to ` 35.70 lakhs. The mean PW of SD motorized, MD

motorised and MD mechanized sectors were ` 1.25 ` 3.05 and `8.61 lakhs,

respectively. It was found that average OC (S.D - ` 0.94 and C.V- 58.4%) and PW (S.D-

` 6.82 and C.V- 79.2%) was higher for MD mechanized crafts. Senthiladeban et al.

(2015) recorded that the mean investment cost per craft was estimated as ` 1,35,622

varying from ` 60,000 to ` 2,50,000 with the C.V of 45.7% for vallam category. The

average initial investment worked out from 20.00 to 25.00 lakhs for a MD gillnetter

(Geetha et al., 2014). Similarly, the present study replicated the same findings with a

huge investment for MD mechanized sectors.

The overall mean OC of fishing gears was computed at ` 11.09 lakhs with the

C.V of 53.3%. The mean OC of fishing gear varied from ` 1.00 to ` 32.90 lakhs. The

mean OC of fishing gear for SD motorized, MD motorised and MD mechanized crafts

were as ` 0.77, ` 3.06 and ` 9.18 lakhs, respectively. The mean PW of fishing gears

was estimated at ` 2.31 lakhs with the C.V of 63.4%. The mean level present worth of

fishing gear was varied from `0.25 to ` 8.20 lakhs with an overall mean value of 2.31

lakhs and C.V of 63.4%. The mean calculated PW of fishing gear for SD motorised, MD

motorised and MD mechanized sectors were ` 0.14, ` 1.03 and `1.72 lakhs,

respectively. It was found that average OC and PW of fishing gear was highest for

mechanized sector (OC: S.D- ` 5.36 and C.V-58.2; PW: S.D- ` 9.68 and C.V-56.1).

The overall mean OC of engine used by fishermen was estimated at ` 2.65 lakhs

with the C.V of 41.5%. The mean OC of engine varied from ` 1.09 to ` 1.30 lakhs. The

mean OC of engine used by SD motorised, MD motorised and MD mechanized sectors

lvii
were worked out ` 1.0, ` 1.00 and ` 0.53 lakhs, respectively with an overall mean PW of

` 0.69 lakhs and C.V of 91.3%. The mean PW of engine varied from ` 0.12 to ` 0.50

lakhs. The estimated mean PW of engines for SD motorised, MD motorised and MD

mechanized sectors were found as ` 0.17, ` 0.42 and ` 0.07 lakhs, respectively. It was

found that average OC and PW of engine was higher for MD motorised sector when

compared to the remaining two sectors due to replacement with advanced engine for

marine fishing. Aswathy et al. (2011) reported that the initial investment was found to be

lower for gillnetters when compared to trawlers as the fishermen were using old lorry

engines. The overall capital investment was highest for MD mechanized sector in

marine fishing of the study area.

4.2.3 Fixed cost

Depreciation of the fishing unit, interest for capital cost, repairs and maintenance

and insurance per year constitute the fixed cost. Depreciation was worked out on the

basis of the expected life of the fishing boat and accessories and interest was

calculated at the rate of 7.50% per annum. The fixed cost details of different fishing craft

categories are shown in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8. Estimation of fixed cost

(in ` / year)
Items Motorized crafts Mechanized Overall
lviii
 crafts
SD fishing MD fishing MD fishing
41922±23295 60575±38821 179625±270907 231883±272791
Depreciation
of fishing 10000-100000 18000-166666 50000-1466667 10000-1466667
craft 55.1 64.4 62.3 68.8
82519±71767 156116±122971 398180±334011 521476±363730
Depreciation
of fishing 20000-320000 14500-500000 60000-1500000 20000-1600000
gear 86.5 78.1 83.2 69.2
12753±11373 19733±14451 21886±8591 38955±22621
Depreciation 1571-45000 1250-59000 2500-55000 8600-111500
of engine
89.1 73.2 39.5 58.2
58287±23042 119019±70274 342946±137940 431600±184177
Interest on 14300-126100 25350-253500 85800-702000 153400-908700
capital cost
39.7 59 40.3 42
7296±3138 143833±51580 195600±425842 245281±325456
Repairs and
maintenance 2000-13000 36000-200000 100000-300000 100000-612500
cost 43.4 58.2 36.5 62
343±510 433±568 1625±631 2013±1043

Insurance 0-2000 0-2000 1000-3200 1000-6000

76.1 78.9 38.6 51.3
(The values in first, second and third rows indicate mean and S.D, range and C.V in
percentage, respectively)
It was revealed that the overall annual average depreciation for fishing crafts was

worked out at ` 2,31,883 ranging from ` 10,000 to `14,66,667 with the C.V of 68.2%.

The annual mean depreciation value of SD motorised, MD motorised and MD

mechanized crafts showed ` 41,922, ` 60,575 and `1,79,625, respectively. It was found

that annual average depreciation value of fishing crafts was higher for MD mechanized

sector (S.D- ` 2,70,904, and C.V - 62.3%) in the study area.

lix
 The overall annual average depreciation of fishing gears was computed as

`5,21,476 ranging from `20,000 to ` 16,00,000 with the C.V of 69.2%. For the fishing

gears, the calculated annual mean depreciation value for SD motorised, MD motorised

and MD mechanized sectors were ` 82,519, ` 1,56,116 and ` 3,98,180, respectively. It

was found that annual mean depreciation value of fishing gear was highest for MD

mechanized sector (S.D- ` 3,34,011 and C.V - 83.2 %) in marine fishing.

The overall mean annual depreciation value of engine was worked out to `

38,955 with a range from ` 8,600 to ` 1,11,500 with the C.V of 58.2%. The mean annual

depreciation values of engine for SD motorised, MD motorised and MD mechanized

sectors were ` 12,753, ` 19,733 and ` 21,886, respectively. The present study revealed

that mean annual depreciation value of engine was highest for MD mechanized sector

(S.D - ` 8,591 and C.V-39.5).

The overall mean annual interest on capital cost was estimated as ` 4,31,600

ranging from ` 1,53,400 to ` 9,08,700 with the C.V of 42.0%. The mean annual value of

interest on capital cost for SD motorized, MD motorized and MD mechanized sectors

were `58,287, ` 1,19,019 and ` 3,42,946, respectively. It could be found that mean

annual interest on capital cost in marine fishing was highest for mechanized sector

(S.D- ` 1,37,940 and C.V-40.3 %) in the study area.

The mean annual repairs and maintenance cost of SD motorsied, MD motorised

and MD mechanized sectors were ` 7,296, ` 1,43,833 and `1,95,600,respectively. The

result showed that annual mean repairs and maintenance cost for marine capture

lx
fishing in the study area was highest for MD mechanized sectors (S.D - ` 4,25,842 and

C.V-36.5 %).

The overall mean annual insurance cost was estimated at ` 2,013 ranging from `

1,000 to ` 6,000 with the C.V of 51.3%. The mean annual insurance values for SD

motorised, MD motorised, and MD mechanized sectors were ` 343, ` 433 and ` 1,625,

respectively. It could be inferred that average annual insurance was highest for MD

mechanized sector with the S.D of ` 631 and C.V of 38.6 %.

4.2.4 Variable cost

The day to day expenses incurred for the operation of the boat is termed as

operating expenses or variable costs. The expenses on fuel, wages, food, ice, transport

and auctioning of fishes were the major components of variable cost. The variable cost

for marine fishing is given in Table 4.9.

The overall mean fuel cost per year was estimated at ` 9.89 lakhs with the C.V of

51.3% (Table 4.9). The overall mean fuel cost per year varied from ` 3.30 to ` 18.15

lakhs. The annual mean fuel cost for SD motorised, MD motorised and MD mechanized

sectors were ` 3.57, ` 4.84 and ` 5.67 lakhs, respectively. It was found that the average

annual fuel cost was highest for MD mechanized sector with the S.D of ` 1.44 lakhs and

C.V of 25.3% due to the intense usage of engine power for shooting the net during

fishing.

Table 4.9. Estimation of variable cost

( lakhs / year)
Mechanized
Items Motorized crafts
crafts Overall
SD fishing MD fishing MD fishing
lxi
 3.57±1.34 4.84±1.54 5.67±1.44 9.89±5.13
Fuel cost
2.01-6.00 2.03-7.95 3.08-8.82 3.30-18.15
37.1 31.0 25.3 51.3
Food 1.46±0.45 2.91±3.58 3.64±3.5
expenses Nil 0.72-2.40 0.63-29.40 0.94-29.40
30.0 98.2 97.2
0.70±0.34 1.29±0.44 1.64±0.60
Ice cost Nil 0.36-1.44 0.52-2.62 0.63-3.54
48.1 34.3 36.3
2.05±1.11 4.36±7.12 5.39±7.07
Transport
Nil 0.48-4.80 0.63-5.25 1.26-5.25
cost
54.4 58.0 63.0
1.89±0.44 6.87±2.22 9.07±2.24 14.35±6.63
Auction
1.10-2.95 5.01-12.58 4.49-15.65 5.01-24.30
charge
23.0 25.0 24.0 46.7
0.77±0.45 0.22±0.09 0.41±0.17 0.91±0.65
Other
0.24-1.56 0.10-0.48 0.12-1.05 0.18-2.44
expenditure
58.0 40.0 43.0 72.0
(The values in first, second and third rows indicate mean and S.D, range and C.V in
percentage, respectively)
The overall mean annual food expense in marine fishing was estimated at ` 3.64

lakhs with the C.V of 97.2%. The annual mean expenditure towards food during fishing

ranged from ` 0.94 to ` 29.40 lakhs. The mean yearly food expenditure for MD

motorised and MD mechanized sectors was estimated at `1.46 and ` 2.91 lakhs. For

SD motorised sector, no expenses towards food was incurred due to single day fishing.

Fishing duration was less for SD fishing when compared to MD motorised and MD

mechanized sector. It could be inferred from the table that the mean yearly food

expenditure was highest for MD mechanized sectors (gillnetters) (mean- ` 2.91, S.D-

`3.58 lakhs and C.V- 98.2%) due to the requirement of large crew size for fishing in the

study area.

lxii
 The overall mean yearly ice cost for fishing was estimated at ` 1.64 lakhs with

the C.V of 36.3%. The mean ice cost per year during fishing ranged from ` 0.63 to `

3.54 lakhs. It could be inferred from the table that the mean yearly expenditure for ice

was highest for MD mechanized sector.

The overall mean yearly transport cost in marine fishing was estimated at `5.39

lakhs with the C.V of 63%. The mean yearly transport cost of marine fishing varied from

` 1.26 to ` 5.39 lakhs. It was found that yearly transport cost was higher for MD

mechanized sector in marine fishing (mean- ` 4.36 lakhs, S.D- ` 7.12 lakhs and C.V-

58.3%). In case of MD motorised sector, fewer crafts had transportation cost. The

transport cost for SD motorised sector was not reported as they could reach the shore

directly.

The overall mean yearly auction charge paid by the fishermen was estimated at `

14.35 lakhs with the C.V of 46.7%. The mean yearly auction charge paid by fishermen

varied from ` 5.01 to ` 24.30 lakhs and it was highest for MD mechanized sector

(mean- ` 9.07 lakhs, S.D-` 2.24 lakhs and C.V-24%). In the study area, auction fee

was charged 10% to the gross returns of the fishing and that too for local money lenders

called vattakarar from whom the fishermen availed loan.

The overall mean yearly other expenditure during fishing was estimated at `0.91

lakh with the C.V of 72%. The mean yearly other expenditure during fishing varied from

` 0.18 to ` 2.44 lakhs. It could be inferred that the mean yearly other expenditure was

highest for MD mechanized sector (mean- ` 0.41 lakhs, S.D- ` 0.17 lakhs and C.V-

43%) in the study area.

lxiii
4.2.5 Total cost
The overall annual mean value of total fixed cost was worked out as ` 14.57

lakhs ranging from ` 2.87 to ` 36.65 lakhs with the C.V of 47%. It was found that the

mean annual total fixed cost was on the higher side for MD mechanised sector (mean- `

10.87 lakhs, S.D- ` 5.02 lakhs and C.V- 46%).

The overall annual mean total variable cost for marine fishing was estimated at

`29.22 lakhs with the C.V of 39.3% ranging from ` 13.70 to ` 75.77 lakhs. Geetha et al.,

2014 stated that the average operating cost per kg of fish of the MD gillnetter was

worked out to 36.7 lakhs. In the same line, present study revealed that highest annual

average total variable cost was observed for MD mechanized (gillnetter) sector.

Senthiladeban et al. (2015) recorded that the mean total variable cost was calculated as

` 2,11,161 per year for vallam category.

The overall mean total cost per year was calculated as ` 41.17 lakhs ranging

from ` 20.96 to ` 85.23 lakhs with the C.V of 31%. It could be inferred from the table

that the mean yearly total costs was correspondingly higher for MD mechanized sector

than other sectors.

Table 4.10. Estimation of total cost

` in lakh /year
Mechanized
Items Motorized crafts Overall
crafts
SD fishing MD fishing MD fishing
Total fixed cost 1.94±0.99 5.44±4.97 10.87±5.02 14.57±6.91

lxiv
 0.05-4.80 1.34-29.53 2.87-27.93 2.87-36.65
51 91 46 47
5.53±1.33 5.63±4.97 23.74±9.70 29.22±11.67
Total variable
3.59-8.48 1.34-29.53 0.99-75.77 13.70-75.77
cost
24 91 40 39.3
7.47±1.78 10.88±9.94 34.62±10.75 41.17±12.96
Total cost 4.87-11.61 1.09-59.07 20.96-85.23 20.96-85.23
23 10 31 31
17.18±4.05 15.37±22.09 89.06±24.49 140.34±68.02
Total returns
11.19-
(excluding crew 9.90-26.58 45.14-127.49 11.19-271.93
156.58
wage)
23 25 27 48.2
7.27±5.39 39.77±11.92 28.05±10.20 51.58±31.10
Net returns 2.99-19.02 12.55-61.70 9.98-60.46 9.98-112.20
74 29 36 60
(The values in first, second and third rows indicate mean and S.D, range and C.V in
percentage, respectively)
The overall mean yearly total return from marine fishing was estimated at `140.3

lakhs with the C.V of 48.2%. The mean yearly total return varied from ` 11.19 to `

271.93 lakhs. The gross revenue realized per day for the MD gillnetter was worked out

at ` 25,045 (Geetha et al., 2014). Senthiladeban et al. (2015) reported that the mean

annual gross income for vallam category was computed as ` 2,60,356 for which the C.V

was estimated as 17.19%. Correspondingly, in the present study the mean annual gross

income for MD motorised sector was calculated as ` 15.37 lakhs.

The overall mean yearly net return from fishing was found to be ` 51.58 lakhs

with the C.V of 60%. The mean yearly net returns and total cost for fishing in the study

lxv
area for MD motorised sector was comparatively higher (mean- ` 39.77 lakhs, S.D- `

11.92 lakhs and C.V-29%). Similarly, Geetha et al. (2014) recorded that the net

operating income per fishing day of multiday gillnetter was higher (` 7,288).

In the present study, crew wage was dealt separately since it was estimated only

after calculating the gross returns of the marine fishing. The overall mean yearly crew

wage in fishing was computed as ` 23.97 lakhs with the C.V of 17.4%. The mean

yearly crew wages in fishing for MD motorized and MD mechanized sectors were `

19.88 and ` 14.02 lakhs with the C.V of 33.4% and 27.4% respectively.

Fig.4.1. Distribution of fixed cost for SD motorised sector

lxvi
 Fig.4.2. Distribution of fixed cost for MD motorised sector

Fig.4.3. Distribution of fixed cost for MD mechanised sector

Fig.4.4. Variable cost for SD motorised sector

lxvii
Fig.4.5. Variable cost for MD motorised sector

Fig.4.6. Variable cost for MD mechanised sector

Fig. 4.7. Total cost for craft sectors

lxviii
4.2.6 Percentage distribution of cost in marine fishing

The percentage distribution of various costs for three sectors is depicted in Fig

4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. The results revealed that the depreciation was the single largest item

of fixed cost accounting to 52% in SD motorized sector. The other items include costs of

repairs and maintenance (27%) and interest on capital cost (21%).

Depreciation cost of craft, gear and engine occupied the largest share of fixed

cost (42%) followed by repairs and maintenance (36%) and interest on capital cost

(22%) in MD motorised sector (Fig 4.2).

In case of MD mechanized sector, depreciation on gear shared more (58%)

followed by interest on capital cost (30 %). Very few fishermen attempted to insure their

assets in this sector (Fig 4.3).

The distribution of various items of SD motorised, and MD mechanized sector is

given in Fig 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6. It was observed that, among the components of variable

cost auction charge contributed 46 % of the total in MD motorised sector. Further, other

expenditures of fishing contributed to 1 % in estimation of variable cost in this sector.

Fig.4.4 showed the details of variable cost for SD motorised sector for SD

motorised sector. Expenditure on fuel occupied the major share (57%) followed by

auction charge (30%) and other expenditure (13%). Further, expenses on transport, ice

and food had limited share in variable cost of SD motorised sector.

The percentage of variable costs for MD motorised sector is given in fig.4.10. It

explained that, among the components of variable cost of fishing, crew share which

contributed 46% of the total variable cost as the highest for MD motorised sector.
lxix
 The portion of auction charge was 46% followed by fuel consumption (29%) and

food expenditure (15%), in MD motorised sector. The other items contributed transport

cost and other expenditure which shared only 2% of the total variable cost.

Fig 4.6 showed that the overall percentage details of SD motorised, MD

motorised and MD mechanised sectors in which the variable cost contributed more to

the total cost for three sectors accounting to 74%, 51.0% and 68.5%, respectively.

4.2.7. Ratio analysis

Ratio analyses provide information to decide on whether the existing cost

of marine fishing are higher or lower. These ratios indicated proportion of gross benefit

is used to meet different types of expenditures in fishing (Subba Reddy et al., 2004).

Table 4.11. Ratio analysis in marine fishing

SD motorised MD motorised MD mechanized
Ratios
sector sector sector
Operating cost ratio (%) 32.1 24.2 26.1
Fixed cost ratio (%) 11.3 6.9 11.9
Productivity ratio (%) 43.4 31.2 38.1
Profit margin (%) 42.3 46.5 50.0
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.29 2.72 2.63

The operating cost ratio for SD motorised, MD motorised and MD mechanized

sectors were worked out as 32.1%, 24.2% and 26.1%, respectively, indicated that the

operating cost ratio was higher for SD motorised sector when compared to other

sectors. The results of Geetha et al. (2014) revealed that 70% of the gross income was

spent towards operating expenses by MD gillnetter. Similarly, Kamal Kumar Datta and

Dan (1992) reported that in the mechanized sector (Gillnetter) operating cost ratio was

calculated as 39% to the gross income.

lxx
 Fixed cost ratio gave the proportion of fixed expenses to the gross benefits of

fishing operation. The ratio for SD motorised, MD motorised and MD mechanisd sectors

was worked out as 11.3%, 6.9% and 11.9%, respectively. Geetha et al. (2014) stated

that for every one rupee earnings 2.6% was shared by fixed expenses of the gillnetter.

Aswathy et al. (2011) revealed that the financial analysis showed better performance

with a higher return on investment (167%) for SD gillnetters.

The financial performance was measured by profitability of marine fishing. A level

of 10% was generally considered to be a good result. The net profit expressed as a

percentage of the invested capital, indicated the profitability of the investment in relation

to other alternative investments (Tietze et al., 2005). In the present study, profitability of

SD motorised, MD motorised and MD mechanized sectors was worked out as 43.4%,

31.2% and 38.1%, respectively. Geetha et al. (2014) estimated 73.6% as profit margin

ratio for gillnetter.

If BCR was greater than 1, the project is profitable. BCR for SD motorised, MD

motorised and MD mechanized sectors were estimated at 2.29, 2.72 and 2.63,

respectively. It was found that all the three sectors in the study area adopted gillnet

fishing method with profitability. MD gillnetters were found to be more efficient as

indicated by different criteria of economic viability and gill net fishing leads to

sustainable fishing when compared to trawlers (Geetha et al., 2014).

The present study suggested that SD motorised, MD motorised and MD

mechanized sectors (gillnetter) are economically and financially viable and generate

sufficient revenue to cover the cost of depreciation, interest on capital cost and thus
lxxi
generate sufficient funds for reinvestment. Aswathy et al. (2011) also reported the

same. The gill net fishing with outboard engine was found to be profitable in marine

fishing according to Sehara and Karbbar (1982).

4.3 Marketing aspects of marine fish

All the activities involved in the creation of place, form, time and possession

utilities are called as fish marketing. An efficient marketing system is the one capable of

moving goods from producer to consumer at the lowest cost consistent with the

provision of the services that the consumer demand (Sathiadhas, 1997). Almost 70% of

the fish landed at different fishing harbours and fish landing centers’ in the country is

marketed afresh in and around the landing centers’ and the rest either goes to

neighboring states or is exported (CMFRI, 2010). The domestic fish marketing system

in India is neither efficient nor modern and is mainly carried out by private traders with a

large number of intermediaries between producers and consumers (FAO, 2001).

4.3.1 Marketing aspects of marine fish in the study area

The study area was found to be one of the major fish landing centres in

Thoothukudi district. The fish varieties in the landing centre of the study area were

mostly used for export especially tuna fishes. This landing centre had intermediaries like

auctioneers, wholesalers, retailers and agents of exporters. The three main marketing

channels observed in the study area is given in Fig 4.8.

4.3.2 Marketing cost of marine fishing

The percentage distribution of marketing cost to the total cost of fishing in the

study area is depicted in Fig 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11.

I II III

lxxii
 Fig 4.8. Fish marketing channel – Tharuvaikulam

Fig 4.9. Marketing cost contribution in total costs (SD)

Motorised sector

lxxiii
 Fig 4.10. Marketing cost contribution in total costs - MD
Motorised

Fig 4.11. Marketing cost contribution in total costs - MD

Mechanised

In case of MD motorised sector, total marketing cost shared more to the total

cost (TC) of fishing (32%) when compared to SD motorised (20%) and MD mechanized

sectors (28%) in the study area. Similarly, Kamal Kumar Datta and Dan (1992) reported

that the operating cost ratio in mechanized sector (Gillnetter) was calculated as 39% of

the gross income.

Table 4.12. Marketing cost of marine fishing per year

Marketing aspects Mechanized

Motorized fishing crafts
crafts
lxxiv
 SD fishing MD fishing MD fishing
Transportation costs (`) 0 3,06,000 4,36,625
Commission charges (`) 1,90,920 8,67,539 9,07,405
Net returns(without marketing costs) (`) 9,18,467 41,81,213 22,51,436

Transportation costs for fishermen of MD motorized and MD mechanized sector

were ` 3,06,000 and ` 4,36,625 per year, respectively. For SD motorized sector no

transportation costs was incurred as they reach shore area directly. Commission

charges for auctioning fish catch of SD motorized, MD motorized and MD mechanized

sectors were ` 1,90,920, ` 8,67,539 and ` 9,07,405 per year. Aswathy et al. (2014)

recorded auction charges with a variation from 1% to 5% depending on the amount of

loan availed by fishermen from money lenders. However, in the study area, the auction

charges were fixed as 10% of the gross return or catch value irrespective of the amount

availed as loan from money lenders.

The total marketing cost included both transportation cost and commission

charges in fish marketing. The net price received by the fishermen consisted of the

landing price after deducting the auction charges. In the study area, money lenders had

the rights to auction the fishes if they availed credit. Unfortunately, except very few

fishermen borrowed money from the money lenders. Due to the reasons of immediate

availability of loan without any collateral, fishermen inclined towards these agents for

instance support. This leads to involvement of auctioneer in marine fish marketing in the

study area. Institutional finance for production and marketing will protect the fishermen

from the clutches of money lenders and other intermediaries (Vipin Kumar et al., 2013).

Consequently, they have rights to do own auction without any auction charge. The

lxxv
similar statement was reported in the earlier studies entitling marketing costs, margins

and efficiency of domestic marine fish marketing in Kerala conducted by Aswathy et al.

(2014). Ganesh Kumar et al. (2008) suggested that every fish merchant has to get a

license to conduct business by paying an annual fee. All the fish commission agents

and wholesaler-cum-retailers are to be registered with the directorate of fisheries of the

state. A number of organizations and policies related to promotion of fish marketing in

the country need to formulate a uniform market policy for fishes.

4.4 Production and marketing constraints of marine fishing

The fishermen of SD motorized, MD motorized and MD mechanized sectors face

multidimensional problems from point of capture to point of the marketing the fish.

4.4.1 Production constraints

Production constraint was analyzed for three sectors such as SD motorized, MD

motorized and MD mechanized by using Garratt’s ranking technique (Table 4.13). In the

present study, as many as eleven marketing constraints were considered that would

affect the fishermen namely lack of crew, low subsidy for fishing gear/ accessories,

declining fish catch, depleted resources, harassment by navy, high investment cost,

conflicts among fishermen category, seasonal variation, high risk involved, high fuel

cost and lack of adequate ice. Garrett’s technique was applied to rank the constraints

faced by the fishermen during fishing.

lxxvi
 The results revealed that lack of crew was the first immense constraint faced by

the fishermen among three sectors in the study area. The second and third place was

assigned to the problem of low subsidy for gear/accessories and the declining fish catch

with the mean score of 66.9 and 64.8 and 69.6 and 65.4 for SD motorised and MD

mechanized sectors, respectively. Baiju et al. (2010) reported that advantage of tuna

long liners are reduction in crew requirement, better price realization for the catch, lower

cost of maintenance of the gear system, besides beneficial impact on conservation of

coastal resources. Onemolease and Oriaki (2011) studied the prospects and constraints

of artisanal fishing in selected communities in Delta state, Nigeria. He found that order

the of most prominent constraint was the high cost of fishing inputs followed by

insufficient capital, storage problems, fish spoilage and declining quantity of fish catch

for motorized boats.

Table 4.13. Production constraints for fishermen

Motorized Mechanized
S. SD fishing MD fishing MD fishing
Factors G.S
No.
M.S Rank M.S Rank M.S Rank

1. Lack of crew 82 79.2 I 76.4 I 81.9 I

Low subsidy for fishing
2. 72 66.9 II 66.1 III 69.6 II
gear/ accessories
Declining fish catches
3. 65 64.8 III 51.2 VI 65.4 III
(CPU)
4. Depleted resource 60 61.3 IV 59 V 60.6 IV
5. High investment cost 55 57.2 V 59.2 IV 53.3 V
6. Harassment by navy 50 36.6 IX 24.3 IX 52.1 VI
7. Conflicts among fishermen 45 41.5 VIII 39.1 VIII 44.1 VII
lxxvii
 category
8. Seasonal variation 41 45.9 VII 46.1 VII 41.6 VIII
9. High risk involved 38 28.2 X 39.1 VIII 36 IX
10. High fuel cost 28 49.9 VI 70.1 II 28.1 X
11 Lack of adequate ice 17 18.5 XI 22.3 X 18.5 XI
G.S – Garrett’s score; M.S- mean score

Oladeji and Oyesola (2002) also recorded the seriousness of such constraints as

high cost of fishing materials among fisher folk, low income arising from poor catch and

storage problems. Insufficient capital limits fishermen’s investment profile which in turn

worsened by an already high cost of inputs and the same was observed in the study

area. Lack of adequate ice was the least constraint found by the fishermen of three

sectors such as SD motorized, MD motorized and MD mechanized in marine fishing

respectively.

4.4.2. Marketing constraints

Table 4.14. Marketing constraints of fishermen

Mechaniz
Motorized ed
MD
[Link]. Factors
SD fishing MD fishing fishing
Ra
M.S Rank M.S Rank M.S nk
1 Lack of government support 94.8 I 95.8 I 78.6 I
2 Inadequate price for catch 94.2 II 76.4 III 72.5 II
3 Middleman interference 82.1 III 92.4 II 68.1 III
4 High marketing cost 71.8 IV 68.8 IV 57.3 IV
5 Uncertainty in price 66.1 V 65.5 V 54.5 V
6 Tide sale 31.5 IX 61.8 VI 51.3 VI
lxxviii
 7 Lack of market information 50.6 VI 17.6 X 46.8 VII
8 Lack of marketing knowledge 34.8 VIII 35.5 VIII 38.7 VIII
9 Un-organized marketing 46.7 VII 44.5 VII 35.2 IX
Poor storage facilities at fish
10 landing centre 16.7 X 11.5 XI 25.9 X
Lack of marketing infrastructure
11 facility 10.6 XI 30.3 IX 22.2 XI
M.S-Mean score

The fishermen of three sectors such as SD motorized, MD motorized and MD

mechanized encountered a large number of marketing related constraints which are

listed in Table 4.14.

In the present study, as many as eleven marketing constraints were considered

that would affect the fishermen namely lack of government support, high marketing cost,

middleman interference, adequate price for catch, tide sale, uncertainty in price, lack of

market information, lack of marketing knowledge, un-organized marketing, poor storage

facilities at fish landing center and lack of marketing infrastructure facility.

Rank based quotient (RBQ) technique was applied to rank the constraints faced

by the fishermen during marketing. While ranking the constraints, lack of government

support was the prominent constraint. Inadequate price for catch and middleman

interference was also found to be the other major constraints for fishermen of SD

motorized. For MD motorized and MD mechanized sectors, the major constraint in

marketing was ranked similar to that of SD motorized sector i.e. inadequate price for

catch, middleman interference and high marketing cost. The role of middlemen in fish

marketing system was continuing unabated due to the absence of institutional

involvement. Nevertheless, it has been observed that the share of middlemen in

lxxix
consumer's rupee has been coming down (Singaravelu and Nedumaran, 2012). Storage

problem was the major constraint faced by the fishermen (Ali et al., 2008. Ganesh

Kumar et al., 2008: Olubunmi and Bankole, 2012). Sathiadhas and Narayanakumar

(1994) recorded disorganized marketing structure, lack of adequate infrastructure,

deterioration and wastage of fish during transportation and dominance of middlemen as

the constraints of the fishermen. Lack of storage facility was not found as constraints

due to non availability of ice storage units and marketing facilities. Institutional finance

for production and marketing will protect the fishermen from the clutches of money

lenders and other intermediaries (Aswathy et al., 2014). In the present study, lack of

marketing infrastructure facility was found to be the least constraint faced by the

fishermen of three sectors. Availability of ice bars for storage and preservation was not

a constraint as the village had two ice storage units and 12 ice crusher units in the study

area.

lxxx
 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

Indian marine fisheries face a number of challenges and problems threatening its

long term sustainability and very survival. Overfishing and overcapacity are the two

identified major factors contributing to resource depletion in marine capture fisheries.

Further, unsustainable fishing practices damage the marine habitat (Annual Report of

Department of Annual Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, 2012-13). Mobile fishing

gears such to trawls and dredges of where in fishing activities operates towards seabed,

have the capability of altering, removing or destroying the complex marine environment.

Therefore, gillnet fishing method was considered to be one of the environment friendly

fishing methods not damaging the bottom marine fishery resources.

5.1 Summary
Though trawling has been the principal driving force behind the sharp escalation

in the marine fish landings, particularly shrimps, cuttlefish, squids and lobsters, etc , it

has caused irreparable damage to the marine fishery resources as well. Therefore, it is

necessary to look for alternate methods of fishing that are environment-friendly yet

profitable. Hence, the present thesis is evolved with the following objectives:

i. to study socio-economic profile of fisherfolk,

ii. to estimate costs of and returns from marine fishing in the study area,
iii. to investigate marketing aspects of marine fish,

iv. to identify production and marketing related constraints felt by the fisherfolk ;

and

v. to suggest policy interventions needed for the development of marine fishing

and the welfare of the fisherfolk.

lxxxi
 Gill netting is a passive and environment friendly fishing method. It has been

successfully adopted by the fisherfolk in Tharuvaikulam fishing village for several years.

Hence, it is proposed to study its profitability so that it could be used by the fisherfolk

elsewhere in Tamil Nadu. The total sample size was fixed as 120, which were

distributed as 30 for Single Day (SD) motorized, 30 for Multi Day (MD) motorized and 60

for Multi Day (MD) mechanized sectors. The above stated samples were selected

randomly for data collection in the present study. A survey schedule was designed

based on the objectives of the study and used for collection of data from the fishermen.

The fishermen were contacted individually and the objectives of the study were

explained to them before conducting the data collection to ensure their co-operation.

The collected data were tabulated and analysed using the appropriate statistical tools.

5.1.1 Socio - economic profile of fisherfolk

 The people living in Tharuvaikulam fishing village mainly depend on the marine

fishery resources for their livelihood.

 The pre-dominant age group of the selected fishermen was middle age

representing 76.6 % of the total fishermen of SD motorized sector. Similarly, the

predominant age group of MD motorized and MD mechanized sectors fishermen

respondents were middle age (43.2 %) and young age group (63.2 %),

respectively.

 About 63.3 % of the respondents had a fishing experience above 15 years in the

case of SD motorized sector. Similarly, about 73.3 % and 66.6% of the selected

respondents representing MD motorized and MD mechanized sector had an

experience above 15 years, respectively.

lxxxii
  About 63.3% of the respondents had primary level education in the case of SD

motorized sector. But, in the case of MD motorized and MD mechanized sectors

about of the 66.6% of the fishermen had primary level of school education.

 While 73.3 % of SD motorized sector fishermen have large family, 50 % of MD

motorized sector fishermen were found to have medium sized family. Similarly,

53.3 % of respondents have large size family in MD mechanized sector.

 The income distribution of respondents showed for SD motorised (80%), medium

income, for MD motorised (90 %) and high income for MD mechanized sector (95

%) in the study area.

5.1.2 Key factors in marine fishing

The distance of the fishing ground is a vital factor disturbing the economics of

operation of a vessel. In the study area, the average distance of fishing operation for SD

motorised sector was 30 miles from the shore area. Similarly, the fishing distance for

MD motorised and MD mechanized sectors were upto 60 miles along the shore area.

The average crew strength for SD motorised was 4, for MD motorised and

ranged from 6 to 8 and 8 to 10 in the case MD mechanized sectors. The SD motorised

sector usually had daily fishing operation and for MD motorised and MD mechanized

sectors normally had multiday fishing operations and the number of fishing days per trip

was varied from 6 to 10 in marine fishing of the study area.

The gears like mural valai and paruvalai were largely used by MD motorised and

MD mechanized sectors. Nandu valai, kanava thondil and mural valai were used by SD

motorised sector in marine fishing.

lxxxiii
 In the study area, crew share ratio was 50:50 which means 50% for owner and

50% for labour from the catch value after covering the operating cost.

The fishing trips per month for SD motorised varied from 15 to 20 and for MD

motorised and MD mechanized sectors it was 3 to 4 due to variation of fishing days.

5.1.3 Economic analysis of marine fishing activity

The capital investment of a fishing unit varies with the size of craft, type of engine

and the number and pieces of gear owned.

The overall mean original cost (OC) of crafts was estimated at ` 20.31 lakhs with

the co-efficient of variance of (C.V) 57.2%. The overall mean present worth (PW) for

fishing crafts was estimated at ` 10.75 lakhs with co-efficient of variance of 76.3%. It

was found that average original cost and present worth of craft was higher for MD

mechanized sector (OC: mean-16.18, C.V-58.4; PW: mean-8.61, C.V-79.2). The overall

mean original cost for fishing gears was computed as ` 11.09 lakhs with the co-efficient

of variance of 53.3%. The overall mean present worth of fishing gears was estimated at

`2.31 lakhs with co-efficient of variance of 63.4%. It explained that the average original

cost and present worth of fishing gear for mechanized sector viz., OC: mean- 9.18, C.V-

58.2%: PW: mean- 1.72, C.V- 56.1%.

The overall mean original cost of engine used by fishing crafts was estimated at

`2.65 lakhs with C.V of 41.5 %. The overall mean present worth for engine was works

out as ` 0.69 lakhs with co-efficient of variance of 91.3%. It showed that the average

original cost and present worth of engine was higher for MD motorised sector (OC:

lxxxiv
mean- 1.01, C.V- 38.2%; PW: mean-0.42, C.V- 82.3%) due to replacement with

advanced engine for marine fishing.

The overall mean of total cost of marine fishing in study area was estimated at

`41.17 of which total variable cost and total fixed cost accounted for ` 29.22 and `

14.57 lakhs, respectively.

In case of SD motorised sector, mean total variable cost (` 5.53 lakhs) and total

fixed cost (` 1.94 lakhs) constituted total cost of ` 7.47 lakhs. Fuel cost (57%) and

auction charge (30%) took the major share among the variable items. Among the fixed

costs, depreciation of fishing gear (30%) and interest on capital cost (27%) were the

major items. The mean total returns and net returns were ` 17.18 lakhs and ` 7.27

lakhs, respectively. The operating cost ratio, fixed cost ratio, productivity ratio, profit

margin and benefit cost ratio were 32%, 11%, 43%, 42% and 2.29:1, respectively.

For MD motorised sector the mean total cost was computed as ` 10.88 lakhs of

which total variable cost and total fixed cost accounted for ` 5.44 lakhs and ` 5.44,

lakhs respectively. Among the variable cost items auction charge paid (46%) and fuel

(25%) were the major components. Among the variable cost items, depreciation of gear

(36%) and interest on capital cost formed the major share (29%) while insurance had no

share. The average total returns and net returns were ` 15.37 lakhs and ` 39.77 lakhs

respectively. Operating cost ratio, fixed cost ratio, productivity ratio, profit margin and

benefit cost ratio were 24.2%, 6.9%,31.2%, 46.5% and 2.72 in marine fishing at study

area.

lxxxv
 In mechanized sector, the mean total variable cost of ` 23.74 lakhs and total

fixed cost of ` 10.87 lakhs constituted to` 34.61 lakhs as total cost. Auction charge

(46%) and fuel cost (29%) took the major share among the variable cost items. Among

the fixed cost items, depreciation of fishing gear (34%) and interest on capital cost

(30%) were the major ones. The average total returns and net returns were calculated

as `89.06 lakhs and ` 28.05 lakhs, respectively. The different ratio was computed as

operation cost ratio (26%), fixed cost ratio (11%), productivity ratio (38%), profit margin

(50%) and benefit cost ratio (2.63) respectively. Crew share was not recorded for SD

motorised sector in the study area.

5.1.4. Marketing aspects of marine fish

 The average transportation costs for fishermen of MD motorized and MD

mechanized sector were estimated at ` 3,06,000 and ` 4,36,625 per year,

respectively. For SD motorized sector no transportation costs was incurred as

they reach shore area directly.

 The calculated average commission charges for auctioning the fishes caught

from SD motorized, MD motorized and MD mechanized sector were ` 1,90,920,

` 8,67,539 and ` 9,07,405 per year, respectively.

5.1.5. Production and marketing related constraints

 Lack of crew, low subsidy for fishing gear/ accessories and declining catches

were found to be the prominent production constraints of the fishermen in the

study area.

lxxxvi
  In the present study, lack of government support, inadequate price, high

marketing cost and middleman interference were found to be the prominent

constraints with specific to marine fish marketing.

5.2. Conclusion
Based on the results of the study, the following conclusion could be drawn.

 The present study showed that middle age group of fishermen was found in SD

and MD motorized sector and young age group were mostly in MD mechanized

sector.

 Among the three sectors, most of the fishermen had more than 15 years of

experience in marine fishing and majority of the respondents had primary school

education.

 The family size of the fishermen was large (above 5) for the selected three

sectors.

 While SD and MD motorized sectors of fishermen earned low and medium

income, MD mechanized sector respondents earned high income.

 For the three fishing sectors, depreciation of fishing gear and interest on capital

cost were found to be the major items in the estimation of total fixed cost.

 Auction charge and fuel cost are the major costs in accounting the total variable

cost among the three fishing craft sectors.

 Total variable cost contributed more to the total cost in all the three fishing

sectors.

 MD motorised fishing sector had higher net returns in marine fishing due to less

operational cost with higher returns.

lxxxvii
  The involvement of auctioneer with high marketing service charges reduced the

marketing efficiency.

 Most of the fishermen availed loan from the money lenders.

 The lack of awareness and viable alternative livelihood programmes were the

major hindrances in improving their socio-economic status.

 Lack of savings among fishermen to meet their credit requirements of fishing was

the major impediment.

 Lack of government financial institution or cooperative society for marine fish

marketing was reported as the major marketing constraint.

5.3. Recommendations
 Marketing cost could be minimized by evolving a co-operative fish marketing

system with proper price monitoring system in the market yard.

 Awareness programmes on savings would increase the saving capacity among

the fisherfolk. It would help in meeting out day to day credit requirements of

fishing operations.

 Establishment of Government fisheries cooperative societies or fishermen

societies’ taking part in marine fish marketing would help to reduce the auction

fee and increase the marketing efficiency. An organized marketing system for

marine fish marketing would help to reduce the marketing cost as well.

 Awareness could be created in adopting new technologies for sustainable fishery

resources management and thereby providing alternative livelihood for fisherfolk

which inturn to reduce the fishing fleet.

lxxxviii
 The fisherfolk requires desperately credit support from the government to

untwine themselves from the vicious circle of poverty and indebtedness.

Institutional finance for capture fishing and marketing will protect the fishermen

from the clutches of money lenders and other intermediaries.

 It could be recommended from the study that conversion of trawler to gillnetter in

marine fishing as MD mechanized sector would be more profitable and

environment friendly thereby not causing much damages to bottom marine

fishery resources.

lxxxix
 VI. REFERENCE

Acharya, S.S., Agarwal, N.L., 2011. Agricultural marketing in India. Published by Oxford

and IBH publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi: 205

Adeosun Olubunmi., Adebukola Folake Bankole., 2012. Determinants of income from

fish marketing in Ibarapa area of Oya state, Nigeria. Science Journal of Agricultural

Research and Management. 135, 1-6.

Ali, E.A., Gaya, H.I.M., Jampada, T.N., 2008. Economic analysis of fresh fish marketing

in Maiduguri Gamboru market and Kachallari Alau dam landing site of

Northeastern, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Social Sciences. 4, 20-26.

Amita Sexena., 2011. Fisheries Economics. Daya publishing house, Delhi: 290-291.

Amutha., Rahti., 2012. Socio economic study of Vellapatti village in Tuticorin district.

Indian Streams Research Journal. 2, 1-9.

Andrew Wamukota., 2009. The structure of marine fish marketing in Kenya: the case of

Malindi and Kilifi districts. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science. 8,

215-224.

Annual report. 2012-13. Department of animal husbandry, dairying & fisheries, ministry

of agriculture government of India, New Delhi.

Apu Das., Upadhyary, A.D., Nalini Ranjan Kumar., Prakash, S., Debnath,B., Datta,M.,

2013. Marketing profile of selected fish markets of Tripura. Agricultural Economics

Research Review. 26, 115-120.

xc
Arul Oli, G., 2004. Effectiveness of selected extension training method for educating the

fisherfolk on sustainable marine fisheries development. [Link] thesis submitted to

Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Science University, Chennai. 89 p.

Aarti Kelkar-Khambete., 2012. Traditional fisherfolk of Kerala - An article about their

socio-economic organization and the special relationship they share with the sea

and the environment. India waterortal subscribe to weekly newsletter, Posted on

August 13.

Arul Oli. G., Jeevitha, C., 2014. An overview of the socio-economic status of the

fisherfolk of Thoothukudi District. Tamil Nadu. Journal of Fisheries Economics and

Development. 13, 18-28.

Asis Kumar Panigrathi., Avijit Bakshi., 2014. A study on profile of fishing community of

the river side villages of river Churni, Nadia, West Bengal with special reference to

socio- economic and technological appraisal of fishermen. International Journal of

research in applied. 2, 97-102.

Aswathy, N., Abudu Samad, E.M., 2012. Price behavior and marketing efficiency of

marine fish in Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. Journal of Fisheries Economics and

Development. 13, 29-35.

Aswathy, N., Shanmugam, T.R., Sathiadhas, R., 2011. Economic viability of

mechanised fishing units and socio-economics of fishing ban in Kerala. Indian

Journal of Fisheries. 58, 115-120.

xci
Aswathy, N., Sathiadhas, R., Narayanakumar, R., Shyam, S Salim., 2012. Marketing

and utilization of marine by catch: Problems and prospects. Journal of Fisheries

Economics and Development. 12, 1-8.

Aswathy, N., Narayanakumar, R., Harshan, N.K., 2014. Marketing costs, margins and

efficiency of domestic marine fish marketing in Kerala. Indian Journal of Fisheries.

61, 97-102.

Badapanda, K.C., 2012. Fishery Economics and Administration. Narendra publishing

house, New Delhi, India: 341-425.

Balasubramaniam., Ramesan., Nikita Gopal., 2001. Fish catch variations and

associated variables among fishermen operating plank-built crafts. Fishery

Technology. 40, 139-144.

Baju, M.V., Kuruvilla Thomas., Rajeev, G.D., Prabhakar Raj, J.E., Salim, P.M., 2010.

Conservation of mechanised fishing vessels to tuna longline. Society of Fisheries

Technologists (India), Cochin and Centre for Ocean and Environmental Studies,

New Delhi, Proceedings of the national seminar on conservation and sustainability

of coastal living resources of India, 1-3 December 2009, Cochin.

Basavakumar, K.V., Devendrapp, S., Srenivas, S.T., 2011. A study on profile of fishing

community of a village in Karnataka. Journal of Agricultural Science. 24, 689-687.

Biswas, K.P., 2012. Advances in Fishing Technology. Daya Publishing House, Delhi:

21.

xcii
Bose, K.S., Devi Prasad Kotni, V.V., 2010, Government policies on marine fisheries

sector: a review. Journal of Fisheries Economics and Development. 11, 11-23.

Census data. 2010. CMFRI publication, Tamil Nadu. 34p.

CMFRI annual report, 2012- 13. CMFRI publication, Cochin. 61p.

Das, A., Upadhyay, A.D., Kumar, N.R., 2013. Marketing profile of selected fish markets

in Tripura. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 26, 115-120.

Delgado., Christopher L., Nikolas Wada., Mark W. Rosegrant., Siet Meijer.,

Mahfuzuddin Ahmed. 2003. Fish to 2020: Supply and Demand in Changing Global

Markets. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Washington, D.C,

and WorldFish Center, Penang: 226.

Dale Squires., Quentin Grafton,R., Mohammed Ferdous Alam., Ishak Haji Omar., 2002.

Technical efficiency in the Malaysian gillnet artisanal fishery. Published by

southwest fisheries center, California, USA:212.

Deepthi Ande., 2011. Impact on fishing ban on fisheries and fishing communities.

[Link] thesis submitted to Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Science University,

Chennai. 96 p.

Fredrick, J., 2011. An economic analysis of income and expenditure pattern of fisherfolk

with reference to Thoothuukudi district. ZENTH international Journal of Business

Economics and Management Research. 1, 210-218.

xciii
Ganesh Kumar, B., Datta, K.K., Joshi, P.K.,Ravisankar, T., Ravindranath, K., Muktha

Menon., 2008. Domestic fish marketing in India – changing structure, conduct,

performance and policies. Agricultural Research Review. 21, 345-354.

Ganesh Kumar, B., Ravisankar, T., Suresh, R., Bhatta, R., Vimala, D.D., Kumaran, M.,

Mahalakshmi, P., Devi, S., 2010. Lessons from innovative institutions in the

marketing of fish and fishery product in India. Agricultural Economics Research

Review. 23, 495-504.

Garret, H.E., Woodworth, R.S., 1969. Statistics in psychology and education. Vakils,

Feffer and Simons Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, India: 329.

Gary Armstrong., Philip Kotler., 2009. Marketing Channels and Supply Chain

Management, Marketing: An Introduction. Published by Doring Kindersely Pvt. Ltd,

India: 359.

Geetha, R., Narayanakumar, R., [Link]., Aswathy, N., Schandrasekar.,

Srinivasa Ragavan, V., Indra Divipala., 2014. Economic efficiency of mechanized

fishing in Tamil Nadu- a case study in Chennai. Indian Journal of Fisheries. 61, 31-

35.

Handbook on fisheries statistics. 2014. Government of India ministry of agriculture

department of animal husbandry, dairying and fisheries Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.

2p

Jeyakumar., Sreedevi., 2013. An Economic Analysis of the Performance of Marine Fish

Production in India and Tamil Nadu. International Journal of Current Research. 5,

11.

xciv
Jayaraman, R., 1996. Manual on Fisheries Economics, Fisheries College and Research

Institute, TANUVAS, Tamil Nadu, Thoothukudi: 84.

Jayaraman, R., 2008. Performance analysis of fisherwomen self help groups. Tamil

Nadu journal of veterinary and animal sciences. 4, 52-55.

Jhingan, M.L., 1997. Advanced Economic Theory. Vrinda Publications Private Limited:

231.

Jingan, M.L., Stephen, J.K., 2004. Managerial Economics. Vrinda Publications Private

Limited, Delhi: 141.

Johl, S.S., Kapur, T.R., 2007. Fundamentals of Farm Business Management. Kalyani

publishers, New Delhi: 92 - 96.

John, M.E., Pillai, N.G.K., 2009. Current status of tuna fisheries in India, India National

Report, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, Seychelles: 10 p.

Johnson, B., 2014. ICT oriented strategic extension for responsible fisheries

management manual. CMFRI publication, Cochin: 295-302.

Kamal Kumar Datta., Dan, S.S., 1992. Economics of gillnet fishing in West Bengal.

Seafood Export Journal. 13, 14-22.

Kiron, B., 1992. Effectiveness of fisheries training programmes conducted. [Link]

thesis submitted to Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Science University,

Chennai:70p

Kulwant Singh Pathania., Sabinabatra., Rajiv Salvan., 2012. Managerial Economics.

Regal Publication, New Delhi:135.

xcv
Kumar, G.B., Datta, K.K., Joshi, P.K., Katiha, P.K., Suresh, R., Ravisankar,T.,

Ravindranath, K., and Menon,M., 2008. Domestic fish marketing in India –

changing structure, conduct, performance and policies. Agricultural Economic

Research Review. 21, 345-354.

Lekhi, R.K., Joginder Singh., 2011. Agricultural Economics. Kalyani Publication, New

Delhi: 124.

MPEDA. 2010. Ongoing subsidy assistance schemes, Marine Products Export

Development Authority, Cochin. 12p.

Narayanan Nadar, E., Vijayan, S., 2010. Managerial Economics. Published by PHI

Learning Private Limited, New Delhi: 142-143.

Narayanan., Thakkar., 2004. Scenario of domestric fish marketing in Gujarat. Fishing

Chemise. 24, 46-48.

Narayana Kumar., Panikkar., Sehara., Sathiadhas., 2000. Socio-economic analysis of

marine fishermen in India. Central marine fisheries research institute – manual.

895-906.

Nongmaithem Bijaya Laxshmi Devi., Ajit Kumar Ngangbam., Shella Immanuel., 2013.

A study on existing fisheries management system and the problems faced by the

fishers in Loktak lake of Manipur. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary

Science. 1, 22-28.

Nirmal Ravi Kumar, K., 2012. Micro Economic Analysis in Agriculture. Daya publishing

house, Delhi: 317 - 318.

xcvi
Onemolease, E.A., Oriakhi, H.O., 2011. Prospects and constraints of artisanal fishing in

selected communities in Delta state, Nigeria. Advances in applied sciences

research. 2, 55-61.

Pandey, D.K., Upadhayay, A.D., 2012. Socio economic profile of fish farmers of an

adopted model aquaculture village, Kulubari, West Tripura. Indian Research

journal of extension, education. 2, 55-58.

Policy note. 2014-15. Department of animal husbandry, dairying & fisheries department,

Govt. of Tamil Nadu.

Prabhakar, 2007. Socio-economic conditions of marine fishermen in the

Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Fishig chemise. 26, 90-97.

Pawan Kumar Sharma., Sudhakar Dwiredi., Anil Bhat., 2014. Practical’s in Agricultural

Economics. Daya publishing house, New Delhi: 121-123.

Quddus, M.A., 1991. Seasonal price movements of commercially important fishes in

selected markets of Mymensingh district. Bangladesh J. Fish. 14, 63-68.

Rahaman, S.M., Bera B.K., Ananth, G.S., 2013. A study on problems and constraints in

production marketing of fish in West Bengal. Journal of Crop and Weed. 9, 110-

113.

Report of the research study on exploring market opportunities for fisheries sector in

India. 2008. Submitted to national fisheries development board government of

India (NFDB). National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research,

ICAR publication, India: 369p.

xcvii
Rokeya, J.A., Ahmed, S.S., Bhuiyan, A.S., Alam, M.S., 1997. Marketing system of

native and exotic major carps of Rajshahi District. Bangladesh J. Fish. 20, 99-103.

Sabarathanam, V.E., 1988. Manuals of Field Experience Training for ARS Scientists.

NAARM, Hyderabad. 21p.

Sarm, P.V., Bose, K.S., 2008. Socio economic determinants of mechanized fishing boat

operations; a case study of Visakhapatnam coast. Fishing Chimes. 27, 66-69.

Sathiadhas, R., Narayanakumar. R. 1994. Price policy and fish marketing system in

India. Journal of Biology Education. 4, 225-241.

Sathiadhas, R., Narayanakumar, R., Aswathy, N., 2011. Efficiency of domestic marine

fish marketing in India- a macro analysis. Indian Journal of Fisheries. 58, 125-131.

Sathiadhas, R., Narayakumar, R., Aswathy, N., 2012. Marine Fish Marketing in India.

Published by G. Syda Rao, CMFRI, Kochin, Kerala, India: 1-19.

Sathiadhas., Najumudeen., Antony Joseph., Jeny Rajen., Alagarasamy., Jayan., 2005.

Economic loss and gains of marine fishing along Kerala coast, proceeding of

ocean life and medicine expo-2004, International conference and exposition on

marine living resources of India for food and medicine, 440-452.

Sergio Mattos., Francese Maynou., Ramon Franquesa., 2006. A bio-economic analysis

of the hand-line & gill-net coastal fisheries of pernambuco State, north – eastern

Brazil. Scientia Marina. 70, 335-346.

Senthiladeban, R., Rajakumar, M., Viswanatha., 2015. Production economics of non-

mechanized fishing in the selected fish landing centre’s of Thoothukudi, Tamil

Nadu. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies. 2, 129-134.

xcviii
Sheela Immanuel, Syda Rao, G., 2012. Social status of hook and line fishermen in

Visakhapatnam. Fishing technology. 49: 204-209.

Shyam S. Salim., Biradar, R.S., Pandey, S.K., 2005. Fisheries economics and

marketing- An introduction, CMFRI publication: 110-132.

Singaravelu, K., Nedumaran, G., 2012. A study on marine fish marketing in Tamil Nadu.

Indian Streams Research Journal. 2, 1-4.

Singaravelu.K., Nedumaran.,G. 2013. A study on marine fish marketing in Tamil Nadu.

Indian Streams Research. 2, 1-4.

Subba Reddy, S., Raghu, P., Neelakanta Sastry, T.V., Bhavani Devi, I., 2004.

Agricultural Economics. Oxford and IBH publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi: 344-

345.

Sujathkumar, N.V., 2000. Women in small scale fisheries and their status problems and

prospects. [Link] thesis submitted to Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Science

University, Nammakal. 120p

Surapa Raju., 2003. Economic analysis of fishing crafts: -comparative study in Andhra

Pradesh. Journel of Fisheries Economics and development. 5, 1-4.

Surapa Raju, S., 2012. Catch and income of fishing units; a field study in Andhra

Pradesh. Journal of Fisheries Economics and Development. 14, 9-28.

Surekha Gupta., 2001. Text Book of Fishery. Published by Ane Books Pvt. Ltd., Delhi:

97- 98.

xcix
Thomas, K., 2008. Market development and expansion for tuna, In: Harvest and Post-

harvest Technology for Tuna. Published by Society of Fisheries Technologists,

Cochin, India:141-149.

Tietze, U., Lash, R., Thomsen, B., Rihan, D., 2005. Economic performance and fishing

efficiency of marine capture fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Papers. No. 482.

Rome. 23p.

Tyagi, L.K., Sarkar.U.K., Paul.S.K., 2007. People perception about conservation of

fishery resources outside the protected water bodies; a case study in Lakhimpur

Khiri dist. of U.P. Indian Research. J. Ext. Edu. 7, 36-38.

Upadhyars, A.D., Singh, B.K., 2010. Economic analysis of fishing operations. Journal of

Rural Development. 29, 287-293.

Upashyay, A.D., Roy, A.K., Dhanze, J.R., Obeth Darngawn., Arup Kumar Das., Kapil

Debnath., 2011. Study of market infrastructure and marketing pattern of dry fish at

Agartala markets. Fishing Chimes. 31, 15-19.

VipinKumar, V.P., Rajani Jayakumar., Aswathy, N., 2013. ICT Module on Microfinance

and Coastal Indebtedness in Indian Marine fisheries sector- In: ICAR funded short

course on “ICT-oriented strategic extension for responsible fisheries management,

05-25, November, 2013, Kochi”: 12P

Viswanatha, B.S., Biradar, R.S., Ramachandra Bhatta., 2012. An assessment of

marketing efficiency of fish market in Bangalore. Fisheries and economic

development. 13, 1-9.

World fisheries review, 2012. Part I, FAO. [Link]/docrep/

c
 TAMIL NADU FISHERIES UNIVERSITY NAGAPATTINAM,
FISHRIES COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
THOOTHUKUDI-8.
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES ECONOMICS

Research Topic: An Economic Analysis of Marine Capture Fishing in

Tharuvaikulam, Thoothukudi District

Craft type- MD Mechanized / MD Motorized / SD Motorized

I. Socio-economics
1. Name of the fishermen
2. Age (yrs)
3. Education
4. Experience (yrs)
5. Family size (No.)
6. Income (Rs.)

II. Fishing details

[Link] Factors Details
1. Time of leaving
2. Time of return
3. Size of crew (No.)
4. Crew share (Ratio)
5. Avg. no. of fishing trips/month
6. Distance of fishing ground (km)
7. Type of gears used

III. Investment details:

[Link] Type P.Y P.V ( ) C.V ( ) E.L (Yr)
1. Boat
Gear No. [Link].

2.

3. Engine
5. Engine HP Engine make
P.V - Purchasing value; C.V- Current value; E.L- Economic life;
P.Y- Purchasing year

ci