2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Navigating customary law and state fishing legislation to create effective fisheries governance in India

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, even with the mechanization of fisheries leading to increasing fishing effort, teleost and chondrichthyan landings declined steeply by the late 2000s in both onshore and offshore fisheries (Devaraj and Vivekanandan 1999;DeYoung 2006;Raje et al 2007;Mohamed and Veena 2016). Despite the introduction of certain fisheries management measures at the state level, including seasonal trawl bans, fishing gear restrictions, mesh size specifications, and areas of operation, the organization of Indian fisheries remains complicated with limited regulations specific to shark fisheries and overall poorly enforced and unregulated fishing (Bavinck 2001;Kizhakudan et al 2015;Karnad 2017). In fact, there are no restrictions on landings, except for a few species listed on Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife Act (1972), and these state regulations have repeatedly proved inadequate to protect sharks (Kizhakudan et al 2015) other than the whale shark (Rhincodon typus).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, even with the mechanization of fisheries leading to increasing fishing effort, teleost and chondrichthyan landings declined steeply by the late 2000s in both onshore and offshore fisheries (Devaraj and Vivekanandan 1999;DeYoung 2006;Raje et al 2007;Mohamed and Veena 2016). Despite the introduction of certain fisheries management measures at the state level, including seasonal trawl bans, fishing gear restrictions, mesh size specifications, and areas of operation, the organization of Indian fisheries remains complicated with limited regulations specific to shark fisheries and overall poorly enforced and unregulated fishing (Bavinck 2001;Kizhakudan et al 2015;Karnad 2017). In fact, there are no restrictions on landings, except for a few species listed on Schedule I of the Indian Wildlife Act (1972), and these state regulations have repeatedly proved inadequate to protect sharks (Kizhakudan et al 2015) other than the whale shark (Rhincodon typus).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The application of its assistance does not show customary law as the proper law. Customary law, however, still exists, but it is conveyed as an expression of a feeling of equality, which is set out as a standard to ensure greater justice in the current law that it accepts Indonesia's local region as a live law of good law (Joireman, 2008;Polański, 2017;Karnad, 2017).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Wiber and Parlee 2014). Fisheries in South India too have fruitfully been investigated from a legal pluralism angle (Bavinck 2001;Jentoft et al 2009;Bavinck et al 2013;Karnad 2017), with governmental and customary law vying for authority. Legal pluralism is recognized as creating specific dilemmas for governors who are in charge of 'steering' socio-technical developments (Jentoft and Bavinck 2014), but also for regular citizens who engage in forum-shopping (Benda-Beckmann 1981).…”
Section: A Theoretical Perspective On Socio-technical Transitionsmentioning
confidence: 99%