Towards Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture in India

India’s Fisheries and Aquaculture: Progressive Growth, But Unsustainable Foundations

The rapid expansion of India's fisheries and aquaculture sector—doubling its production in barely a decade—betrays an unsettling truth: growth has outpaced sustainability. While the sector contributes 7.28% to agricultural Gross Value Added (GVA), its ecological costs remain obscured beneath ambitious exports and policy rhetoric. The government’s prioritization of productivity without robust conservation strategies risks eroding both biodiversity and the livelihoods of millions.

The Institutional and Policy Landscape

India boasts the world’s second-largest fish production and is the third-largest aquaculture producer globally, contributing over 10.23 million tonnes annually as per the FAO’s SOFIA 2024 report. Its extensive coastline of 11,098.81 km and diverse inland fisheries provide a sprawling base for the sector. Flagship programmes such as the Pradhan Mantri Matsya Sampada Yojana (PMMSY), Fisheries and Aquaculture Infrastructure Development Fund (FIDF), and Artificial Reef initiatives have positioned fisheries as a critical pillar of rural development.

Regulations including the Draft National Fisheries Policy (2020) and the National Policy on Marine Fisheries (2017) emphasize sustainable practices like uniform fishing bans, gear restrictions, sea ranching, and mariculture. Yet, enforcement remains fragmented across state lines and between central agencies like the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA), and the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA).

Technology integration under satellite systems (like Oceansat and GIS-based resource mapping) offers potential to enhance monitoring, but the dependence on pilot projects suggests sluggish execution. Meanwhile, over 26 lakh stakeholders remain registered on the National Fisheries Digital Platform (NFDP), underscoring the socioeconomic significance of the sector.

The Argument: Unsustainable Practices and Governance Gaps

While the government celebrates increased production stats, it has failed to address the sector's ecological vulnerabilities. Overfishing and illegal practices, such as electric fishing in Kashmir’s Wular Lake, have degraded aquatic habitats. Rising temperatures and erratic rainfall patterns linked to climate change disrupt breeding cycles—especially in inland aquaculture zones of West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh.

Budgetary allocations under PMMSY—a paltry ₹20,050 crore spread over four years—fall short of addressing systemic issues such as damaged ecosystems and pollution-induced mass fish deaths. The Marine Products Export Development Authority’s calls for certification and traceability have highlighted market risks. India risks losing competitive ground, given the demand for eco-labeled seafood in global trade. NSSO consumer expenditure data from 2023 also reveals inconsistencies in access to affordable protein for marginalized communities reliant on inland fisheries.

Institutional critiques deepen this narrative of misaligned priorities. Enforcement bodies like the Coastal Aquaculture Authority (CAA) have failed to reign in destructive fishing methods, despite regulatory prohibitions on pair trawling and LED fishing. Additionally, the climate-resilient village initiatives under PMMSY have seen uneven implementation, relegated primarily to pilot zones without scaled rollouts.

Counter-Attack: Economic Growth as a Justification

The strongest counter-narrative argues that India must prioritize export competitiveness and rural employment over stringent environmental standards. Shrinking marine stocks globally push nations toward "race-to-the-top" production metrics, wherein economic survival hinges on maximizing yield. Proponents suggest that brackish aquaculture—pioneered by Andhra Pradesh (60% shrimp production)—provides sustainable regional governance models.

Yet, this justification crumbles under scrutiny: the ecological degradation costs are disproportionately borne by marginalized communities. FAO-led projects in Andhra Pradesh focusing on ecosystem-based aquaculture highlight how environmental progress can complement economic success, not hinder it.

International Perspective: What India Can Learn From Norway

India's draft fisheries policy lacks Norway's clear enforcement structure, which integrates aquaculture with ecosystem stewardship through the Aquaculture Act of 2005. Norway imposes strict limits on fish farm locations, minimizing leakage of waste nutrients and diseases into the ocean—practices India ignores while expanding brackish aquaculture zones.

Here lies a striking paradox: what India labels "climate-resilient aquaculture," Norway would term "short-term profitability over long-term sustainability." India's governance systems must incorporate Norway's model of ecosystem-based regulatory oversight and collaborative small-scale fisheries management.

The Assessment: Balancing Growth with Sustainability

With over 3 crore livelihoods dependent on fisheries and aquaculture, the stakes are existential. India must shift toward ecosystem-based approaches, enforce stricter anti-IUU (Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated) measures, and strengthen local governance structures to ensure equity in resource allocation. Budgetary recalibration to support biodiversity conservation initiatives under Blue Revolution 2.0 is essential for long-term resilience.

While transformative potential lies within existing initiatives like PMMSY, their fragmented implementation reinforces the sector's unsustainable trajectory. Science-based stock assessments, enhanced digital surveillance, and interdisciplinary policy frameworks must replace the current piecemeal approach.

Exam Integration

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions