IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v50y2014ipap190-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Driving forces of the long-enduring institutional mechanism of Padu system in Negombo Lagoon, Sri Lanka

Author

Listed:
  • Iwasaki, Shimpei

Abstract

This article aims to address fishery adaptation to tackle the commons dilemma by introducing the Padu system. The Padu system which is a gear-specific fishery with strict rules has survived to date, but the system has become vulnerable due to exogenous pressures as well as internal population growth. With this background, the research presents a case study of stake-seine fishery in Negombo Lagoon, Sri Lanka by highlighting the institutional mechanism of the Padu system. Findings revealed that the system has developed a nested structure of fishery governance among right holders. A role of the Roman Catholic Church served as a basis for interaction vertically across institutions from local to national, securing robust fishery institutions against entry of outsiders to the system. Furthermore, the fishery introduced a welfare scheme, contributing to the adherence to their own rules including entry rights to the system which control internal population growth. Based on these findings, this article provides several implications to sustainable fishery resources management through the Padu system.

Suggested Citation

  • Iwasaki, Shimpei, 2014. "Driving forces of the long-enduring institutional mechanism of Padu system in Negombo Lagoon, Sri Lanka," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PA), pages 190-196.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:50:y:2014:i:pa:p:190-196
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.05.020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X1400164X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.05.020?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Coulthard, Sarah, 2011. "More than just access to fish: The pros and cons of fisher participation in a customary marine tenure (Padu) system under pressure," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 405-412, May.
    2. Campbell, Bruce & Mandondo, Alois & Nemarundwe, Nontokozo & Sithole, Bevlyne & De JonG, Wil & Luckert, Marty & Matose, Frank, 2001. "Challenges to Proponents of Common Property Recource Systems: Despairing Voices from the Social Forests of Zimbabwe," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 589-600, April.
    3. Lobe, Kenton & Berkes, Fikret, 2004. "The padu system of community-based fisheries management: change and local institutional innovation in south India," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 271-281, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Teh, Louise S.L. & Teh, Lydia C.L. & Rashid Sumaila, U., 2014. "Time preference of small-scale fishers in open access and traditionally managed reef fisheries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 222-231.
    2. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    3. Poteete, Amy R. & Ostrom, Elinor, 2004. "In pursuit of comparable concepts and data about collective action," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 215-232, December.
    4. Hameeda A. AlMalki & Christopher M. Durugbo, 2023. "Systematic review of institutional innovation literature: towards a multi-level management model," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 73(2), pages 731-785, June.
    5. Saito-Jensen, Moeko, 6. "Who gains or who loses from Joint Forest Management? Lessons from two case study areas from Andhra Pradesh, India," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 42, April.
    6. Egamberdiev, Bekhzod, 2024. "Social capital effects on resilience to food insecurity: Evidence from Kyrgyzstan," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 36(1), pages 435-450.
    7. Ermolin, Ilya (Ермолин, Илья), 2015. "Communal Self-Regulation of “Informal” Economy: Evidences from Northern Dagestan in Russia [Процессы Коммунального Саморегулирования «Неформальной» Экономики]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 1, pages 159-176, February.
    8. Mark Purcell & J. Christopher Brown, 2005. "Against the local trap: scale and the study of environment and development," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 5(4), pages 279-297, October.
    9. Sirak Robele Gari & Alice Newton & John D. Icely & Maria Mar Delgado-Serrano, 2017. "An Analysis of the Global Applicability of Ostrom’s Design Principles to Diagnose the Functionality of Common-Pool Resource Institutions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-17, July.
    10. Jane Kabubo‐Mariara, 2013. "Forest‐poverty nexus: Exploring the contribution of forests to rural livelihoods in Kenya," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 37(3), pages 177-188, August.
    11. Christophe Béné & Derek Headey & Lawrence Haddad & Klaus Grebmer, 2016. "Is resilience a useful concept in the context of food security and nutrition programmes? Some conceptual and practical considerations," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 123-138, February.
    12. Timilsina, Raja Rajendra & Kotani, Koji, 2017. "Evaluating the potential of marketable permits in a framed field experiment: Forest conservation in Nepal," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 25-37.
    13. Lund, Jens Friis & Treue, Thorsten, 2008. "Are We Getting There? Evidence of Decentralized Forest Management from the Tanzanian Miombo Woodlands," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(12), pages 2780-2800, December.
    14. H. Carolyn Peach Brown & James P. Lassoie & Steven A. Wolf, 2007. "An analytic approach to structuring co–management of community forests in Cameroon," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 7(2), pages 135-154, April.
    15. Frost, Peter & Campbell, Bruce & Luckert, Martin (marty) & Mutamba, Manyewu & Mandondo, Alois & Kozanayi, Witness, 2007. "In Search of Improved Rural Livelihoods in Semi-Arid Regions through Local Management of Natural Resources: Lessons from Case Studies in Zimbabwe," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 1961-1974, November.
    16. Leo Zulu, 2013. "Bringing People Back into Protected Forests in Developing Countries: Insights from Co-Management in Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-27, May.
    17. Behnke, Roy, 2018. "Open access and the sovereign commons: A political ecology of pastoral land tenure," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 708-718.
    18. Perez-Cirera, Vanessa & Lovett, Jon C., 2006. "Power distribution, the external environment and common property forest governance: A local user groups model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 341-352, September.
    19. Matta, Jagannadha R. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2006. "Perceptions of collective action and its success in community based natural resource management: An empirical analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 274-284, December.
    20. Pfaff, Alexander & Robalino, Juan & Lima, Eirivelthon & Sandoval, Catalina & Herrera, Luis Diego, 2014. "Governance, Location and Avoided Deforestation from Protected Areas: Greater Restrictions Can Have Lower Impact, Due to Differences in Location," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 7-20.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:50:y:2014:i:pa:p:190-196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.