This history is summarized from "Fisheries in Burma" by U. Maung Khin,1948.
The leasable fisheries (Inn leasable fisheries) of Myanmar have a long history and were originally (pre-1864) hereditary properties based upon fixed rents. Under the Burma Fishery Act (1864) the leasable fisheries passed from ownership of individuals into State control. This was considered necessary at the time to be able to effectively administer the leasable fisheries. There were continuing problems with the effective administration of the leasable fisheries and resulted in investigation of fisheries and related problems by Colonel Maxwell in 1895 and culminated in the Burma Fishery Act (III) in 1905 which contained a number of recommendations from the investigation. These covered:
Conservation of fisheries resources
Prevention of deterioration of fisheries by siltation
Modification of the inter-relations by fisheries lessees and the relationship between government and the lessees.
Conservation
The recommendations of the investigation were the subject of dispute, especially those regarding the creation of 'reserves'. The reserves were places where fish was prohibited except for predatory fish. These sites were intended as "an annual source of natural stock for replenishing leased fisheries". The discussion of the time related to the perception that overfishing was not apparent and that revenues form the fisheries was in fact increasing indicating that catches were increasing (although this is misguided as prices were increasing and therefore actual catch may not have been). Similarly increasing consumption was attributed to greater access to the marine fishery catch caused by communications and preservation improvements rather than inland fisheries improvement. There was still no evidence however that inland fisheries catch was actually declining. As a result the 'reserves' degenerated into 'open access' fisheries, thereby denying the government revenue and in fact the fishing methods were in some cases the same as when they were leased fisheries. There were a range of prohibited fishing methods and certain restrictions that related to migrations of fish.
Prevention of deterioration by siltation
This recommendation related primarily to the avoidance of bunding of rivers and streams in order to prevent siltation of water courses (there was also a suggestion that "weed clearing of stream beds and afforestation of waste lands in the catchment "be organized").
Modification of relationships
The relationship between lessees in the deltaic areas is problematic when dealing with common stocks and the network of streams and flooded areas and the recommendation of the study essentially suggested that 'custom' should prevail (i.e. conflicts would not be resolved through a legal process but would).
The change from "hereditary property on fixed rents" to the allotting of leases "by favour or by lots at very moderate rent" which occurred in the early days of British rule, had several effects. The income that could be made from the lots led to competition for the leases subsequent problems in the transparency of the allotment process. As a result, the auction system was introduced. This led to a great increase in fishery revenues and 'gambling bids' and auction prices increased greatly (around 1900). There was an additional effect of sub-dividing fisheries leases as the administration of the time focused on trying to increase this revenue. To reduce the effect of the auction system and increasing bids, an annual lease was imposed, but the short term nature of the leases meant that lessees had little incentive to reinvest or conserve and encouraged the maximization of the catch.
In 1918, there was an attempt to introduce a system of leasing fisheries to 'cooperative groups of fishermen', but this was found to be 'unworkable'. In 1926 the introduction of 'fair rents' was aimed at controlling this process but the establishment of a 'fair rent' for such fishery that varied hugely every year in terms of flooding and production also proved unworkable. Whilst the annual lease led to over-exploitation and short-term outlook by the lessees, long term lease also led to lessees making good money in good fishing years and then defaulting on their lease payments during a bad year.
Prior to World War II there were 4 006 Inn Leasable fisheries but post war this had declined to 3 710. By 1948, there was still no settlement of the best system for issuing of leases for leasable fisheries, but a pragmatic policy was in place that prescribed a number of alternative methods:
Public auction or public sale by diminishing offers
Inviting tenders
Extension of existing leases
(there was also a provision for the Deputy Commissioner to grant leases for 'fisheries of a fairly constant value' of up to 5 years)
The conclusion of this is that the management suggestions made by Maxwell were too theoretical and were contrary to the pragmatic system of management that was employed and that further investigation and development of sound legislation coupled to an efficient fishery administration was required.
By 1999 the number of leasable fisheries had further reduced to 3 474 with some of the leasable fisheries sites being converted to agriculture. If the agriculture subsequently failed, the land essentially becomes 'open fishery' or available for exploitation by local business interests. This has apparently been the case where the promotion of deepwater rice cultivation by private sector interests has seen the transformation of substantial areas of leasable fisheries into agricultural land. The subsequent failure of the deepwater rice cultivation locations did not see a return to leasable fisheries and the current status, ownership and management of these ex-fisheries was not available to the mission although obviously of concern to the DoF due to the impacts on fisheries resources.
