& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

A fishy business

What is evident is that the value chain for hilsha is a long and complex one. With so many intermediaries and sub-agents playing a role in the supply of the fish, it is hardly any wonder that retail price of a fish is double that of the price the average fisherman gets.

Syed Mansur Hashim
Recent LY the government of Bangladesh slapped an export ban of hilsha fish to India. The decision had been taken in an effort to stabilise the exploding price of the fish at retail end during the month of Ramadan. A weekly review of prices found substantial reduction of price of the fish in major markets of Mohammadpur, New Market and Hatirpool. Although consumers were happy to see a reduction per unit of hilsha ranging from 15 to 20%, it has nonetheless become a bone of contention for exporters and the Fish Importers’ Association in Kolkata. The fact remains that the
decision to go ahead with an export ban came suddenly and already there is talk of retaliatory measures to be put in place for the export of fish and livestock from India. Such reaction is to be expected. According to the Department of Fisheries, Bangladesh exported some 3,680 tons of hilsha in FYI2008-2009 valued at Tk.1.49 billion. In FYI 2010-11, exports increased 132% to 8,538 tons earning Tk.3.52 billion.
Here it gets interesting. The formal trade for hilsha puts the value of a 600g to 1kg hilsha fish at Tk.492, a fish weighing between 1kg to 1.5 kg at Tk.656, and fish weighing more than 1.5kg atTk.984. Hence the price of exported fish is significantly less than domestic price. According to industry
insiders, the informal trade in fish is a few times larger than what is exported legally. There is in fact no government regulatory body to oversee the fish trade. Thus, the allegations of under-invoicing and cross-border smuggling will in all probability continue as before.
The question here is whether banning export alone will be sufficient to bring down prices of hilsha in the domestic market. The indications are to the contrary. The supply chain of hilsha remains a complex one. The net result of all this of course is that
neither the fisherman nor the consumer gets the benefit of right price of the much coveted hilsha. According to a recent case study done by Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), for the domestic market, the trading of hilsha involves five major intermediaries, namely fishermen, aratdar (storage), paiker (wholesaler), retailer and consumer. Apart from these there are several smaller players in the supply chain who perform varying functions.
While fishermen form the first link in the chain, i.e. they are suppliers of fish to the market; it is the nikari (informer) who establishes a bridge
between buyers and sellers and receives commission from fishermen. Next comes fa ria who purchases small quantities of fish from fishermen located far away from markets and transports it to the terminal point where the aratdar or retailers takes it off his hands. The paikers handle large volumes of fish who in turn sell their catch to retailers through aratdar in secondary market. There is value addition at each step of the supply chain as the product is passed from one intermediary to another.
The various cost components involved in the movement of fish from fisherman to consumer include transportation, basket packaging, icing, wages and salaries, aratdar's commission, house rent, security, electricity, telephone, personal expenses, tips-donation, wastage, dadon (loan given to fishermen by aratdars requiring fish caught to be sold to them directly) cost, government taxation, subscription for cooperatives (for hilsha), For hilsha, the major cost items are aratdar's commission, transportation, and basket (packaging).
What is evident is that the value chain for hilsha is a long and complex
one. With so many intermediaries and sub-agents playing a role in the supply of the fish, it is hardly any wonder that retail price of a fish is double that of the price the average fisherman gets. Because the country suffers from the lack of an efficient transportation system, particularly good road and rail links, the supply chain gets elongated further by introduction of unnecessary intermediaries such as the farias.
With the major components of fish distribution and marketing controlled by aratdars and paikars there is little chance of this system changing until and unless the government is willing to make substantial investments in improving physical infrastructure. The transportation networks are in dire need of expansion. Similarly, storage facilities by way of developing cold storage, introduction of refrigerated vans at rural level and upgrading key market places with proper icing, water and drainage facilities. Such steps would invariably go a long way in cutting through the myriad of middlemen and ensure a higher a price that fishermen get for their catch.
Last but not the least, the government seriously needs to develop proper monitoring mechanisms which will oversee that stupendous profits being generated by retailers who currently purchase hilsha @Tk.4OO per dozen at wholesale markets such as Kawran Bazaar in the city and sell them @Tk.8OO to Tkl.000 to the consumer at the various kitchen markets does not occur.
The writer is Assistant Editor, The Daily Star.