REPUBLIC OF KENYA
MINISTRY OF FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT
KENYA COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KCDP)
FISHERIES MONITORING, CONTROL AND SURVEILLANCE (MCS) CAPACITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT FOR THE MARINE AND COASTAL FISHERIES IN KENYA
THE WORLD BANK, GEF AND GOK PROJECT
DRAFT By KCDP-MCS INTERAGENCY TEAM (FEBRUARY, 2013)
1
Introductory notes: This Manual has been developed by the KCDP-MCS Interagency Team: 1. Maxine Mutisya – MCS Unit. 2. Timothy Odende – MCS Facilitator. 3. John K. Wanyoike- MCS Unit. 4. Elizabeth Mueni-Research Subcomponent (KCDP) and FiD. 5. Gladys Okemwa- Research Subcomponent (KCDP) and KMFRI. 6. Caroline Abunge –World Conservation Society (WCS).
2
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BMU
Beach Management Unit
CAS
Catch Assessment Survey
CBO
Community Based Organization
CID
Criminal Investigations Department
CITES
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
DWF
Distant Water Fishing
EEZ
Exclusive Economic Zone
EMCA
Environmental Management and Coordination Act
ESA-IO
Eastern-Southern Africa and India Ocean
ETA
Estimated Time of Arrival
FAO
Food and Agricultural Organization
FAO CCRF
FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
FS
Frame Survey
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GMDSS
Global Maritime Distress and Safety System
GRT
Gross Register Tonnage
ICO
Information, Communication and Outreach
IOC
Indian Ocean Commission
IOTC
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
ITQ
Individual Transferable Quotas
IUU
Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported
KARI
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
KBS
Kenya Bureau of Standards
KCDP
Kenya Coastal Development Project
KEPHIS
Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services
KMA
Kenya Maritime Authority
KMFRI
Kenya
KWRI
Kenya Water Research Institute
KPA
Kenya Ports Authority
Marine
and
3
Fisheries
Research
Institute
KRA
Kenya Revenue Authority
LVFO
Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization
MCS
Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
MOFD
Ministry of Fisheries Development
NGO
Non- Governmental Organization
NPOA
National Plan of Action
OCPD
Officer Commanding Police Division
OECD
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
POA
Plan of Action
RFMO
Regional Fisheries Management Organization
SADC
Southern Africa Development Cooperation
SOPs
Standard Operating Procedures
SWIOFC
South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission
SWIOFP
South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project
UN
United Nations
UNCLOS
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
VMS
Vessel Monitoring System
WARMA
Water Resources Management Authority
4
Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 7 1.1
KENYA MARINE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................................. 7 1.2 POLICY AND LEGAL PROVISIONS FOR MCS ........................................................ 10 1.2.1 Policy framework ......................................................................................................... 10 1.2.2
Legal Framework ......................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER TWO: KENYA COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (KCDP).................... 18 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 18 OVERALL GOAL OF THE PROJECT ......................................................................... 18 MCS STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN ....................................................................... 18 OVERALL GOAL OF THE MCS STRATEGY AS ALIGNED TO THE PROJECT GOAL ................................................................................................................................. 19 2.5 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF THE MARINE FISHERIES MCS STRATEGY ... 19 2.5.1 Promote an effective institutional and legal framework for an operational coastal and offshore MCS system .................................................................................................. 19 2.5.2
Promote responsible and sustainable utilization of the coastal and offshore fisheries resources taking into account environmental concerns. .............................................. 20
2.5.3
Build and strengthen MCS infrastructure and human resource capacity ..................... 20
2.5.4
Strengthen regional MCS collaboration ....................................................................... 21
CHAPTER THREE: STEPS TOWARDS ACHIEVING PROJECT STRATEGY..................22 MONITORING, CONTROL AND SURVEILLANCE (MCS) STAKEHOLDERS’ COLLABORATION WORKSHOP ................................................................................ 22 CHAPTER FOUR: OBJECTIVES OF MCS CAPACITY NEEDS SURVEY..........................24 3.1
CHAPTER FIVE: METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 25 5.1 THE STUDY SITE ............................................................................................................ 25 5.2 THE SURVEY ................................................................................................................... 25 5.3 DATA COLLECTION ...................................................................................................... 25 CHAPTER SIX: DATA ENTRY, ANALYSIS AND REPORTING........................................... 27 6.1 KEY QUESTIONS CONSIDERED FOR THESE ANALYSES ................................... 27 6.1.1 BMU Survey ................................................................................................................ 27 CHAPTER SEVEN:
MARINE
FISHERIES
CAPACITY
NEEDS
ASSESSMENT
REPORT..........................32 7.1
FISHERIES DEPARTMENT (COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DIRECTORATE OF MARINE AND COAST) CAPACITY ASSESSMENT ........................................... 32 7.1.1 Legal framework .......................................................................................................... 32
5
7.2 ORGANIZATIONAL SET UP FOR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES....................... 41 7.2.1 Fisheries Department ................................................................................................... 41 7.2.2
Capacity for MCS ........................................................................................................ 43
7.2.3
MCS Means ................................................................................................................. 45
7.2.4
Patrol Assets ................................................................................................................. 48
7.3 INTER-AGENCY MECHANISMS CAPACITY ASSESSMENT ................................ 58 7.3.1 Operational procedures in place for interagency collaboration of FiD with Kenya Maritime Authority (KMA), Kenya Ports Authority (KPA), Kenya Revenue Authority and Immigrations Department on MCS responsibilities. ............................................ 58 7.3.2
Operational procedures in place for interagency collaboration of FiD with Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and Police on MCS patrols. ................................................. 62
7.4 BEACH MANAGEMENT UNIT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT .................................... 65 7.4.1 Background Information on BMU‟s. ........................................................................... 65 7.4.2
Role of Beach Management Unit in Fisheries Management ....................................... 65
7.4.3
Role of BMU‟s in preventive MCS activities .............................................................. 66
7.4.4
Status of BMU‟s in the coast ....................................................................................... 68
7.4.5
BMU needs Status Report ............................................................................................ 68
CHAPTER EIGHT: APPENDICES: ........................................................................................... 91 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6
Appendix 1. List of BMUs with approved Bylaws. ............................................................ 96 Appendix 2. List of BMUs with comprehensive MCS bylaws ........................................... 97 Appendix 3: list of BMUs and status of shared grounds .................................................... 98 Appendix 4: Management strategies of shared fishing grounds ....................................... 100 Appendix 5: Environmental protection strategies are undertaken by different BMUs ..... 101 Appendix 6: Operational procedures in place for interagency collaboration of FiD with Kenya Maritime Authority (KMA), Kenya Ports Authority (KPA), Kenya Revenue Authority and Immigrations Department on MCS responsibilities. ................................. 111
6
CHAPTER ONE: 1.1
INTRODUCTION
KENYA MARINE INFORMATION
FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT
AND
BACKGROUND
Kenyan coastline is 640 Km long consisting of 12 nm of territorial waters and an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extending to 200 nm with a total area of 230,000 Km2. The marine waters support a wide variety of fish species, which include finfishes, both pelagic and demersal as well as crustaceans and molluscs. Kenya has a declared Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles with a projected extension of 150 nm. Kenya‟s marine fish production potential is estimated at 150,000 metric tonnes per year. Limited artisanal activity, some prawn trawling, and Distant Water Fishing (DWF) characterize the marine fishery. The country‟s EEZ is located within the rich Tuna belt in the South West Indian Ocean, although the current domestic production is only about 7,000 metric tonnes or approximately 4% of the country‟s total annual fish landings. A significant amount of tuna is landed, processed or transhipped at the coast. However, there is no data on total catch from Kenya‟s EEZ. The main fishery products in the marine waters consist of demersal species such as Snappers, Tuna and Tuna-like species, Crustaceans such as Shrimps and Lobsters, and Cephalopods including Octopus and Squids.
7
Figure 1: Map of the coastline and the EEZ The offshore fisheries zone is mainly exploited by licensed fishing vessels from Distant Water Fishing (DWF) Nations targeting highly migratory tuna species which migrate through the Kenyan EEZ. The DWF fleets mainly comprise purse seiners and long liners operating under fishing licenses, with no obligations to land, trans-ship or declare catches in the country. This arrangement limits the country‟s benefits from its EEZ fisheries especially from value addition activities associated with trans-shipment, landing for processing or even from trade in by-catch. There are no local fishing fleets and or locally based foreign fishing fleets targeting these offshore resources. The fisheries sector presently accounts for approximately 0.5 % of Kenya‟s GDP. Revenues from inland fisheries make up 95 % of this contribution and marine fisheries only 5 %. The marine sector contribution to the national GDP has the potential to increase significantly if it‟s EEZ and the high seas resources can be optimally harvested. Currently, Kenya‟s marine resources only make a relatively small contribution to its national economy but they are essential for food security and employment in coastal communities. It has been estimated that Kenya is currently only recovering
8
between 1% and 6% of the real value of its offshore marine fish stocks. Clearly, a more equitable arrangement could significantly boost the contribution of the fisheries sector to the national economy.
The Fisheries Frame surveys carried out biennially for coastal artisanal fisheries in Kenya since 2004 show an overall increase in the fishing effort over the years. The number of fishing crafts, fishers, gears and gear efficiency is increasing. The marine sub-sector employs approximately 13,706 fishers in the primary sector of which over 95 % are artisanal fishermen operating 3,090 simple fishing crafts with limited access to offshore and deep-sea fisheries. The concentration of fishing by local communities in the inshore waters has led to overfishing in these areas.
During the recent frame survey 2012, facilitated through Kenya Coastal Development Project (KCDP), it was noted there are pockets of the coastline that have high concentration of fishers. The major challenge is that there are more fishers getting into the fishing who lack boats hence utilize the reefs which are currently heavily exploited. The number of crafts is also on the increase. The worrying trend is that most of the fishing crafts are the dugout canoes and that there are very few mechanized boats. This means that most fishers can only exploit near fishing grounds and most keep off fishing during the SE monsoon season. As it is currently, the fishing expeditions are more individualistic. There is need to change from this way of resource exploitation and preferably have co-operation between fishers where they can pool resources and purchase large vessels which can exploit waters further away from the reefs.
The following interventions were therefore desirable: Control access to the inshore reef fishery to only licensed fishing crafts and gears. Ensure that fishing access is consistent with the available exploitable fish biomass. The number of illegal gears in the fishery should be purged by implementing a robust MCS measures to ensure compliance with the current management regulations.
9
Empower BMUs to enforce fisheries regulations to enhance voluntary compliance at the local level. Through the KCDP project, there is need to ensure that the fishers are empowered and trained to carry out fishing beyond the reef so as to reduce the overexploitation therein.
Figure 2: A map showing the coastal counties and the spatial distribution of fish landing sites. 1.2
POLICY AND LEGAL PROVISIONS FOR MCS
1.2.1 Policy framework 1.2.1.1 International level The rapid depletion of key fish stocks in the years 1980-2000 has made it imperative that governments achieve greater control over fishing activities. At the global level, there are a number
10
of instruments that support nations to better manage their fisheries both domestically and internationally. Kenya signed the 1982 UN Convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS) on 10 th Dec. 1982. It then ratified accepted and acceded UNCLOS on 2nd March 1989. Kenya acceded to the 1995 UN fish stocks agreement on the 13th July 2004. IPOA-IUU.
Kenya is yet to fully domesticate the
The country has a regional plan of action against IUU for Lake Victoria (In
collaboration with Tanzania and Uganda) but none for the marine fisheries. Regarding All states responsibilities, Flag state responsibilities and coastal state measures, Kenya has done well to satisfy most of its various responsibilities through various tools and agencies (Fisheries Department, Kenya Maritime Authority, Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute). However, the country needs to create collaborative mechanisms to ensure that the various agencies work in cooperation while ensuring that they meet the international obligations against IUU fishing. On implementation of the Coastal State measures, there has been a problem of meagre resources and low capacity in the exercise of sovereign rights within EEZs to combat IUU fishing through implementation of effective MCS programmes. The country has entered into cooperation and exchange arrangements for data and information with other States.
Regarding FAO 2009 Port State measures (PSM), although Kenya signed the agreement on 19 th November 2010, no clear provisions are made in the new Fisheries Management and Development Bill to establish PSM and regulations supportive of Kenya as a flag State in fulfilling its obligations under international law. There exists no fully functional Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) unit in Kenya, as marine fisheries remain largely unregulated. Currently, no surveillance of Kenya‟s EEZ is carried out and there is also a lack of sufficient information on marine fish stock status to inform management. The institutions that govern marine sector fisheries in Kenya also have insufficient capacity in implementing MCS operations. These institutions have conflicting mandates, inadequate regulatory frameworks, inadequate resources/ infrastructure, lack operational structures and guidelines to effectively carry out MCS activities. Kenya also needs to develop linkages with other regional and global fisheries management organizations that are already emerging as strong managers of their fishery resources while improving on capture of resource rents through managed exploitation of the Kenyan EEZ.
11
1.2.1.1 Regional Cooperation and Collaboration The Kenyan fisheries sector has greatly benefited from regional collaborative initiatives such as joint management and research measures through the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO), the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC), the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), and the Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA). At the same time, the sector also continues to make useful contributions to these and other international organizations dealing with fisheries. Given the straddling, trans-boundary, interdependent, and even highly migratory nature of Kenya‟s various fisheries resources and activities, it is important for the country to strengthen the ongoing regional and international collaborative and cooperation efforts to ensure a fair share of shared stocks, and to encourage trade and development partnerships.
1.2.1.2 National Level The Kenyan National Oceans and Fisheries policy (2008) aims „to enhance the oceans and fisheries sector‟s contribution to wealth creation, increased employment for youth and women, food security, and revenue generation through effective private, public and community partnerships”. The policy focuses on the promotion, implementation and monitoring of sustainable management and responsible fishing practices. It is also the mandate of the government to ensure that the oceans and fisheries resources within Kenya fishery waters are exploited in accordance with national laws and regulations and to guarantee that vessels flying the Kenyan flag at all times adhere to international laws and management regulations. This can only be successfully achieved through effective Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS), which is currently inadequate.
1.2.2 Legal Framework 1.2.2.1 National level Fishery resources in Kenya are managed by the Ministry of Fisheries Development through the Fisheries Act (Cap 378) and the Maritime Act (Cap 371). The Ministry is mandated to provide for the exploration, exploitation, utilization, management, development and conservation of fisheries resources, and undertake research in marine and fresh water fisheries. The vision of the Ministry is to be a leading Ministry in the regulation and management of fishery resources in Africa.
12
The
Ministry‟s mission is to facilitate sustainable management and development of fishery resources and products for socio- economic development. The Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), established as a state corporation through the Science and Technology Act (Cap 250), undertakes fisheries research.
The Fisheries Act which is set out in six Parts and 26 Sections, broadly empowers the Director of Fisheries, with the approval of the Minister, to issue regulations to promote the development of fisheries and aquaculture in Kenya. As a result, there is an extensive set of regulations that have been issued under the Act, the primary ones being: (i) the Fisheries (Foreign Fishing Craft) Regulations which lays out the regime for licensing control of activities by foreign fishing vessels; and (ii) the Fisheries (General) Regulations which outlines the registration of fishing vessels and the licensing requirements for inshore fisheries as well as other aspects of conservation of marine resources.
Although the legislation is comprehensive covering key issues:
crewing of licensed vessels;
transshipment at sea and requiring that landings be made in Kenya, these licensed vessels do not comply with these regulatory obligations. There are also some gaps and weaknesses in the regulatory framework which need to be clearly identified and addressed in order to improve the management of marine fisheries in Kenya. Similarly, the regulatory framework for inshore fisheries does not comprehensively encompass all fisheries. The Coastal fisheries are of multi species composition, diverse and existing in distinct fisheries each with unique fisheries and characteristics. Existing laws and regulations are not clear or do not exist and the fisheries bill may not have the frame to anchor MCS regulations. As regards fisheries management plans, only the prawn fisheries management plan is under implementation.
The ring net, lobster and small pelagic fisheries
management plans are under development (facilitated by different initiatives such as KCDP, MOFD, SWIOFP or FAO). The marine fisheries do not possess a functioning MCS unit and is plagued with capacity shortfalls such as shortage of personnel and lack of adequate training. The National Oceans and Fisheries Policy, which was approved in 2009, laid out an agenda for reform that is still in progress. With regard to the legal framework, the document refers to the need “to develop a comprehensive, modern legal and regulatory framework for fisheries management
13
because the status and progress of national laws is not reflected in the international legal and institutional arrangements.” Consequently, the Fisheries Act CAP 378 is under review and some of the gaps identified have been addressed in the Fisheries Management and Development Bill of 2012.
In addition to the Formulation of the National Oceans and Fisheries Policy, other National interventions that have been established to address the concerns are legal reforms. Review of the Fisheries Cap 378 is ongoing to address the new Constitution, dynamics in aquaculture and trade, and domesticate treaties and agreements. The Bill in anchored on international instruments such as the United Nations Convention Law of the Sea (UNCLOS-1982), UN stock agreement (1995), FAO compliance agreement of 1993, FAO –CCRF and its plans of action (POA) such as IUU and Capacity Management, Regional Fisheries Management Regulations e.g. IOTC resolutions, LVFO agreed management Measures, Ports State Measures of 2009, conventions' such as CITES, Ramsar, Biodiversity, other nations legislations with similar fisheries , National Laws e. g EMCA, Forest, Wildlife, KMA, Merchants Shipping Act, etc, the Constitution of Kenya, and International best practice.
Regarding National laws, regulations and practices relating to Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, the new proposed legal regime already makes use of many of the tools for combating IUU fishing detailed in the 2001 FAO International plan of Action to prevent deter and eliminate IUU fishing (IPOA-IUU). Evidentiary standards and admissibility, including the use of electronic devices and new technologies such as vessel monitoring systems, as called for in the IPOA, are already provided for in the Management and Development Bill and the Law of Evidence (Penal Code). These evidentiary provisions are however, not innovative in terms of permitting certificate evidence and lack modern provisions relating to burden of proof for marine fisheries offences. They are also not satisfactory for the introduction of evidence of new technologies mostly necessary for the marine fisheries. There is no special reference to the admissibility of evidence taken in such situations as high seas boarding and inspection by a non-national inspecting officer.
14
This Bill ensures that MCS is entrenched as it creates the Kenya Oceans and Fisheries Advisory Council (to ensure there is coordination and synergy in MCS among others), recognizes authorized officers thus ensuring that other institutions we need to work with are taken on board, creates the fisheries database- for data on stock level, production, compliance, prosecution etc.
Progress has also been made in institutional reforms, co-management, strengthening MCS capacity and marketing. Through a cabinet memo, the Department has put up Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS) mechanism for implementing agreed policies, plans or strategies for fisheries management. The MCS operations activities are carried out in:
Landing sites – gear restrictions, illegal landings, catch assessments, species compositions, repeat offenders, licensing, fish traders,
Markets – trade of fish species, fish sizes, fish mongers, etc and
On the water – net inspections, patrols, licensing checks, net registrations etc.
A training manual for training the MCS working groups at the operational level has been developed. The composition of the interagency committee includes public health, internal security, KMA and Fisheries. The inter agency committee would be led by the FiD as the team leader. Fishery resources in Kenya are managed by the Ministry of Fisheries Development through the Fisheries Act (Cap 378) and the Maritime Act (Cap 371). Part I of the Fisheries Act, CAP 378 contains preliminary provisions, whilst part II covers administration, and part III covers registration of fishing vessels. Part IV provides for licensing provisions, which includes provisions for foreign fishing vessels as follows: i.
Section 8 covers general licensing provisions;
ii.
Section 9 covers local fishing vessel licenses;
iii.
Section 10 deals with the validity of local fishing vessel licenses;
iv.
Section 11 deals with fishing and entry into Kenyan fishing waters by foreign fishing vessels;
v.
Section 12 provides for the issuing of foreign fishing licenses;
vi.
Section 13 deals with the validity of foreign fishing licenses;
vii.
Section 14 deals with other licenses.
15
Part V provides for offences and penalties, as set out below: i.
Section 15 deals with prohibited methods of fishing;
ii.
Section 16 deals with receiving fish in respect of which an offence has been committed;
iii.
Section 17 deals with obstruction of officers;
iv.
Section 18 deals with powers of officers;
v.
Section 19 deals with forfeiture;
vi.
Section 20 deals with compounding of offences.
Part VI concludes the act with general provisions, which includes a section that deals with the conduct of prosecutions. The Fisheries Act CAP 378 is under review and some of the gaps identified have been addressed in the Fisheries Management and Development Bill of 2012. This Bill ensures that MCS is entrenched as it creates the Kenya Oceans and Fisheries Advisory Council (to ensure there is coordination and synergy in MCS among others), recognizes authorized officers thus ensuring that other institutions we need to work with are taken on board, creates the fisheries database- for data on stock level, production, compliance, prosecution etc.
Progress has also been made in institutional reforms, co-management, strengthening MCS capacity and marketing. To implement Management plans, through a cabinet memo, the Department has put up Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS) mechanism for implementing agreed policies, plans or strategies for fisheries management. The MCS operations activities are carried out in:
FMC-VMS
Landing sites – gear restrictions, illegal landings, catch assessments, species compositions, repeat offenders, licensing, fish traders,
Markets – trade of fish species, fish sizes, fish mongers, etc and
On the water – net inspections, patrols, licensing checks, net registrations etc.
A National training manual for training the MCS working groups at the operational level has been developed. The composition of the interagency committee included public health, internal security, KMA and Fisheries. The inter agency committee would be led by the FiD as the team leader: I.
Operation level - county and National level
16
II.
Duties include but not limited to; a)
Ensure performance contract specific to Surveillance and Enforcement Unit are in place for performance monitoring
b)
Set targets with individual enforcement team leaders
c)
National committee sign performance contract with county MCS committee
d)
Sign performance contract with the district team leaders
e)
Monitoring of MCS operations
f)
Respond to political concerns
g)
Public awareness
h)
Judicial efficiency
i)
Integrity issues
17
CHAPTER TWO:
2.1
KENYA (KCDP)
COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
The Government of Kenya has received financing from the International Development Association (IDA) towards the Kenya Coastal Development Project (KCDP). The KCDP covers a period of 6 years and its development objective is to promote environmentally sustainable management of Kenya‟s coastal and marine resources by strengthening the capacity of existing relevant government agencies and rural micro, small and medium-sized enterprises in selected coastal communities. The project is comprised of the following four components: 1. Component 1: Sustainable Management of Fisheries Resources; 2. Component 2: Sound Management of Natural Resources; 3. Component 3: Support for Alternative Livelihoods; 4. Component 4: Capacity building, Monitoring and Evaluation System, Project Management and Communication, Community Village Fund (CVF). The project is implemented by 7 agencies of the Government of Kenya (GoK), comprising of Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, Fisheries Department, Kenya Wildlife Service, Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Coast Development Authority, Ministry of Lands and the National Environmental Management Authority. The activities of these agencies, within the KCDP project, are coordinated by a centralized Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) based at the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI). 2.2
OVERALL GOAL OF THE PROJECT
Promote environmentally sustainable management of the Kenya's coastal and marine resources and increase benefits derived from coastal fisheries 2.3
MCS STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN
A marine fisheries MCS strategy and action plan developed Under the KCDP project sets the strategic objectives the MCS Sub-Component of the project will pursue in the next six years. These strategies are in line with the national development goals as articulated in Oceans and Fisheries
18
Policy of 2008, the Ministry of Fisheries Development Strategic plans as well as the overall goals of the KCDP project.
Four strategic issues have been identified namely, institutional and legal framework for an operational coastal and offshore MCS system, sustainable utilization of the coastal and offshore fisheries resources, MCS infrastructure and human resource capacity and regional MCS collaboration.
The MCS strategy is to pursue clearly defined strategic objectives namely: Promoting an effective institutional and legal framework for an operational coastal and offshore MCS system, promoting responsible and sustainable utilization of the coastal and offshore fisheries resources, building and strengthening MCS infrastructure and human resource capacity and Strengthen regional MCS collaboration. 2.4
OVERALL GOAL OF THE MCS STRATEGY AS ALIGNED TO THE PROJECT GOAL
Promote sustainable local utilization of fisheries resources, establish an effective legal and institutional MCS framework and increase compliance in order to raise revenues from the coastal and marine fisheries and create employment. 2.5
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF THE MARINE FISHERIES MCS STRATEGY
2.5.1 Promote an effective institutional and legal framework for an operational coastal and offshore MCS system I. Strengthen Legislations relevant to MCS a. Coastal fisheries management regulation b. EEZ and High seas Regulation c. Sport Fisheries Regulations II. Develop Marine Coast MCS Operational procedures a. Boarding and Inspection. b. Licensing.
19
c. Investigation, seizure and disposal. d. Prosecution. e. Patrol planning, briefing, reporting and post patrol de-briefing. f. Communication guides. III. Establish effective MCS interagency Mechanisms. a. Identification of partner agencies and their core competencies. b. Establishing info sharing protocols and mode of engagement (MOUs). c. Develop an interagency MCS network operations plan based on the MOUs. d. Establish and Equip a Fisheries surveillance, Interagency Coordination and information clearing Desk at the PDFs office. IV. Promote multi-disciplinary, collaborative and demand driven research a. Identification and prioritization of information needed by fisheries. b. Management as relates to Fish stocks. c. Establish an effective collaboration Mechanism between Fisheries Management and Research. d. Establish Marine Coast Data base Division at the PDFs Office. 2.5.2 Promote responsible and sustainable utilization of the coastal and offshore fisheries resources taking into account environmental concerns. I. II. III.
Develop Fisheries Management plan/s. Promote the establishment of domestic offshore fishing fleet. Support elaboration of favorable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPA) with DWFN in the EEZ in collaboration with Min. of Trade.
IV.
Monitor and control fishing effort, illegal fishing practices & environmental degradation.
2.5.3 Build and strengthen MCS infrastructure and human resource capacity I.
Strengthen the MCS Equipment's and logistical arrangements A. Asses MCS Capacity a. By vessel b. By air
20
c. Shore based controls d. Observer at sea e. Dockside monitors (landing checks ) f. VMS g. Radar h. Real time Video i. Communication and radio B. Procurement and upgrading the MCS Equipment's and logistical arrangements
II.
Develop Skills, Knowledge and capacity at all levels of MCS a. Identification of MCS stakeholders b. Comprehensive Training Needs Assessment c. Development of Training Manuals and Curriculum d. Delivery of Trainings
2.5.4 Strengthen regional MCS collaboration I. II.
Participate in regional and international fisheries management organizations. Domesticate regional and international agreements.
III.
Collaborate in regional MCS Activities.
IV.
Domesticate FAO CCRF: a. Elaborate NPOA_ IUU b. Elaborate NPOA _ Capacity
21
CHAPTER THREE:
3.1
STEPS TOWARDS STRATEGY.
ACHIEVING
PROJECT
MONITORING, CONTROL AND SURVEILLANCE (MCS) STAKEHOLDERS’ COLLABORATION WORKSHOP
A Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Stakeholders‟ Collaboration Kilifi (Pwani University) Workshop was held under the auspices of the Kenya Coastal Development Project (KCDP) on 7th September, 2012.
The main objective of the workshop was to update the
stakeholders on Fisheries Department MCS activities that the department is mandated to carry out, and that are currently the focus of the KCDP. Specifically, the workshop intended to develop a common understanding on MCS in fisheries management and Share lessons and experiences from MCS specific initiatives; Identify agencies to collaborate in MCS activities and document their core competencies; Agree and /or develop information sharing protocols; and to Identify priority actions for further considerations and implementation of information sharing protocols.
Specifically, the workshop outputs were: 1. Improved understanding on the MCS in the management and development of the inshore and offshore fisheries in Kenya. 2. Documented agency competencies and a framework for collaboration. 3. Identified priority issues and suite of action. 4. A roadmap on agency involvement in the implementation of MCS activities under KCDP.
The following were identified and agreed as areas of fisheries inter-agency MCS collaboration: A. Data Collection and information sharing •
Stocks related surveys
•
Fishing Vessel Registration, identification and movement
•
Enforcement operations outputs/results
•
Communication infrastructure: Air , sea and VMS and satellite information
•
Licensed fishers
B. Trainings/Capacity building through skills sharing •
To be based on Training Needs Assessment of personnel
22
C. Surveillance and Enforcement •
Surveillance and response asset sharing
•
Corporative port state enforcement
•
Patrol vessel sharing
•
Search and rescue operations
The following was unanimously agreed as the way forward- that the MCS participating agencies will strive to:
1. Build on/domesticate the National interagency information sharing protocol for consideration and approval at policy level interagency meeting. 2. Develop Surveillance and response asset sharing, Joint port state enforcement and Patrol vessel sharing protocols and procedures for approval at policy level interagency meeting 3. Establish a Marine Coast Data base Division at the Provincial Director of Fisheries Office (Fish Stocks) 4. Establish and Equip a Fisheries surveillance, Interagency Coordination and information clearing Desk at the PDFs office (Operations). 5. Constitute, develop terms of operation, and operationalize an ad hoc Marine Coast Interagency Coordination Committee. 6. Form and constitute an interim interagency way forward implementation team 7. Implement all way forward actions by 30th June 2013. 8. Ensure that all fisheries MCS participating agencies are involved in spearheading the way forward actions. 9. To the extent possible, ensure that the MCS participating agencies second only one officer to this committee.
23
CHAPTER FOUR:
OBJECTIVES OF MCS CAPACITY NEEDS SURVEY
1. Assess the capacity of main stakeholders in terms of legal and institutional structures in undertaking MCS in the marine fisheries. 2. Outline the type and number of resources available for surveillance activities on the marine fisheries with a swift comparison of the marine fishing activity. 3. Assess the reporting systems and outputs of MCS activities. 4. Develop recommendations on the way forward considering the key issues raised during the consultation process.
24
CHAPTER FIVE: 5.1
METHODOLOGY
THE STUDY SITE
The study targeted all the BMU registered or in the process of registration in the five riparian counties; Kilifi, Kwale, Lamu, Mombasa and Tana River. The survey also targeted the institutions that collaborate with Fisheries Department (FiD) either in carrying out at sea, at port or at border inspections, issuance of work permits to foreigners, catch data monitoring among others. 5.2
THE SURVEY
Prior to implementing the MCS capacity needs assessment survey, the survey tools were developed with involvement of most stakeholders in Fisheries Management. During these meeting draft questionnaires were developed which were further revised by the MCS team. The survey team was identified who before and after testing the BMU questionnaire further revised it to capture the necessary information to guide the MCS interventions at BMU level. The survey took place as indicated below: Survey site Kwale county Mombasa County Kilifi County Tana River County Lamu County MCS Interagency Survey 5.3
Timeframe 14-18 December 2012. 11-12 January 2013 19-24 December 2012. 06-08 January 2013. 09-14 January 2013. 21-24 January 2013.
DATA COLLECTION
Both secondary and primary data were collected. Secondary data was obtained from official Government documents and records, technical reports held by different agencies and other grey literature. Primary data was collected from the representative from the BMUs, Government institutions, NGOs and other agencies working in collaboration with FiD. A combination of two primary data collection techniques were used namely questionnaires and focus group discussions. 1. Questionnaires: Different sets of questionnaires were prepared and administered to BMUs (64), MCS interagency institutions (KMA, KPA, Immigration, KWS, KRA), Fisheries Department
25
(6) at regional and county levels. For Research institutions (including Government and NGOs) the questionnaire was not administered but information was gathered from technical reports on fisheries data and monitoring. The questionnaires were administered to the respondents through face to face interviews in Kiswahili which is the most commonly used language. The questionnaires had both closed and open-ended questions. The open-ended questions that are normally used in semi-structured interviews were included in the questionnaires to make it possible to probe for answers and create room for two-way interactions and exchange of information between the interviewer and the respondent. 2.
Focus group discussions: Focus group discussions were conducted on BMUs in Mombasa County who declined to be interviewed individually. Each focal group consisted of 3
26
CHAPTER SIX: DATA ENTRY, ANALYSIS AND REPORTING Data entry was done by the survey team. Data entry template was developed to capture the data from the questionnaires. Each set of questionnaire had specific data template to answer the specific questions for each category of groups interviewed. Data was cleaned and the team agreed on the final questions that the results were to answer from the survey data. Analysis of the data was done using MS-Excel and Statistica software. The team prepared the survey report based on the outputs from the analysis. 6.1
KEY QUESTIONS CONSIDERED FOR THESE ANALYSES
6.1.1 BMU Survey 1. What is the demographic characteristic of the respondent (includes gender, occupation, status in BMU, range of age.) 2. What is the structure of the BMU administration with reference to sub committees and if they are functional? 3. What is the fisheries data Monitoring capacity at the BMU level 4. How many BMUs have bylaws that address issues of MCS are the by -laws approved? 5. What sanctions are frequently used to mitigate illegal fishing or non-compliance 6. How many BMUs apply sanctions to mitigate illegal fishing 7. How many BMUs have had training on sea patrols, which institutions were involved in the training and what was the adequacy of the training 8. How many BMUs have been trained in Sea safety, institutions and adequacy 9. How many BMUs have shared fishing grounds and how many have co-management plans 10. How many BMUs have community managed areas (tengefu) and what strategies are used to manage them 11. What environmental protection strategies are undertaken by different BMUs through the bylaws and are they sufficient?
27
12. Do BMUs vet new applicants in accordance with the BMU regulation on new applicant‟s Do BMUs keep records of those violating the by-laws 13. Are BMU assembly members aware of the bylaws and co-management plans in their management 14. Are fishermen members of the BMU 15. Proportion of budgetary allocation for MCS activities and willingness of BMU members finance BMU operations 16. What are the powers of the chairman in enforcing BMU by-laws 17. What MCS equipments do BMUs have
6.1.2 Kenya Maritime Authority, Kenya Revenue Authority, Immigration Department and Kenya Ports Authority operational procedures in place 1. Are there operational procedures in place for involvement of Fisheries Department in Vetting of fishing vessels and crew that have applied to fly the Kenya flag? 2. Are there operational procedures in place for deregistration of fishing vessels that have violated fishing national and international regulations? 3. Are there operational procedures in place for inspection and issuance of certificate of seaworthiness? 4. Are there operational procedures in place for sharing satellite imagery information of fishing vessels within our territorial waters and the EEZ? 5. Are there operational procedures in place for Collaboration in capacity building (boarding, law enforcement at sea, maintenance, marine law and others)? 6. Are there operational procedures in place for the creation and maintenance of a central database for registered vessels and dissemination to fisheries and other agencies? 7. Are there operational procedures in place for the participation in joint Port state measures/ control for fishing vessels? 8. Are there operational procedures in place for collaborating on establishing communication framework?
28
9. Are there operational procedures in place for sharing of information on fishing and fish cargo vessels arrival? 10. Are there operational procedures in place for facilitating boarding of fishing vessels for inspection? 11. Are there operational procedures in place for collaboration in the establishment and demarcation of fishing ports? 12. Are there procedures in place for provision of space for physical presence of Fisheries Inspectors at Port? 13. Are there operational procedures in place for collaboration in capacity building (identify areas for capacity building-maintenance, navigation)? 14. Awareness of the entity (authority) with primary responsibility for implementing Port State Measures for fishing vessels in Kenya? 15. List of other government departments/agencies/authority involved in regulating the movement and inspection of foreign fishing vessels of all types in Kenyan ports. 16. Are there records of how many port calls are made by foreign-flagged fishing vessels, foreign-flagged reefers and supply vessels to Kenyan ports annually? 17. Are such foreign-flagged fishing vessels required to provide information before they enter port? 18. If yes what are the procedures in place and in what form is the information? 19. Are foreign-flagged fishing vessels and vessels engaged in fishing-related activities inspected in your ports? If yes, explain how is the selection made of which vessels to inspect? 20. Do you undertake patrols in your water body? 21. If yes, how many times per year? 22. What prompts a patrol?
6.1.3 MCS competent authority questionnaire 1. How would you rate the arrangements in place for surveillance in EEZ and the High seas, Coastal and near shore waters, and Port state Measures. 2. Are there fishery specific management plans.
29
3. Stakeholder consultation framework (guidelines) to guide the development of fisheries management plans. 4. Register of licenses issued under this Act. 5. Register of authorizations issued under this Act. 6. Maintenance of record of the outcome of any legal or administrative action taken in respect of any violation against this Act. 7. Are there Established procedures for acquisition of Licenses and Authorizations? 8. Is there a Marking system for registered Fishing Vessels? 9. Format for fishing and navigational logbooks for licensed industrial fishing vessels. 10. Is there a Vessel Monitoring System in place? 11. Are there established procedures for an observer program. 12. Is there an established reporting requirement for industrial fishing vessels. 13. Is there a Fish and fish products Transhipment reporting format. 14. Established list of devices designated as fish aggregating devices. 15. Standing orders/procedures on dressing of authorized officers. 16. Standing orders/procedures on authority cards of authorized officers. 17. Boarding and inspection procedures for Authorized officers and observers. 18. Boarding and inspection reporting formats. 19. Are authorized officers trained in Seizure, handling of exhibits, Investigation, Prosecution, Arrest procedures? 20. Are there designations of Ports for use by foreign fishing vessels? 21. Are there established procedures for port inspections and reporting? 22. Are there established procedures for at sea surveillance and enforcement? 23. How many patrols have been carried out? 6.1.4 Patrols (KWS and Immigration) questionnaire 1. Do the organizations‟ regulations allow for and are there operational procedures in place for undertaking joint patrols? 2. Are the organizations‟ managers knowledgeable on fisheries laws and regulations? 3. Do these organizations allow for intelligence information sharing with other state agencies and are there operational procedures in place for intelligence information sharing?
30
4. Have the relevant members of staff undergone training on intelligence gathering and prosecution? 5. What patrol equipment and frequency of operation are present, quantities and status. 6. Presence of communication equipment by type. 7. Training adequacy on search and rescue and how effective are search and rescue operations. 8
Are your laws and regulations in conflict with fisheries laws? What are the areas of conflict? What would you recommend to resolve the conflicting laws?
9
Does your institution have any training facility and do your regulations allow training of personnel from other state agencies (access/admission operational procedures)?
10
Their overall level of training for patrol duties?
31
CHAPTER SEVEN:
MARINE FISHERIES ASSESSMENT REPORT
CAPACITY
NEEDS
This section now forward outline
7.1
FISHERIES DEPARTMENT (COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DIRECTORATE OF MARINE AND COAST) CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
7.1.1 Legal framework Table 1: Legal Capacity for the Provision of MCS Component Operational Authorized personnel and Procedure Stop aircraft, vessels and vehicles To inspect and search To seize and detain To seize and destroy To sell seized fish and fishery products Powers of arrest To prosecute Control access to fisheries Technical and Conservation measures Control illegal use of gear & methods
Details/Comments Yes. Follow/Use Criminal procedure code. Require specific fisheries guidelines. Legally mandated, no procedure. Legally mandated, no procedure. Legally mandated, no procedure. Legally mandated, no procedure. -With court order. Legally mandated, no procedure. -Perishables only. Legally mandated, no procedure. -Without warrant. Legally mandated, no procedure. Legally mandated. Prohibited Gears: 1. 2. 3. 4.
Regulatory Control pollution and habitat degradation Protect critical habitats & nursery grounds Introduction of exotics Control capture & trade in immature fish Regulate cross border fishing & trading Power to eliminate/destroy illegal gear Liability on conviction Liability on court order To fine offenders
Beach Seine. Spear Gun. Monofilament net. Ring net.
Legally mandated. Legally mandated. Legally mandated. No legal provisions. Require export permit. Legally mandated. Legally mandated. Bond system. Must not exceed the value of the seized item.
32
7.1.1.1 Implications of the policy and legal frameworks for MCS i.
Fisheries regulations have not been reviewed for a very long time therefore benefits are very low. The Fisheries Act does not cover all the water bodies and is not explicit for certain fisheries in terms of sizes.
ii.
Concern was expressed that sanctions were not commensurate with the benefits or financial gain of illegal fishing and did not provide an adequate deterrent. The penalties are light and inadequate to deter violation of the law.
iii.
Amending laws for presenting evidence in court raises implications for producing evidence in court. Current application of law imposes logistical burden on MCS resources. Only partial legislation exists and which implementation mechanism is not effective. Kenya has made several international and regional commitments to a good number of fisheries governance instruments. Kenya is a member of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), the Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC), the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project (SWIOFP) and the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization, (LVFO). Kenya is also a party to the 1982 UN Convention and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement and has signed the FAO Port State Measures Agreement. Kenya does not have a National Plan of Action (NPOA) for IUU. However, a National Oceans and Fisheries Policy was adopted in 2008.
The Policy addresses, inter alia, MCS, regional and international
agreements and cooperation, an institutional framework and a legislative framework. One of the aims of this policy is to create a harmonized legal framework to guide management, coordination and regulation of the oceans and fisheries sector. iv.
Currently, there are no provisions in the existing 1989 Fisheries Act that would allow the implementation of the IOTC Port State Measures Resolutions. As recognized in the Policy, the existing Fisheries Act is extremely weak and outdated. MCS arrangements are weak or non-existent. If a vessel on the IOTC IUU Vessel List were in port, there would be very little that could be done under current laws and procedures.
v.
There is no or minimal legal basis for compliance tools that are complementary to port State measures, such as regulation of VMS, the appointment of authorized officers, the appointment of observers and the duties and rights of each as well as the range of requirements for persons to support them, and to assist them to do their job, and to provide information that is true, complete and correct.
33
vi.
Requirements relating to information systems and decision-making are also not provided. There is no substantive empowerment in the Act for the Minister or others to appoint personnel, or for the standards of accountability of such personnel. Officers have very limited powers under section 18 of the Fisheries Act, and there are no requirements for the master, etc. of the vessel to obey and assist MCS personnel in carrying out their duties.
vii.
The Fisheries (Foreign Fishing Craft) Regulations 2009 provide for observers in section 44, but this as a very weak provision. It simply empowers the Director to “assign an observer” and does not provide for the appointment in writing or standards for observers. An observer typically has broad “scientific, compliance and monitoring” functions, but the Regulations describe the functions more loosely, as collecting scientific data and carrying out such other management and enforcement activities as the Director may authorize. It does not provide for duties assigned to observers by the operators, masters and crew of a vessel. Observers should be empowered to provide key information to port inspectors, including information that relates to compliance matters, but the Regulations do not permit this.
34
7.1.1.2 Knowledge and application of fisheries laws, operational procedures and licensing frameworks for MCS.
Figure 3: Level of knowledge on various fisheries laws and regulations A high level of MCS officers was either not or partly conversant with the BMU regulations and fisheries Act and some indicated that they were fully conversant with the two laws. This was different with international laws like UNCLOS, UN Fish Stocks agreement and FAO agreement where the officers either indicated that they were not conversant with the laws or they were partly conversant with it. There was a mixture of responses for the IOTC and Port state measures but a big number said they were only partly conversant. The above indicates that the MCS staff members from the entire marine and coast directorate have either limited knowledge or none of relevant fisheries policies and regulations.
35
District
Possession of IOTC resolutions
Possession of Fisheries Act
Possession of BMU regulation
Tana River
None
Mostly
Mostly
Malindi
Partly
Partly
Partly
Kwale
Partly
Most
Most
Kilifi
Mostly
Mostly
Fully
Lamu
Partly
Mostly
Mostly
Mombasa
Partly
Mostly
Mostly
Table 2: Level of MCS FOs possessing copies of the relevant operational legal instruments The above table indicates that majority of the MCS FOs mostly do possess copies of the National legal documents, but lack the IOTC resolutions. However, most DFOs confirmed that they did not carry and continuously consult these operational legal instruments during their daily work activities.
36
District Relevant fisheries laws
Gathering and reporting fisheries intelligence
Identifying Arresting infringements offenders
Seizures & storage of movable items
Preferring charges, report & witness statement
Operational planning & Budgeting
Vetting
Supporting & guiding BMU
Tana River
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor
Good
Good
Malindi
Fair
Fair
Poor
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Good
Fair
Kwale
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
NA
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Kilifi
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
Poor
Lamu
Good
Good
Poor
Fair
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Poor
Fair
Good
Mombasa Fair
Table 3: Level of MCS Staff knowledge and skill on relevant fisheries operational procedures The above table indicates that most fisheries MCS staff lack adequate knowledge of relevant MCS operational procedures.
Registered vessels
Licensed fishers
Infringement register
Marking for registered vessels
Explain
% of actual marking of registered
Tana River
Poor
Very good
Very good
No
N/A
N/A
Malindi
Poor
Poor
Poor
No
N/A
Kwale
Good
Good
Good
Yes
Kilifi
Fair
Fair
none
Yes
NA They have numbers but not enforced and therefore not written on the boats Done by KMA. In the register, not actual
Lamu
Fair
Poor
Poor
Yes
N/A
less than 50% poor less than 50%
Mombasa
Fair
Fair
Poor
No
N/A
N/A
District
less than 50%
Table 4: Rating Maintenance of registers The above table confirms that the various MCS registers are generally not well maintained in the entire marine fisheries.
Table 5 a: Fisher Registration Status
Landing sites
No of Fishers
Not % Not No Licensed Licensed Licensed
Lamu Tana River
19
3,064
620
2,444
80
4
643
54
589
92
Malindi
31
2,830
195
2,635
93
Kilifi
29
1,883
353
1,530
81
Mombasa
31
1,449
984
465
32
Kwale
46
3,837
170
3,667
96
38
District Registered vessels
Crafts Frame survey
Lamu Tana River
19
539
131
539
76
4
120
11
109
91
Malindi
31
578
111
480
81
Kilifi
29
479
34
445
93
Mombasa
31
486
109
418
78
Kwale
46
911
126
797
86
No % Not registered Not licensed registered
Table 5b: Vessel Registration Status snd Licenses
District Sanctions commensurate with benefits
Sanctions provide adequate deterrent
Does current laws impose logistical Are current burden to laws sufficient MCS for MCS
Tana Delta
NA
N/A
Yes
Yes
Malindi
No
No
Yes
No
Kwale
No
No
Yes
Yes
Kilifi
No
No
Yes
No
Lamu
No
No
Yes
Yes
Mombasa No
No
Yes
No
Table 6: Sanctions and laws applied 7.1.1.3 Implication of Operational procedures and licensing frameworks for MCS The survey indicated that the MCS staff members from the entire marine and coast directorate have either limited or average knowledge of relevant fisheries policies and regulations. The assessment also indicated that they mostly do possess copies of the National legal documents, but lack the relevant regional and international policy documents (Table 2). However, most DFOs did not confirm that they carried these documents.
39
There exists no MCS standard operating procedures and most fisheries MCS staff lack knowledge of relevant MCS operational procedures (Table 3) (such as gathering fisheries intelligence and reporting; operational planning and budgeting for MCS activities; carrying out surveillance and identifying infringements; arresting procedures of suspected fisheries offenders; seizure and storage of movable items used in committing fisheries offences and initiating the process of their lawful disposal; preferring charges, writing case reports, witness statements and giving evidence in court; vetting, approving and issuing licenses/permits for fishing, fishing vessels, movement of fish, fish trade and related activities; supporting and guiding BMUs in conducting monitoring control and surveillance activities).
The various MCS registers (Registered vessels, licensed fishers, Infringements, Marking for registered vessels) are generally lacking or well maintained in the entire marine fisheries (Table 4).
40
7.2
ORGANIZATIONAL SET UP FOR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
This section looks at the current organization of the Fisheries Department and describes the roles and responsibilities of the various other organizations and individuals actually or potentially involved in MCS related activities, including Beach Management Units and the Police Force.
Fisheries Department The organizational structure of the Kenyan Fisheries Department is illustrated in Figure 3. The Coast and Marine Directorate, under the Ministry of Fisheries Development, maintains one Regional Office, headed by an Provincial Director of Fisheries at Mombasa, on the Coastal area. The Directorate has implemented a centralized management system for marine MCS activities, and divided the department into the 6 marine Districts which are Mombasa, Malindi, Kwale, Kilifi, Tana River and Lamu. Each district has a centre where the District Fisheries Officer maintains an office.
The role of the Regional Office (RO) is to evaluate and coordinate the activities of 7 District Offices inclusive of one inland based district namely Taita Taveta. The district offices provide the main MCS activities and report directly to the RO. The organization at district level consists of 10 staffing levels. The most significant are the District Fisheries Officer (DFO), the Principal Fisheries Officer (PFO).
The DFO provides the link between the district and regional office fulfilling administrative and management requirements. The DFO organizes patrols including personnel and equipment requirements, and patrol objectives and planning. The remainder of roles provides technical and operational support such as administrative, communication or information technology boat handling and maintenance. Inspections are routinely performed at all dimensions of the fishery i.e. landing sites, factories, transport vessels, fish market etc. By Officers engaged in MCS.
The DFO also provides the link between Beach Management Units (BMUs), and the RO.
41
Figure 4: Directorate Of Marine And Coastal Fisheries Organogram CHAPTER ONE:
Director, Directorate of Marine and Coast
Provincial
Director
of Fisheries, Coast and Marine
Environmental
Human
Accounts and
Quality
District
Conservation
Resources
Procurement
Assurance
Fisheries
and
Officers
Training Section
Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS)
FO
Aquaculture
7.2.1 Fisheries Department Capacity to undertake MCS This section outlines the means within Kenya to implement monitoring, control and surveillance activities. It first reviews the current status of fishing activities and recorded infringements, then discusses the MCS capacity that exists to address the scale of the fishery and the issues and describes the current MCS activities that are undertaken. 7.2.2.1 Fishing Activities Table 7: summarises information for each district in Marine and Coastal Directorate, giving details on the number of landing sites, fishers, fishing vessels, BMUs and factories. To provide an indication of the effectiveness of MCS activities at monitoring fishing activity and implementing control and enforcement responsibilities it was important to establish the extent of these responsibilities represented by fishery characteristics which are related to fishers and fishing activity not the fish stocks. Table 7: Fishing Activities per District (Marine) District / County
Landing sites
Vessels
Traders
BMUs
Fishers
Factories
Lamu
26
647
68
26
3587
0
Tana River
4
28
17
4
142
0
Malindi
16
699
120
6
2330
0
Kilifi
11
889
513
11
384
1
Mombasa
11
314
141
14
918
6
Kwale
40
75
135
19
3358
0
43
Table 7: Fishing Activities per District (Marine) County/ District
Illegal gear/ Methods
Fishing without license
Foreign fishers
Poor fish handling Endangered methods species
Protected areas
Undersized/ Berried status for lobsters
Tana River
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Malindi
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Kwale
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Kilifi
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Lamu
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Mombasa
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Table 8: Infringements by type and District during survey
County/district Warning
Denying access
Confiscation of gears
Fines
Arrest and prosecution
Reporting
Awareness
Tana River
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Malindi
NA
Yes
NA
NA
Yes
NA
NA
Kwale
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Yes
Kilifi
NA
NA
Yes
NA
Yes
NA
NA
Lamu
Yes
Yes
NA
Yes
Yes
NA
Yes
Mombasa
NA
Yes
Yes
NA
Yes
NA
Yes
Table 9: Action taken on various infringement types
Tables 8 and 9 indicate that there must be either a failure in the reporting system or that surveillance efforts are effective at detecting gear infringements only.
44
7.2.2 MCS Means This section reviews the MCS capacity in Kenya compared to current fishing activity. It considers the staff and equipment available and what activities are undertaken. Issues and limitations with these activities are also discussed. 7.2.3.1 Personnel At the national level the Fisheries Act of 1991 assigns responsibility for MCS at the central level through the Kenyan Fisheries Department, although there has also been a movement to involve Beach Management Units (BMU) in local level MCS activities. The legal framework provides a comprehensive coverage for fisheries management but could be further strengthened through clarification of the roles and responsibilities of BMUs; increased sanctions to deter illegal fishing activities; and allowing for photographic evidence in court.
The Fisheries Department maintains a Regional Office (RO) which is headed by the Provincial Director of Fisheries at Mombasa and is responsible for coordinating the activities of eight District Fisheries Offices (DFOs) located at Mombasa, Kwale, Malindi, Kilifi, Tana River, Taita Taveta and Lamu.
The DFOs include Principal Fisheries Officers (PFOs) and District Fisheries Officers
(DFOs) and report directly to the RO who coordinates and evaluates their performance. At present the MCS patrols are planned and undertaken by District and Regional Offices working in partnership.
Table10 summarises the personnel available for MCS activities within the Marine
Districts of Fisheries Department.
45
County/district
DFO PFO
FO
AFO
FA
FA 2
SSS
COX
CREW TOTAL
Tana River
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
3
7
Malindi
1
1
1
2
0
3
1
2
3
14
Kwale
1
0
2
3
4
0
5
1
8
24
Kilifi
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
3
11
Lamu
1
3
3
2
11
0
2
2
6
30
Mombasa 1 3 2 2 7 Table 10: Personnel assets and distribution Marine and Coast Fisheries Key: DFO: District Fisheries Officer SFO: Senior Fisheries Officer FO1 Fisheries Officer AFO: Assistant Fisheries Officer FA1/2/3: Fisheries Assistant SSS: Senior Subordinate Staff Cox: Coxswain Crew: crew
There are 96 staff involved in MCS related activities. The Regional Office is also located at Mombasa has the overall responsibility of evaluating MCS performance of district offices and assessing reporting outputs from the fishery.
DISTRICT DFO PFO
FO
AFO FA 1
FA 2
SFS
FS
SSS
COX
CREW
Tana Delta
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Malindi
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Kwale
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Kilifi
NA
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Lamu
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Mombasa
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table 11: Personnel assigned to MCS activities There exists no definite organizational structure at District Fisheries level. It was found that all cadres of personnel are assigned MCS duties either due to shortage of staff and therefore lack of
46
specialization and responsibility. These staff are not trained or properly equipped to carry out MCS tasks. These staff was also charged with other duties (see Appendix 6)
County/district
Proportion
Tana River
-
Malindi
55%
Kwale
30%
Kilifi
90%
Lamu
40%
Mombasa
20%
Table 12: Proportion of work is spent on MCS tasks The proportion work time spent on MCS duties was varied and mostly less than 50% of total work time.
County/District
Corresponding work
Field based staff
Garsen, Kipini, Kipini, Kipini All landing sites
Tana River
DFO, FO, COX, SSS, Crew
Malindi
FA
Kwale
All except SSS and DFO
Kilifi
SFO,FO,AFO,AF2, CREW, Coxwain
Lamu
FOs/AFOs/FAs
Mombasa
SAFO, FA 2
areas
of
Kipini,
FOs/AFOs- incharge of divisions, FAs – incharge of landing sites Landing areas
Table 13: Field based staff and location If we make a comparison of the coverage of Inspectors to kilometers of water frontage, we can see that surveillance personnel have an acute lack of resources i.e. vehicles and patrol vessels, to perform patrols and inspections.
In some districts there are a higher proportion of fishers to fisheries officers, which
implies that enforcement of fisheries regulations cannot be uniformly applied throughout the area. It is not possible to compare the areas with more favorable ratio of inspectors to fishers due to the fact that no clear cut duties are in fact allocated.
47
There is similar pattern when comparing fisheries officers and fishing vessels. BMUs can only provide effective monitoring activity at their specific landing site. Therefore enforcement of fisheries regulations is relatively absent in many areas and is illustrated by the prevalence of illegal fishing gear in the fishery as indicated in Table 8. 7.2.3
Patrol Assets
The districts of Mombasa, Tana River, Kwale, Kilifi have one patrol vessel each while Lamu has 3. There exists a disparity between patrol vessels and number of fishing vessels. As such their operational capacity is limited in terms of personnel that can be deployed and autonomy.
Coverage of landing sites will be particularly affected as vessels provide the best mean of accessing these remote and often difficult to reach sites.
The funding of these operations, also affects the number of
patrols permissible.
County/ District
Serviceable
Use for Patrol Activities Explain
Tana River
N/A
No
Malindi
Yes
Yes
Kwale
Yes
Yes
Kilifi
Yes
No
Lamu
No
No
Mombasa
Yes
Yes
% Used for Patrol
N/A 0 Used in land patrol 80% N/A Due to mechanic problem Frequent breakdowns Used in land patrol
Table 14: Availability and use of Vehicles
48
30%
0 0.05 0.2
County/district
Size
Tana River
Patrol boat
Malindi
Materials
Type
Capacity
Serviceable
Fiber
N/A
Double outboard engine-85hp
5m
N/A
twin engine
85hp
Kwale
N/A
Fiber
N/A
170hp
Kilifi
5m
Fiber
Speedboat
170hp
Lamu
5m
Fiber
Mombasa
5 Meters
Fiber
speed boat Twin outboard engine
170 Hp
Yes MV Kizingitini, Lamu and KIUNGA the require new 170hp twin engines (total overhaul) engine, 8 pax radio system faulty, body maximum works
Yes
Table 15: Availability and use of Marine Patrol Vessel
7.2.4.1 Land surveillance and related activities Surveillance of landing sites Fisheries officers conduct patrols at landing sites and markets. The disproportional number of officers and resources to these sites preclude consistent and equitable application of surveillance measures in all areas, particularly if they are remote and/or access routes are very poor. As such sites are targeted based on intelligence of degree of illegal activity and feasibility of an effective operation. Typical operations encounter illegal gear, undersized fish, and unreported landings.
Fishing communities have various
methods of notifying fishers of pending surveillance activity as the inspection unit approaches. This includes dispatching riders or using cell phone networks. Sensitisation exercises Sensitisation exercises are performed when needs arise as a result of changes of legislation or the
49
introduction of new procedural matters. Fishing communities are the normal recipients in efforts to combat the proliferation of use of illegal gear. This is perceived as a vital tool and considered a preventative measure.
It is recognised that sensitisation exercises should be extended to include factories, judiciary and other agencies with mandate in the marine environment.
Use for Patrol Effective County/district Activities Explain for patrol Once/ quarterly or during Tana River Rarely emergency Yes Malindi
Frequently
Kwale
Kilifi
Rare
Explain
Yes, No
N/A
N/A Yes
N/A
Yes
N/A
Once a year
No
Huge amount of fuel Yes Due to high fuel consumptions as compared to fuel allocation for fishing activity N/A
Lamu
Often
12 times No 8 patrols per Year however the boat is used for local running No
Mombasa
Rarely
twice a year
No
Not really: frequent breakdown of the engines and high level of fuel consumptions Due to high fuel consumptions as compared to fuel allocation for fishing activity
sometimes hire other boats
No
Table 16: Use Marine vessel for Patrol Activities 7.2.4.2 Communication infrastructure The communication infrastructure is rudimentary and information is relayed between units using personal mobile phones on the majority of occasions.
Regional offices conduct surveillance operations on a
quarterly basis during which the performance of district offices are evaluated and specific objectives are targeted e.g. IUU in specific locations, identifying numbers of traders in illegal gear. Sea patrols are done ranging from once to eight times a year.
50
The role of BMUs has not been fully established but they can provide effective surveillance in their immediate locality if they posses the appropriate equipment, such as a powered vessel. The opportunities to gather information from local sources enable the MCS Committee of BMUs to target particular areas or locations. Their surveillance activities may be rapid and require minimal planning when compared to Regional and District Offices planned patrols. The crucial factor is the availability of fuel for outboard engines. Those BMUs without access patrol vessels can provide valuable monitoring effort collecting information on catches and fishers and vessel characteristics. 7.2.4.3 Funding mechanisms for MCS The funding for the patrols by the Regional Office. This is also the case for the District Offices is provided by the Treasury. Both commented that more funds are required for resources to improve their surveillance capacity and capability. 7.2.4.4 Implications for MCS i.
The rudimentary communication equipment reduces the effectiveness of surveillance activities.
Monitoring, Control and enforcement personnel are thinly distributed throughout the districts so up to date intelligence sources would enable personnel to prioritize activities and improve efficiency as well reduce costs. ii. The communications systems should enable control personnel to relay information from operational activities on the sea to units on land. This may be via the FMC or directly to individual units. iii. The type of information that would be relayed or available on the system would be dependent on appropriateness for operational patrols and administrative capacity (IT units used and personnel available) and potential “value” or uses such as the following: Catches at BMUs/landing sites;
Destination of
catches (identify Producer Organization and provide a means of verify figures reported by the factories), Vessel registration or licenses issued; and Outputs from patrol activities such as a patrol summary, inspections undertaken and outcomes etc. iv. The availability of this information would track any apparent trends in fishing activity and facilitate the following:
Improving monitoring capacity; support intelligence led operations; and provide data
(qualitative and quantitative data) for alternative means for assessing patrol performance (individual units formed or officers). v. Other equipment identified during the consultation that control and enforcement offices would find
51
useful include: motorbikes – for rapid response/access; large truck for seized gear; and binoculars and night sights for surveillance purposes. vi. The capacity of BMUs should be increased to provide a better picture of fishing activity so that surveillance at the district and regional level can be targeted. vii.
Finances and human resources are required to carry out MCS and yet inadequate. The limited resources are over stated in carrying out MCS activities. The cost of patrols is more expensive and the fines are too low. Not all types of gears are regulated and penalties too low to deter illegal fishing. If full support in terms of resources is given, then MCS can be carried out full. There are several loopholes in the existing laws. Penalties are very low and need to be up-scaled. The law does not facilitate fishing zoning for artisanal fisheries and other levels of commercial fishers. Laws and regulations were found not elaborate and not specific. Penalties are very low and need to be up scaled. Review should cover all gear types.
County/district
Tana River
Communications systems Areas of patrol, emergency issues, any arrests or confiscation
Malindi
Kwale
Kilifi
Lamu
Mombasa
Location request assistance
Type of information exchanged If shared
Effectiveness
Security, fisheries and BMU No
No some areas have no network coverage
N/A and Staff preparedness and for collaborating department No
On data collection and monitoring of illegal fishing activities amongst the patrol team, patrol team and office, patrol team and police, patrol team and BMU Request for assistance, infringement and data reporting.
The BMUs and the field staff Yes
N/A
N/A To an extend, as it depends on the availability of air network and air time for the BMU and field staff
Yes e.g. if the arrested person get violent we call the police N/A
Other agencies and security organizations Yes
Need facilitation to communicate and respond.
Table 17: Communication system employed, type and effectiveness of information exchanged during surveillance and patrol activities
52
District Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Tana River
Digital camera
Binoculars
N/A
Malindi
N/A
N/A
N/A
Kwale
N/A
N/A
N/A
Kilifi
GK vehicle
N/A
N/A
Lamu
Digital camera
Binoculars
weighing scale
Mombasa
GK vehicle
N/A
N/A
Table 18: Other equipment available for patrol These various equipment are serviceable and in good condition. The vehicles are used for land patrol and the camera used to take photographic evidence. District
Resources availability
Tana River
Binoculars, Weighing scales, Digital cameras
Malindi
Station vehicle, Licensing materials
Kwale
Motorbikes although they are not for aquaculture activities
Kilifi
Transport facility when available, funds
Lamu
Motor bikes, boats, vehicle, weighing scale
Mombasa
Vehicle
Table 19: Resources available for MCS activities on land District Data collection
Berried Lobsters
Endangered species
Illegal gears use
Tana River
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
N/A
Malindi
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Kwale
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
N/A
Kilifi
Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
N/A
Yes
Lamu
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
Mombasa Yes
N/A
N/A
Yes
N/A
Yes
Table 20: Basis of choice of patrol activity
53
Fishing rivers
in Revenue collection
District
Inspection results
Tana River
N/A
Malindi
issues of licenses
Kwale
Data collection, capacity building, Improved fish handling
Kilifi
issues of licenses, Reduction of illegal fishing activities
Lamu
Yes
Mombasa
Sensitization on hygiene, licensing/revenue collection, gear confiscations, arrests
Table 21: Typical inspection results
District
Patrol longevity
Areas covered
Tana River
2-12 hrs
Breeding sites, Ziwayuu, Ras awani
Malindi
whole day
Kwale
Few day
Kilifi
2-4 hrs
Lamu
6-8 hrs
Fishing ares and reserve zones Fishing areas maily Id the points is landing sites Bofa, Takaungu fishing grounds and Kilifi creek fishing grounds, breeding grounds landing sites, protected areas,
Mombasa
2 days a month
different markets, l/sites.
Table 22: Patrol longevity and areas covered
District
Equipments & safety gears available
Tana River
safety gears, Life rings,
Malindi
safety gears, first Aid kit
Kwale
Lamu
Boats, Vehicle, Motorbike Patrol boats, Navigation equipments, fire extinguishers, Radio cal, Life jackets, anchors Patrol boats, navigational equipment, life jackets, knifes and anchor, mobile phones
Mombasa
None for routine patrols. Vehicle and boat for planned patrols.
Kilifi
Table 23: Equipments and safety gears available for patrols
54
District
Records maintained
Tana River
N/A
Navigation tool working Limiting factors on patrol Limited resources, Inexperienced coxswain, Police not willing to patrol, unco-operative police Yes officers
Malindi
No
No
Kwale
Yes
Yes
Kilifi
Yes
Yes
Lamu
No
No
Mombasa
No
No
N/A Requirement of use armed policemen or guards, inadequate facilities Lack of fuel, personnel lacks monitoring skills, inadequate fuel supply fuel, Weak legislation, Skills of prosecution, evidence storage, lack of GPS, leakage of patrol information, lack of political goodwill Lack of fuel, personnel lacks monitoring skills,
Procedures & checks present
N/A N/A
N/A No
No No
Table 24: Patrol procedures and records
District
Outputs from land
Outputs from sea
Tana River
Undersized fish, undersized nets
Malindi
Compliance to the fisheries act, Improved conservation, Increased community participation, Revenue collection, Capacity building
Undersized nets, illegal Compliance to the fisheries act, Improved conservation, Increased community participation, Revenue collection, Capacity building Increased revenue, decreased use of illegal gears, improved fish catch size Licensing of sport fishing activities license, revenue collection, data, reduced infringements, sustained resource awareness
Kwale Kilifi
Lamu
Mombasa
Increased revenue collection, Increased fish handling and safety Revenue collection, Reduced illegal fishing, Data collected license, revenue collection, data, reduced infringements, sustained resource awareness Sensitization, data recorded, licensing compliance, revenue collection, confiscations of gear and warnings, arrests.
Table 25: Patrol Outputs
55
Sensitization, confiscations of gear and warnings, arrests.
District
Output on estimated catch
Availability of reporting system.
Tana River
Kg, type
Yes
Malindi
Kg, Type
Yes
Kwale
Kg, Type
Ye
Kilifi
Kg, Type
Yes
Lamu
Kg, Type
Yes
Mombasa
Kg, family and landing site
Yes
Table 26: Monitoring MCS Outputs
District
Forms recording done,
Officers compile patrol reports
Evidence for reporting system
Sources of funds
Tana River
N/A
Yes
Yes
GK
Malindi
Yes
No
N/A
N/A
Kwale
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Kilifi
N/A
No
No
No
Lamu
Yes
Yes
Yes
GK
Mombasa
No
No
No
No
Table 27: Reporting MCS outcomes
District
Explain
Patrol financed
Tana River
N/A
N/A
Malindi
Kilifi
Fuel for the boats N/A No We use office air items for field MCS activities depending on the priorities N/A No No specific allocation No funds for MCS activities for MCS No
Lamu
No specific allocation for MCS No
Kwale
Mombasa
funding through treasury Sometimes use meager office AIE allocation to fund MCS work.
activities Are funds sufficient, No
No specific allocation for MCS No
Table 28: Funding mechanism for MCS
56
District Tana River
Malindi
Kwale Kilifi Lamu
Mombasa
Patrol activities may be improved by Allocation of resources, Adequate personnel, Trainings, Special training to coxswain. There should be coordinated approach among all government departments and agencies Increase number of officers, Train MCS specialists, Increase facilitation in terms of funds Improve patrol activities, Train personnel for MCS, Provision of funds no specific funding for patrol Allocation of resources for facilitation of MCS activities, equip MCS personnel, develop SOPs for use in undertaking MCS tasks and reporting, promote institutional collaboration, Adequate personnel, Trainings, Special training to coxswain.
Table 29: Improvement of patrols
57
7.3
INTER-AGENCY MECHANISMS CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
7.3.1 Operational procedures in place for interagency collaboration of FiD with Kenya Maritime Authority (KMA), Kenya Ports Authority (KPA), Kenya Revenue Authority and Immigrations Department on MCS responsibilities. The challenge for coastal area management is to address the mix of overlapping mandates of the agencies involved in the coastal area. The positive interaction of local agencies will be critical to the success of the coastal MCS programme.
As pointed out in the 1998 FAO ICAM guidelines, it is in the interests of fisheries sector institutions to take the initiative in coastal area management processes. There are a number of advantages to be gained through such initiative, including the following:
a) Fisheries sector institutions would be able to exert more influence on future developments, particularly where the ICM policy or supporting legislation establishes the principle that priority should be given to coast-dependent developments, thereby providing a rationale for prioritizing uses such as fisheries, which by their very nature are dependent on inherent attributes of the coastal area; b) As an extension of this, fisheries administrations would be able to influence decisions affecting the success of fisheries management in general and MCS strategies in particular, including input into strategies to alleviate the socio-economic hardships suffered by many subsistence fishers. c) Sector institutions would also be able to build alliances with other institutions or interest groups around issues of common interest that may be politically important in protecting fisheries‟ interests.
As mentioned earlier, two types of questionnaire were applied to the different state agencies. One questionnaire dealt with agencies that were potentially of assistance in monitoring and surveillance. The other type dealt with organizations that have a patrolling and enforcement presence.
Cooperation with Port, customs, immigration and defense agencies for surveillance purposes and to share resources can be cost-effective, especially when priorities coincide. In cases of joint patrols, fisheries MCS must often compete with other activities such as drug interception. One advantage of cooperation with these agencies is the sharing of surveillance information and the back-up support
58
for fisheries surveillance activities. All these agencies will have an interest in fishing vessels during their port visits. Customs, Immigration and Coast Guard may be called upon to assist in monitoring and controlling port inspections, port transshipment and export of fish products as a secondary task when fisheries personnel are not available. The sharing of the fisheries database with the military can encourage cooperation. Fisheries officials may find providing access to their fisheries VMS results in greater support and assistance from the Navy and their aerial patrol support, who in turn readily shared information on fisheries activities from their surface and air patrols. 7.3.1.1 Kenya Ports Authority (KPA) KPA is a statutory body established by an Act of Parliament Cap 391, 1978. KPA is mandated to maintain, regulate and improve seaports. It ensures among other things that there is safe navigation and controls pollution of the coastal waters.
Port Authorities can be of considerable assistance in fisheries MCS, both for monitoring and surveillance. A port authority can facilitate coastal State port inspections, and efficiently monitor fish transshipments. Collaborative mechanisms in capacity building (boarding, law enforcement at sea, maintenance, marine law and others) with KPA does not exist. Though they do undertake capacity building in some of the areas mentioned. Institution has no responsibility over Port state measures, however the following institutions involved: KPA, KMA, KRA, Port health, Immigration, Port police, KEBS. Participation in joint port state measures takes place, however, fid has not formally requested for inclusion. Sharing of information on fishing and fish cargo vessels arrival exist and procedures in place for meeting and KWATOS.
There are no operational
procedures in place for participation in development of domestic offshore fisheries arrival. Procedures for boarding fishing and fish supply vessels on arrival for inspection are partially in place.
On the physical presence for Fisheries inspectors in port, this is possible, but Fisheries Department has not officially made a request. Do not have or build capacity in maintenance and navigation. Operational procedures for navigation channels and marking are in place to have all navigational channels for boats marked.
Pre-entry requirement for foreign fishing vessels is observed.
Notification before port entry is observed 14 days in advance. Latest is 24hrs in case of urgency. A
59
Form is filled for this purpose. KPA do undertake daily patrols and all foreign fishing vessels are inspected at the port. Inspection is done on activities within the port area especially at night.
7.3.1.2 Kenya Revenue Authority (KRA) Search and rescue procedures are fully in place and more information available from marine unit. Procedures are in place for collaboration in capacity building (boarding, law enforcement at sea, maintenance, marine law and others). It is has a responsibility on port state measures. Procedures for participation in joint port state measures are partially in place. There exists no procedure for sharing of information on fishing and fish cargo vessels arrival. General cargo manifest received from KMA, lodged in their manifest, run concurrently. There are procedures for establishment and demarcation of fishing ports and is routinely carried out. No process in place for participation in development of domestic offshore fisheries arrival. However, operational procedures in place for such, e.g. Port meeting. There are procedures for boarding fishing and fish supply vessels on arrival for inspection. These are not specifically fishing. There exists no capacity in maintenance and navigation; however KRA officers trained in border protection at Manda bay, Lamu. There exists pre-entry requirement for foreign fishing vessels. Regarding notification before Port entry, a form is filled. All foreign fishing vessels are inspected at the port. Undertakes patrols two times monthly based on the intelligence gathering and therefore need to work together and gather the same.
7.3.1.3 Kenya Maritime Authority (KMA) Mandated under KMA Act 2006 to regulate, co-ordinate and oversee maritime affairs in Kenya. The organization helps in the protection of the environment (e.g. prevention of maritime pollution which benefits fisheries) in compliance with national laws and international conventions. The KMA is also involved rescue operations within the sea and in registration of fishing vessels and prescribing regulations for their safety. KMA has powers to regulate the exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of the maritime zones.
KMA have no procedures in place to have Fid in vetting of fishing vessels and crew which apply to fly the Kenyan flag. The KMA have no procedures to enable deregistration of fishing vessels that have violated local, national and international fishing regulations. Procedures for search and rescue
60
are fully in place. KMA have an operational procedure in place for inspection and issuance of certificate of seaworthiness. KMA have partial procedures in place for collaboration in capacity building (boarding, law enforcement at sea, maintenance, marine law and others). Procedures for creation and maintenance of a central database for registered vessels are also partially in place. The institution has responsibility over port state measures. Procedures for participation in joint port state measures and the establishment and demarcation of fishing ports are partially in place. Process for the participation in development of domestic offshore fisheries arrival is partially in place. Procedures for creation and marking of navigation channels are in place.
7.3.1.4 Immigration Department The Department of Immigrations possesses operational procedures to include Fid in the vetting of fishing vessels and crew which apply to fly the Kenyan flag. Search and rescue is undertaken through boarding vessel to check on humans. Collaboration procedures exist in capacity building (boarding, law enforcement at sea, maintenance, marine law and others).
The Department
participates in joint port state measures and procedures for sharing of information on fishing and fish cargo vessels arrival in place to determine human cargo on board. Boarding fishing and fish supply vessels on arrival for inspection of passengers. Notification is done before port entry immediately after arrival as per the law. All foreign fishing vessels are inspected at the port. Undertakes patrols daily on suspicion of illegal immigrants or stowaways.
7.3.1.5 State Prosecutor The team visited with the state prosecutor and there was some concern expressed about the lack of understanding/awareness of the Judiciary about fisheries in general, particularly circuit judges and prosecutors who had either no or limited experience of the pertinent issues affecting marine fisheries. This may result in low conviction rates or the low fines.
61
7.3.2 Operational procedures in place for interagency collaboration of FiD with Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), Immigration and Police on MCS patrols. 7.3.2.1 Joint Operations KWS regulations allow joint patrols and with exception of Mombasa, all other KWS stations have partial Operation procedures for joint patrols. In all the stations, patrols are conducted on daily basis and outcomes, findings and arrests are recorded in the Occurrence Book (OB).These patrols are effective in Mombasa, highly effective in Kwale, and fairly effective in Malindi.
These Patrols are aimed to help curb illegal activities while in the case of immigration department in Malindi, patrols are meant for intelligence gathering.
All the KWS stations along the coast are partially aware of Fisheries Regulations and through cooperation this can be enhanced through joint patrols. 7.3.2.2 Intelligence information sharing All KWS stations share intelligence information with fisheries and with exception of Mombasa; all other KWS stations have partial operation procedures for sharing intelligence information with fisheries. The KWS stations have a special unit trained in information, intelligence gathering and prosecution.
Intelligence information sharing can be enhanced further enhanced through collaboration and
networking with Fisheries Department. 7.3.2.3 Patrol Equipment The patrol equipment available includes GPSs, radios, cameras, patrol boats and binoculars. The KWS stations and immigration department Malindi reported having regulation for sharing of patrol equipment with other agencies.
Operational procedures for sharing of patrol equipment were partially in place in all the stations.
62
Patrol limitations include poor budgetary allocation, inadequate boats and vehicles maintenance costs, inadequate number of patrol staff, lack of adequate skill especially in diving as well as geographical related problems such as Trans border illegal fishing.
Collaboration with Fisheries during joint patrols will help alleviate these problems and enhance efficiency and effectiveness.
7.3.2.4 Sharing of Patrol Facilities Operational procedures for sharing patrol facilities, are partially in place however arrangements can be made locally as need arises. Information and communication
KWS stations have regulations that allow information and communication sharing. operational procedures for information and communication sharing, are partially in place in all the stations, however arrangements can be made on need arises, or through inter departmental MOU's or through inter departmental communication. 7.3.2.5 Communication equipments KWS stations reported having communication equipments including radio handset for sea coverage, internet only in Kwale while the rest did not have. All people working in these stations had individual mobile phones whose coverage land and sea and all these communication equipments were reported to be effective in communication. 7.3.2.6 Search and Rescue equipments Only Kwale had all the equipments including life jackets, life rings, surf boards, binoculars, dive gears, boats and GPS. Malindi had none. In Kwale search and rescue were reported to be highly effective while in Mombasa and Malindi it was fairly effective due to lack of effective training given to rangers and coxswains. 7.3.2.7 Enforcement of rules and regulations. The enforcement of rules and regulations in KWS stations is manageable.
63
7.3.2.8 Conflict with Fisheries Laws Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) Act conflicts with the Fisheries Act especially in their mandate, management and utilization of resources together with regulations related to use and methods of extraction. These conflicts can only be minimized by encouraging joint patrol operations through harmonization of the two acts or through mutual agreements and communications. 7.3.2.9 Training Facilities KWS stations have training facilities and allow other agencies to use them and this can help capacity build an effective human resource to execute patrols however the problem is lack of adequate personnel for patrol. With cooperation, fisheries can use these training facilities and involve KWS in joint patrol operations. 7.3.2.10 Police Force Police officers are empowered as authorised fisheries officers must be of or above the rank of inspector. However, police officers normally participating in patrol operation are of a lower rank and as such just provide security on patrols. Two 2 officers are usually deployed. The police force does not possess vessels and therefore independent police patrols are not possible.
64
7.4
BEACH MANAGEMENT UNIT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
7.4.1 Background Information on BMU’s. The management of fisheries resources in Kenya is through enforcement of the Fisheries Act Cap 378 laws of Kenya. Enforcement has been done at the national and district level solely by fisheries officers. However, Fisheries Department has faced inadequate management due to limitations in terms of staff, capacity and resources in terms equipment and finances resulting in: Indiscriminate fishing in breeding and nursery grounds Use of prohibited fishing gears and methods Politicizing of management interventions High prevalence in landing of undersize fish Destruction of habitat The concept of co- management in Fisheries Department was adopted in the late 1990s, with establishment of Beach Management Units (BMU‟s) as a way of broadening stakeholder participation in fisheries management mainly in the Lake Victoria region. BMUs in Coast Region were established in mid 2006. 7.4.2 Role of Beach Management Unit in Fisheries Management The primary role of BMU co- management is that, within the right institutional and legislative framework, it allows the knowledge and understanding of all stakeholders to be reflected in the decision-making process and their diverse capacities to be harnessed in implementation. This has the potential to improve the sustainability of fisheries resource exploitation, increase the efficiency of management and improve equity outcomes. Amongst the many benefits that is expected to accrue from co management of the resource include the following: It provides that the only legal right of access to exploit fisheries resources at gazetted and designated landing sites be through joining a BMU. If a fisher does not join then he/she will not be able to operate legally in fisheries; Allow for active involvement of all stakeholders in decision- making processes and governing the management of fisheries resources.
65
Allows control of access to fisheries resources by limiting numbers and types of fishing boats and gears. Able to set management rules locally at the beach level through by- laws and ordinances; Provides a powerful lobbying force that can influence, where necessary, national policies and regulations; Attracts government and other funding because of clear poverty focus, gender sensitivity and participatory decision- making; Ability to raise local revenue for its operations and for fisheries management and development; Attracts training to improve various management skills of local people; Improves fisheries information gathering, use and transfer for planning and management purposes; Improves sanitation and fish quality at landing sites; Improves safety during fishing operations; Reduces migration of fishers and allows easy monitoring of the fishing effort Provides institutional focus for mobilization and wider development programmes; Fisheries livelihoods are improved and more secure through increased productivity with members free to form or join marketing associations or cooperatives; Food security is improved in very many rural communities through increased Productivity and improved fisheries resource management. Provides avenue for conflict resolution amongst the various stakeholders. 7.4.3 Role of BMU’s in preventive MCS activities Increasing compliance to fishery rules and regulation The Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) strategy for fisheries identifies the main threats to sustainability from illegal activity as: Use of illegal gears such as beach seines, monofilament nets, spear guns and undersized gill nets.
66
Fishing in Marine protected areas (MPA‟s) including Marine Park, Reserves as well as Community Fisheries Conservation Areas (Tengefu;s) Fishing without the necessary permits and licences Landing of berried lobsters and undersized fish Poison fishing to render the fish easy to catch Destruction of Habitat including indiscriminate cutting of mangroves, Coral breaking and sand harvesting Killing or catching of endangered species including sea turtles and dugongs. The existing legal framework in fisheries prohibits all of these activities and increased compliance to these measures will improve the chances of a sustainable fishery. Both “preventive” and “deterrent” approaches are being supported by the Fisheries Department through multi-disciplinary, multi-agency and integrated actions on Marine fishery. Under a BMU co-management system, law enforcement and increasing compliance to fisheries rules and regulations the “preventative” approaches includes: Sensitization and awareness creation Warning Reporting to the Fisheries department. The “deterrent” approaches include: Confiscation of fishing gears Denying access to the fishing grounds Fines Arrests and prosecution The overall objective of these both approaches is to increase the level of compliance with fisheries rules and regulations. The BMUs are the foundation of the fishery co-management system in marine fishery and BMU chairpersons are Authorized Officers for the BMU‟s Bylaws and are therefore expected to be aware of the various rules governing fisheries. Incentives are provided to encourage good performing BMUs in areas such as tackling illegal activity and raising levels of licensing in their areas of jurisdiction. BMUs members are involved drafting and approving the Bylaws and the various co-management plans. The BMU‟s are supposed to send a copy of their Bylaws to Director of Fisheries for approval. Patrol units are supported by the use of shared
67
resources like boats, outboard engines, and safety and life-saving equipment, and by the provision of operational training to improve the effectiveness of their activities. So far the organizations involved in BMU‟s data collection, sea patrols and sea safety include the Fisheries department (FiD), World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), CORDIO,US Navy and Kenya Maritime Authority (KMA). 7.4.4 Status of BMU’s in the coast Currently there are 71 registered Beach Management Units (BMU‟s) along the coast distributed in Kwale, Mombasa, Kilifi/Malindi, Tana Delta and Lamu. In terms of capacity, these BMU‟s , so far 70% have been trained on Financial management, 70% on Co-management and 79% on BMU Orientation. In terms of conducting effective MCS most of the BMU‟s lack the capacity in terms of relevant equipment and expertise. Other factors include Wrangles/Conflicts among the BMU members, Poor working relationships with the Fisheries Department and lack of awareness especially on the need for self compliance. 7.4.5 BMU needs Status Report 7.4.5.1 Scope of study. A total of 64 BMU were studied in 7 districts. The number of interviewees ranged between 1 to 3 in most BMUs. Both male and female were interviewed although the bigger percentage was male who made 80% of the interviewees. Table 30: Gender and age of participants District
Female
Male
Mean age by district
Kilifi Lamu Malindi Matuga Mombasa Msambweni Tana Delta Mean Age by gender
34.8 36.9 51.0 30.3
43.6 37.6 37.9 41.4 48.8 44.3 38.3 41.8
41.6 37.5 40.1 38.8 48.8 41.8 39.6 40.7
33.2 45.0 36.4
68
The age of the respondents ranged between 37.5 to 48.8 years. Mean age of male was higher 41.8 as compared as compared to women.
Occupation-Mombasa district was removed from this analysis as it had only one respondent that could skew the percentages either way.
District
Executive committee
Ordinary member
Grand Total
Kilifi
12
15
27
Lamu
36
4
40
Malindi
10
8
18
Matuga
7
6
13
Msambweni
29
12
41
Tana Delta
3
2
5
Total number
97
47
144
Total %
67.4
32.6
Table 31: Role of Participant in BMU
Msambweni district had the highest number of respondents followed by Lamu, Kilifi, Malindi, Matuga, Mombasa and Tana Delta respectively. Matuga and Mombasa had the same sample size. Most of those interviewed were officials about 67%. They were comprised of chairmen, secretaries and treasurers. Ordinary members interviewed in all the 64 BMU made up of 33%. The ratio of executive members to ordinary members was almost 1:1 in most districts except in Lamu and Msambweni where it was the ratio of officials to ordinary members is 9:1 and 2:1 respectively. 7.4.5.2 Type and functions of Sub committees Most of the mentioned BMUs had sub committees to help in the daily and efficient running of the BMUs. However, not all reported to operate under sub- committees. 44 BMUs (68.7%) have subcommittees, 5 (7.8%) had none while 15 (23.4%) had mixed information about the availability of sub committees .The later group is where one or 2 members differed when asked if their respective BMU was operating with sub committees.
69
A total of 9 different subcommittees were mentioned by different BMUs. The most mentioned subcommittee was the MCS/ patrol followed by environment by 90% and 80% respectively. Other mentioned subcommittees include finance, hygiene and sanitation, conflict resolution, welfare, conservation and education in that order. There was also a small group called others that included security, discipline, data collection, vetting and rescue.
Figure 6: Most mentioned sub-committees
70
Figure 7: Important MCS sub-committees
7.4.5.3 Perceptions on the efficiency of patrols. No BMU mentioned that this activity was highly effective. However many felt that it was either not effective or fairly effective at 28.1% and 25% respectively. There was over 29 % of BMUs who had mixed feelings on the patrol efficiency. The Mombasa BMUs had no patrol committees thus could not comment on the effectiveness. Such were therefore classified under the not applicable category 7.4.5.4 Data collection with BMU Over 80% of BMU are involved in varoius types of data collection. Areas of data collection included total fish caught because this is what translated to the amount of money that one makes and eventualy the BMU. This was more efficient in areas with visitors where acertain amount of money was being charged per kg of fish weighed. Other types of data collected were fish category, boat information , fish prices and length of fish. Length of fish information was the least reported as it needed some expertise of fish identification.
71
Figure 8: Type of data collected by BMUs
7.4.5.5 BMU Trainings About seven organizations are involved in training of bmus in data collection as shown in the table below. Fisheries department has trained the most number of BMUs in the area. 2nd is CORDIO and WWF who have trained 28 and 22 BMU respectively. There was some partern on areas of involvedment by different trainers. For example, CAST was more in Kilifi county while WWF trained BMUs in Lamu county. There was also agreat variation in the amount of training that have been received by each BMU. While others have gotten more than 6 trainings from different training institutions, some BMUs have no t been trained at all. The over trained BMUs includes, Wesa, Wasini, Vanga, Kibuyuni, Mkokoni, Mkwiro, Shella and Shimoni. The untrained BMUs were Alidina, Bamburi, Guya, Kanamai, Kidongo, Kitanga juu, Mkupe, Mtongwe, Mwalumbo, Mwangala, Ngare, Nyali, Tiwi and Tudor. Other institutions that were also mentioned to take part in data collection were, Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), East Africa Wildlife Society (EAWLS), GTI Matuga, Red Cross, SMARTFISH and US Navy. Its also important to note that some untrained BMUs are involved in Data collection. The untrained BMUs makes up 21.8% of BMU while those not collecting data are 14%
72
7.4.5.6 Ability of BMUs in MCS activities-data collection and patrol Most respondents indicated that the ability of BMUs to carry out patrols and data collection was both poor and good. However we had the biggest number indicating that ability of BMUs to collect data was fair. Several reasons were cited for this but the most common reason was that . 1. The training given to few officials in the BMU 2. Training was very basic 3. No permanent data collectors in many BMU
Figure 9: BMU ability rating
73
Figure 10: Budget allocation for Patrol activities
As already mentioned, lack of equipments was a big challenge to carry out MCS activities as all BMUs had less than 10 of all the 17 equipments needed for MCS work. Only 9% of them had patrol boat and 6% had machines for the boats. 40% of BMUs had both land and offices for their operations. 50% of BMUs had weighing machines for fish catch data collection. None of the BMUs had radio, cameras and video cameras. This is shown in the inventory table shown below.
Patrols were not carried out due to lack of equipments and willingness. It was mostly seen as the leader‟s job. In most BMUs there was no budget allocation for data collection and patrol activities as shown in the fig below. Over half of all BMUs interviewed indicated that they have low budget while 25% said they have no budget at all.
74
Figure 11: BMU equipment and facilities
7.4.5.7 BMU Surveillance and Compliance Capacity Responsibility of BMU organs and officers 90% of the respondents confirmed that the assembly is fully involved in development and approval of bylaws, while 7% felt that they are not fully involved and 3% were unsure. However the involvement of the assembly in development of co-management plans, reduced to 72%, with those not fully involved in developing co-management plans increasing to 27%. This indicates that there is comparatively less participation of the assembly in the development of co-management plans.
Regular meetings with the assembly to approve new bylaws are held by most of the BMUs (73%), however 21% rarely meet, with most approvals being done at the executive committee level. Status of bylaws in addressing MCS related issues 30 (47%) of the BMUs reported that their bylaws have been approved, 14 (22%) reported that their bylaws have not yet been approved while 20
75
(31%) had mixed perceptions on the status of their bylaws, with differing opinions particularly between members of the assembly and the executive committee members (Figure 12).
Results from the survey indicated that 63% of the BMUs assessed perceived that their bylaws comprehensively address issues related to MCS, while 8% perceived that their bylaws were not comprehensive. However 30% (19) had mixed perceptions, indicating a lack of awareness on the status of their bylaws, particularly among members (Figure 12). This disparity in awareness indicates the need to ensure that information on the contents and status of bylaws needs to be communicated more effectively to all BMU members as this is the cornerstone of a successful MCS programme Figure 12: Status of BMU by-laws 45
40
No of BMUs
35 30
25
Approved bylaws
20 Comprehensive MCS bylaws
15 10 5
0 Yes
No
Mixed Perceptions
Sea Patrol Capacity Of the 64 BMUs surveys, 20 (31%) confirmed that some of their members have been trained on how to conduct sea patrols. The trainings have been conducted by 10 institutions including WWF, US Navy, FiD, KWS, CAST, KMA, EAWLS, and Red Cross (Table 32).
76
Table 32. List of the BMUs trained in Sea Patrols by the different institutions WWF
KWS
FiD
CORDIO
US NAVY
CAST
Faza
Bofa
Wasini
Shimoni
Mwakamba
Takaungu Moa
Kiunga
Kuruwitu
Faza
Wasini
Shimoni
Kiwayuu
Wasini
Kizingitini
Mkokoni
Lake Kenyatta
Ndambwe
Shella
KMA
EAWLS
Red Cross Watamu
Wasini
Shella
Roka
Shanga-Ishakani-Pate
Some BMUs have received more attention in terms of capacity building on sea patrols. Most outstanding is Wasini BMU which has received training from 4 institutions (Figure 13) and may thus be considered to be at a comparatively more advanced level.
Beach Mangement Unit
0
Number of Institutions 1 2 3
4
Wasini Faza Shella Shimoni Bofa Kiunga Kiwayuu Kizingitini Kuruwitu Lake Kenyatta Mkokoni Moa Mwakamba Ndambwe Roka Shanga-Ishakani-Pate Takaungu
Figure 13: Level of training of sea patrols as indicated by the number of institutions that have held trainings The respondents trained in sea patrols expressed variable opinions on the effectiveness of the trainings in building capacity. The highest rating on effectiveness was expressed by BMUs in Lamu county (Mkokoni, Shanga-Ishakani-Pate, Faza and Kiunga); while the lowest rating was expressed
77
by Kilifi-central, Mtwapa, Roka, Kizingitini, Ndambwe and Mwaepe. Some reasons given by the respondents are presented in Table 33. To improve effectiveness, the need to develop standard curricula for sea patrols training and to increase the number of members trained was identified.
Not Effective
Fairly Effective
Effective
Highly Effective
Kilifi Central
Bofa
Takaungu
Mkokoni
Mtwapa
Mwakamba
Kiwayuu
Shanga-Ishakani-Pate
Roka
Kiunga
Shimoni
Faza
Kizingitini
Lake Kenyatta
Wasini
Kiunga
Ndambwe
Moa
Kuruwitu
Mwaepe
Shella Kipini
6 27%
7 32%
5 23%
4 18%
Table 33. Perceptions on adequacy of training of Sea Patrols
Reasons for ineffective sea patrols training: 1. Training was theoretical and needs to focus more on the practical aspects 2. The period for training was too short 3. Very few people trained 4. Lack of equipment to carry out patrols 5. Lack of follow up as training was done a long time ago and there is need for refresher training due to changes in membership Reasons for effective sea patrols training : 1. Taught to handle different types of issues and levels of action Table 34: Reasons for effective and non-effective patrols
Control of Illegal Fishing Activities Ninety five percent of respondents acknowledged that they understand how BMU bylaws legally empower them to handle infringements. The most common gear related infringements that were mentioned by respondents were the use of beach seines (41%), spear guns (22%) and monofilament nets (10%). Other infringements mentioned included use of poison, use of under size meshes, and capture of berried lobsters (Figure 14).
78
The most preferred sanctions to mitigate illegal fishing activities were warnings (64%) and confiscation of gears (45%); however these sanctions were perceived not to have a strong deterrent effect with a high incidence of repeated offenders (Figure 15). Reporting of offenders to the Fisheries Department culminating in arrest and prosecution was perceived to have the most deterrent effect, however respondents noted weak follow-up action by FiD, resulting in low reporting by BMUs of infringements. 40%
22%
10% 2%
1%
Fishing without a license
Dynamite fishing
5%
Fishing in MPA
6%
Berried lobster
6%
Under size mesh
Poison
Monofilament
Speargun
Beach seine
7%
BMUs
Figure 14. Perceptions on most common fishing infringements as observed by surveyed
79
Sanctions
Deterrent effect
Warning Confiscation of gears
45%
22% 19% 17%
Fines
14%
Reporting to FiD
13%
Denying access Arrest and prosecution
64%
25%
56% 19%
11%
56%
Figure 15. Most common sanctions implemented by BMUs on fishing infringements and perceptions on their deterrent effect
Sea Safety and Rescue Capacity Overall, 15% of the respondents rated the training as highly effective, 39% as effective, 30% as fairly effective and 15% as not effective. Out of the 64 BMUs assessed, 24 (38%) have not been trained on sea safety and rescue. Among the BMUs that have been trained of sea safety and rescue, only two rated the training as highly effective while a large percentage (40%) had mixed perceptions about the adequacy of the training (Table 35).
80
N/A Don’t Know
3% 1% 28%
Always
45%
Often
21%
Rarely Never
1%
Figure 16: Membership and Vessel Registration
Membership and Vessel Registration Membership registration is done by all BMUs. However only 7 (11%) of the BMUs confirmed that all fishermen in their jurisdiction are registered as BMU members, while 58% confirmed more 50% registration and 19 confirmed less that 50% registration (Table 36) indicating a need for concerted efforts to increase the registration of all fishers as BMU members.
Fifty one (80%) of the BMUs assessed confirmed that they maintain a vessel register, while 7 (11%) confirmed that they do not maintain a vessel register and included Bodo, Kidongo, Likoni, Mkokoni, Mwalumbo, Roka and Takaungu. BMUs that presented mixed views include Kanamai, Mkwiro, Mnarani-Kidudu, Pate, Shella and Witu; thus, their status will need to be re-confirmed at a later stage.
81
Not Trained
Not Effective Fairly Effective Effective
Highly Effective Mixed perceptions
Alidina
Bofa
Bodo
Bamburi
Gongoni
Amu
Guya
Gazi
Kipungani
Jimbo
Vanga
Chale-Jeza
Kanamai
Kibuyuni
Kiunga
Kuruwitu
Faza
Kidongo
Likoni
Matondoni
Kilifi Central
Kitanga juu
Marereni
Mnarani -Kidudu
Kizingitini
Kiwayuu
Mkwiro
Shimoni
Mkunguni
Lake Kenyatta
Moa
Wesa
Munje
Majoreni
Nyali
Kipini
Mwaembe
Mbwanjumwali
Ozi
Mwaepe
Mkokoni
Roka
Mwakamba
Mkupe
Uyombo
Mwandamu
Mtongwe
Ngomeni
Mtwapa
Shella
Mwalumbo
Takaungu
Mwangala
Tiwi
Ndambwe
Wasini
Ngare Nyari-Kakadini Pate Shanga-Ishakani-Pate Tudor Watamu Witu TOTAL Percentage
3 8%
11 28%
8 20%
2 5%
Table 35: Status of Training on Sea Safety and Perceptions of adequacy of the training
82
16 40%
All (100%)
Many (>50%)
Few (
