strengthening fisheries management in acp countries technical report... · strengths, weaknesses,...

"Strengthening Fisheries Management in ACP

Countries"

Project Funded by the European Union. A project implemented by FishAfrica

Final Technical Report

Support to East African Industrial Fishing and Fish Processors Association (EAIFFPA) to

strengthen the taskforce approach in reducing illegal fishing and trade on Lake Victoria

Project ref. N° EA-1.3-A3

Region: East Africa

Country: Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania

Date: 5th

March 2013

Assignment by:

Nancy Gitonga

"Strengthening Fisheries Management in ACP Countries"


Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ I

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... IV

1.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Trends in Lake Victoria fish production .................................................................. 1

1.2 Fishing effort in Lake Victoria ................................................................................. 1

1.3 Recent initiatives to reverse the L. Victoria fish stock decline ................................ 2

1.4 Lake Victoria Fisheries Management ....................................................................... 2

1.4.1 Enforcement and surveillance ..........................................................................3

1.5 Lake Victoria Nile perch .......................................................................................... 3

1.5.1 Life history .......................................................................................................3

1.5.2 Status of the Nile perch ....................................................................................3

1.5.3 Trends in the Nile perch biomass estimates .....................................................3

1.5.4 Population structure of Nile perch ....................................................................4

1.5.5 Nile perch production .......................................................................................4

1.5.6 Nile perch exports ............................................................................................5

1.6 Overview of Uganda’s Nile perch fishery ................................................................ 5

2.0 Approach to the assignment.................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Comments on Terms of Reference ........................................................................... 6

3.0 Organization and Methodology ............................................................................................................ 7

3.1 Delivery of Terms of Reference ............................................................................... 7

4.0 Conduct and details of the assignment................................................................................................. 8

4.1 Fieldwork .................................................................................................................. 8

4.1.1 The Interviews ..................................................................................................8

4.1.2 Uganda’s NFT system study ............................................................................9

4.1.3 SWOT analysis .................................................................................................9

4.1.4 Analysis of Returns on Investments (RoI) in sustainable fisheries management ....................................................................................................9

4.2 Lake Victoria fisheries status ................................................................................... 9

4.3 Initiatives to arrest the fish stocks decline ................................................................ 9

4.3.1 Policy initiatives through LVFO ......................................................................9

4.3.2 The Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) efforts .............................10

4.3.3 Self Monitoring and control program by Nile perch processing and exporting industry .........................................................................................11

4.3.4 Community-based and local-level enforcement efforts .................................13

4.3.5 Private Sector independent initiatives ............................................................13

4.3.6 Overall Challenges of implementation of the initiatives ................................14

4.4 NFTs and RFT options for sustainable fisheries management for Lake Victoria .. 14

4.4.1 The Uganda NFT approach ............................................................................14

4.4.2 NFT: The Kenya’s perspective .......................................................................17

4.4.3 NFT: Tanzania’s perspective ..........................................................................18

4.4.4 Regional Fisheries Taskforce initiative ..........................................................19

4.5 SWOT Analysis of the establishment of NFT and RFT systems for MCS ............ 20

4.6 Return on investment (RoI) in MCS for Lake Victoria Fisheries: ......................... 20

4.7 Restructured LVFO Secretariat for effective fisheries management ..................... 22



5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................................................... 22

5.1 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 22

5.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 23

5.2.1 Short term measures .......................................................................................23

5.2.2 Medium term measures ..................................................................................24

ANNEXES ..................................................................................................................................................... 25

ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................................ 25 ANNEX 2: ITINERARY AND WORK PROGRAMME ...................................................................................... 28 ANNEX 3: INCEPTION REPORT ................................................................................................................. 30 ANNEX 4: LIST OF PEOPLE CONSULTED ................................................................................................... 39 ANNEX 5: PROPOSED STRUCTURE OF AN EXPANDED LVFO SECRETARIAT ............................................. 41 ANNEX 6: LIST OF REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS CONSULTED..................................................................... 42 ANNEX 7: LAKE VICTORIA ESTIMATED TOTAL CATCH BY SPECIES (TONS PER YEAR) 1959-2011 ............ 43 ANNEX 8: RESULTS OF MCS PATROLS DURING 2004-2007 .................................................................. 44 ANNEX 9: THE STUDY MISSION PHOTOGRAPHS ....................................................................................... 46

List of Tables

Table 1: Fishing effort in Lake Victoria (2000-2010) ......................................................... 2

Table 2: Nile perch annual catches from Lake Victoria (in tons per year) 2000-2011 ........ 4

Table 3: Lake Victoria Nile perch Exports (2000-2010) in '000 Metric Tons ..................... 5

Table 4: Lake Victoria Nile perch Exports (2000-2010) in Million US dollars .................. 5



i

Acknowledgements

The assignment was carried out smoothly through the full support and efficient facilitation by ACP Fish II, Regional Facilitation Unit for Eastern Africa/Coordinating Unit (RFU-EA/CU) and invaluable cooperation by all the stakeholders interviewed, from top policy level (Permanent Secretaries, Kenya and Tanzania), LVFO Secretariat, relevant government institutions, private sector, especially the Executive Officers and the Chairmen of the partner states fish processing associations, down to the grassroots communities. My sincere gratitude go to all those who spared time to provide uninhibited information freely and honestly. My special thanks to Mr Philip Borel, the East Africa Industrial Fishing and Fish Processing Association (EAIFFPA) Chairman and Mr Koane Mindjimba, the ACP Fish II Programme Regional Manager for Eastern Africa who provided very clear guidance to the approach of the study during and after the briefing meeting. They not only guided, but greatly facilitated the Consultant to maintain focus. They also took time to read and give useful comments on the draft Inception Report (IR) and the Draft Final Technical Report (DFTR). My appreciation also goes to Mr John Purvis, the ACP Fish II Programme Fisheries Policy Expert for the thorough scrutiny of the DFTR and very useful comments. I am grateful to all the teams in the three countries that assisted with the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis with respect to application of National Fisheries Taskforce (NFT) and Regional Fisheries Taskforce (RFT) by the partner states to combat Lake Victoria fisheries illegalities. I wish to appreciate the Deputy Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Tanzania, Dr. Yohana Budeba for sparing some time out of a busy function in Tanzania to give me his views and opinion on the proposed NFT and RFT, as well as a candid proposal on the need for strengthening institutional arrangements that would contribute to better management of lake Victoria Fisheries. My special thanks go to Mr Dick Nyeko, the Executive Secretary (ES) of Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation (LVFO) for availing himself outside the study itinerary to discuss with me face to face and also through telephone whenever I needed information on the ongoing restructuring processes for the LVFO Secretariat. He provided information freely and his insight into the role of the regional organization in management of Lake Victoria fisheries was very useful in the compilation of this report. Lastly, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Hon Ruth Nankabirwa the State Minister for Fisheries in Uganda for sparing sufficient time on 25th March 2013 to discuss the NFT, RFT, the fisheries levy and the restructuring of the Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR) within its domicile Ministry. She also uninhibitedly provided a political angle to the study for which I am truly grateful as this assisted with the achievement of balanced views across the entire spectrum of the stakeholders. I do greatly appreciate that she availed herself for this discussion, having been unable to meet the Consultant as scheduled on the itinerary due to her busy schedule with cabinet meetings.



ii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACP Africa, Caribbean and the Pacific ADF Assistant Director of Fisheries AFALU Association of Fishers and Lake Users of Uganda AFIPEK AO

Kenya Fish Processors and Exporters Association Authorized Officer

BMU CAMFA CAS CEO CFO CoM CPUE CU DED DFO

Beach Management Unit Conference of Ministers of Fisheries and Aquaculture Cash Assessment Survey Chief Executive Officer Chief Fisheries Officer Council of Ministers Catch Per Unit Effort Coordinating Unit District Executive Officer District Fisheries Officer

DFR Department of Fisheries Resources DFTR Draft Final Technical Report DOF DPC DRC EAC

Director of Fisheries District Police Commander Democratic Republic of Congo East African Community

EAIFFPA EDF

East Africa Industrial Fishing and Fish Processing Association European Development Fund

ES EU FD

Executive Secretary European Union Fisheries Department

FDD FRI

Fisheries Development Division Fisheries Research Institution

FTR Final Technical Report GDP GIZ

Gross Domestic Product Gesellschaft für Internationale Zussamenarbeit (German International development agency)

IFMP IR IUU

Implementation of a Fisheries Management Plan (Project) Inception Report Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated

LVFO MAAIF

Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries

MCS MOFD MOU MSY MP NaFIRRI NAPE

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Ministry of Fisheries Development (Kenya) Memorandum of Understanding Maximum sustainable yield Member of Parliament National Fisheries Resources Research Institute (Uganda) National Association of Professional Environmentalists

NEMA National Environmental Management Agency NFT NGO

National Fisheries Taskforce Non-Governmental Organization

NWG NPFMP

National Working Group Nile Perch Fishery Management Plan

OSNP Operation Save Nile Perch PGB Presidential Guard Brigade (Uganda)



iii

PPP Private-Public Partnership PS PSC

Permanent Secretary Policy Steering Committee

PSFU RBN

Private Sector Foundation Uganda Regional BMU Network

RC RFU-EA

Regional Commissioner Regional Facilitation Unit for Eastern Africa (ACP Fish II)

RFU-EA/CU Regional Facilitation Unit for Eastern Africa/Coordinating Unit (ACP Fish II) RFT Regional Fisheries Taskforce RM RoI RPOA

Regional Manager Return on Investment Regional Plan of Action

RWG SOPs SWOT

Regional Working Group Standard Operating Procedures Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

TIFPA Tanzania Industrial Fishing and Fish Processors Association TL TOR TSh TZ UFPEA UFML

Total Length Terms of Reference Tanzanian Shilling Tanzania Uganda Fish Processors and Exporters Association Uganda Fishnet Manufacturers Limited

UIA Uganda Investment Authority UMA UNBS URA

Uganda Manufacturers’ Association Uganda National Bureau of Standards Uganda Revenue Authority



iv

Executive Summary

Lake Victoria is the largest African lake and the second largest lake in the world, covering an area of approximately 68,000 km² and shared by three countries; Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. The lake is very important to the economies of the East Africa Community (EAC) partner states including Rwanda and Burundi, the newest members of the Community. It is the most productive freshwater body in Africa, with an

estimated annual fish landing of between 800,000 – 1, 000,000 tons valued at approximately US $ 350 – 400 million at the beach, before any value addition. The entire Lake Victoria fishery resources contribute to

livelihoods of about 3 million people engaged in subsistence fishing, trade and other related activities. The Nile perch is the most important economic fishery of the lake upon which a lucrative processing and export industry has been built. Its production represents about 40%- 60% of total Lake Victoria fish production and its exports are estimated to be about US$ 300 million, among the three riparian states, generating substantial foreign exchange earnings. Unfortunately, there is a continued decline in Nile perch biomass and harvests. Both biomass and fish harvests have been fluctuating and have shown a downward trend. One factor that is not disputed is the tremendous increase in fishing effort whether through legal or illegal means. The lucrative regional trade in immature fish supported by high level corruption has exacerbated the fish stocks decline. Sustainable management of Lake Victoria fisheries ought therefore to be given top priority by all stakeholders through use of various input and output tools such as limiting the number of fishing boats and gears (input) and use of fishing quota allocations if this can be applicable in the case of Lake Victoria fisheries (output), among others. The use of key stakeholders’ partnership approach for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) approach is envisaged by many stakeholders to be a more tenable option in the fight to eliminate illegal fishing and trade. Available statistics suggest that Nile perch is now overfished and urgent measures are required to restore the fishery. The total Nile perch biomass is currently less than half of what is considered healthy, representing a significant economic loss for all actors in the fisheries value chain, from local fishers and traders, to factory owners and the government revenues. There has also been concern and awareness at all levels on the deteriorating state of Lake Victoria fisheries, which led to several initiatives of measures to arrest the decline of fish stocks in Lake Victoria being put in place. Some of these measures include:- LVFO Policy decisions for countries to take necessary actions to save the Lake; Operation Save the Nile Perch initiative; Uganda’s National Fisheries Taskforce (NFT) initiative; National and regional MCS initiatives; Self monitoring and policing initiative by the industrial processors to process legal sizes of Nile perch; Community-based and local-level enforcement efforts; and Private Sector independent initiative. The overall challenge to these initiatives is lack of political will in the implementation of the MCS measures agreed upon. The vulnerability of Beach Management Units (BMUs) also prevents these grassroots key players from being effective in the fisheries co-management systems. The field study was conducted through physical visits and interviews to relevant stakeholders using pre-defined questions with modifications suitable for maximum extraction of information. Meetings were held with Fisheries policy and management teams, the fish processing industry, the LVFO and other relevant stakeholders in all the three countries. Based on the information gathered, including the analysis of costs for establishment of NFTs and RFT, the opinion was sought from grassroots up to policy levels as well as the private sector on the need to establish the NFTs in the three countries and a RFT for the region, in an effort to curb the fishing illegalities in Lake Victoria that threaten the sustainability of the Nile perch and other fishes. The SWOT analysis on the NFT and RFT was conducted through brainstorming sessions with stakeholders in the three countries. An analysis of the benefits that would accrue from a transparent and credible public-private partnership (PPP) in fisheries management to achieve sustainable fisheries in Lake Victoria was also conducted in all three countries. The Uganda NFT approach to MCS for Lake Victoria that was started in 2008 through the effort of Uganda Fish Processors and Exporters Association (UFPEA) is an initiative aimed at key stakeholders and agencies collaboration to ensure sustainable management of Lake Victoria fisheries. The NFT vision is to establish a new MCS system that will eliminate illegal fishing methods and practices that has caused decline of fish



v

production to the current low levels. Through this effort it is anticipated that there would be significant recovery of fish stocks to the levels of at least 1.2 million metric tons by 2015. The benefits of investing in such a system to enhance fisheries productivity and production through an effective interagency approach were presented to the stakeholders in the three countries for discussion and recommendations. The majority of those consulted were in favour of the system though they gave opinions of modifications to make it more effective. The interviewees felt that most of the other approaches had failed due to lack of political and policy support, besides the limited financial resources. The analysis of the Uganda NTF initiative for sustainable management of Lake Victoria fisheries revealed that with relevant modifications of the institution arrangement, and setting up of a sustainable funding mechanism, it would be the feasible option for achieving results that maximize benefits from fisheries resource. It would provide a win- win situation for all bona fide fisheries resource users and beneficiaries, where the investment in the efficient and effective MCS would most importantly deter corruption at high level and improve political and policy involvement in the sustainable fisheries management. There is need to address the open access regime in order to reduce the fishing capacity by setting limits on number of fishers and boats that would be licensed to fish in all the partner states. Other recommendations included the need for restructuring LVFO to link it to EAC, an ongoing process to ensure accountability. Many interviewees recommended the setting up of a sustainable Fund for MCS that would be equitably funded by all stakeholders (the government, the industry, the BMUs and the development partners), using an acceptable formula. The stakeholders recommended the convening of high level stakeholders’ workshop to look at the options with a view to validating the most acceptable one and also the need for the LVFO to urgently convene a Council of Ministers (CoM) to discuss and approve the workshop recommendation. The following were the key recommendations by the cross-section of stakeholders:

1. Development of a short brief showing the return on investment (RoI) for NFT and RFT MCS activities and the incremental benefits that would accrue.

2. Advocacy to policymakers, and industry to understand the benefits of investing in a sustainable MCS based on demonstrable incremental benefits from the investment in NFT and RFT.

3. Hold a workshop of high level decision makers including the Ministers, the Permanent Secretaries, the industry, the BMUs and the LVFO Executive Secretary as soon as possible to discuss the NFT and RFT strategy for acceptance and adoption.

4. Recommendations of the meeting should be prepared through by the LVFO Secretariat and passed on to CoM for consideration and approval. The major and most urgent issues that would be put forward for discussion by CoM would include:

i) Establishment of multiagency National and Regional MCS (NFT and RFT) arrangements for effective management of Lake Victoria fisheries.

ii) Establishment of a LVFO Management Board to which the ES would be accountable. This could be expedited through expansion of the current LVFO Executive Committee to include the industry and community representatives, since this structure is provided for in the LVFO Convention.

iii) Approval of establishment of a funding mechanism that directly benefits from Lake Victoria fisheries levies and is managed by stakeholders through agreed protocols.

Other recommendations included:

1. The need to address the open access fishing regime situation in order to reduce the fishing capacity. This should begin with licensing of the existing vessels in the three countries in order to limit and contain the numbers to the levels of 2006 as recorded in the frame survey report.

2. The need to restructure and expand LVFO to manage its mandate effectively with a link to EAC. The process has started and LVFO Secretariat is making a follow-up especially now that Rwanda and Burundi are EAC members.

3. The importance of development of a regional plan of action for sustainable management, which also would facilitate activities leading to the "eco-labelling" of the Nile perch fishery of Lake Victoria.



1

1.0 Background

Lake Victoria is the second largest lake in the world, covering an area of approximately 68,000 km². The lake is shared by Kenya (6% by area), Uganda (43%) and Tanzania (51%). It is the most productive freshwater body in Africa, with an estimated annual fish landing of over 800,000 tons worth about US$ 400 million at the landing beach level. The lake supports very many small scale fishers and traders and a large fish export industry estimated at over 100,000 tons of processed Nile perch products valued at approximately US$ 300 million annually (LVFO statistics). The Nile perch (Lates niloticus) is the dominant and most commercially significant lake’s fishery and contribute between 0.5 and 1.6% of the GDP annually in each country, according to various estimates. Lake Victoria’s fisheries resources thus play an important socio-economic role in the three riparian countries as they support the livelihoods of over 3 million people through food, income and employment generation for fishers, boat owners, fish traders, local business enterprises at fish landing sites and the wider economies of villages and towns in the lake basin. This importance notwithstanding, the lake fisheries particularly the Nile perch fishery is facing many challenges, among them overcapacity, harvestable fish stock decline, stringent trade and market demands for exports and poor management and enforcement systems. Available statistics suggest that Nile perch is now overfished and urgent measures are required to restore the fishery. There is therefore, an urgent need to address the fish decline using various tools that could include control of inputs and/or outputs and also improve fish handling and processing at all levels of the value chain. The high proportion of immature fish in the Nile perch population is one of indicators that although most Nile perch in Lake Victoria are being caught before they reach breeding age, which affects the ability of the Nile perch population to sustain itself, it implies that even under conditions of extreme fishing pressure, Nile perch recruitment is relatively high. In other words, even a relatively small proportion of adult fish can produce sufficient eggs to restore the population in a relatively short period of time, if enough of these eggs are able to reach breeding age. The excellent fecundity of Nile perch means that the population is quite resilient and therefore easy to restore with good management measures. The negative consequences of harvesting immature fish is the denying of fishers better returns for their efforts because more benefits would accrue from the much larger quantities (in metric tons) and a better unit price available for fish at and above the legal size. Although the Nile perch population of Lake Victoria may not be about to collapse, the gross overfishing of the Nile perch stock presents a threat to the communities and the countries’ economies. The total Nile perch biomass is currently less than half of what is considered healthy, in terms of total catches. This represents a significant economic loss for all actors in the fisheries value chain, from local fishers and traders, to factory owners and the government revenues.

1.1 Trends in Lake Victoria fish production

Prior to the significant increase in Nile Perch biomass in the early 1980’s, Lake Victoria had a multi-species fishery of over 500 endemic fish species with Tilapiine and Haplochromines being the dominant species. Haplochromines comprised 40% of the catches in 1977 and commercial fishery was based on the Tilapiine (Njiru et al, 2006, IFMP, 2007). The Nile perch fishery reached its peak in terms of stocks in the 1990s. This fishery offered the “raw material” resource base needed to set-up a thriving processing industry in the 1990s. Currently there are 31 fish processing factories lake-wide (AFIPEK, 2013 Personal communication). The massive rise in fishing effort is a significant cause of the decline in the Nile perch biomass, raising the urgent need for management intervention to reverse the current trend.

1.2 Fishing effort in Lake Victoria

Fishing effort in Lake Victoria fisheries remain a small-scale operation with only a small proportion (26%) of motorized vessels and therefore the fishing effort is concentrated around the inner margins of the lake. The fishing effort in Lake Victoria is rapidly changing due to the open access management regimes of the entire lake as evidenced by the Frame Survey report 2010 which shows an overall increase in fishing crafts, gears and fishers. A notable increase in numbers of larger hooks and outboard engines are associated with increase in fishers accessing deeper waters in search for Nile perch. Table 1 below shows clearly the sharp increase in fishing effort, followed by stabilization since 2006.



2

During the 11th LVFO Council of Ministers Session in Dar-Es-Salaam on 27th February 2009, the Ministers approved 7 inches as the minimum legal size gillnets for Nile perch in Lake Victoria but this has yet to be enacted as law in some of the partner states. Other gears such as beach seines, monofilament gillnets and cast nets are illegal but quite prevalent in the lake. It is important that the fishing effort in Lake Victoria is stabilized at or below the 2006 level through partner states policy implementation commitment.

Table 1: Fishing effort in Lake Victoria (2000-2010)

Year 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Total number of fishers 129,000 176,000 153,000 196,000 199,000 194,000

Total fishing crafts 43,000 52,000 52 ,000 69,000 68,000 66,000

Crafts with outboard

engines*

4,000 7,000 10,000 13,000 14,000 16,000

Total No. of gillnets <5" 113,000 178,000 143,000 215,000 208,000 159,000

Total no. of gillnets 5-6½” 410,000 610,000 966,000 905,000 686,000 534,000

Total No. of gillnets 7-10” * 128,000 115,000 125,000 102,000 120,000 175,000

Total No. of all gillnets 651,000 903,000 1,233,000 1,222,000 1,014,000 867,000

Total Long line hooks* 3,496,000 8,098,000 6,096,000 9,045,000 11,268,000 11,472,000

* Boats and gears targeting Nile perch Source: LVFO Frame Survey Report 2010

1.3 Recent initiatives to reverse the L. Victoria fish stock decline

Several management measures have been taken with a view to reversing the lake’s fish stocks decline to ensure that the benefits to the resource users and other stakeholders are not lost. The most recent and conspicuous of these measures is the “self-monitoring and control” initiative led by the fish processing industry Associations, which started in Uganda in September 2007 and thereafter applied in Kenya and Tanzania. The “zero-tolerance” compliance policy of the harvested Nile perch slot size of not less than 50 cm total length by the industry in February 2009; the launching by the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation (LVFO) Council of Ministers of the “Operation Save Nile Perch” OSNP, in November 2009; and the establishment of a Regional Fisheries Taskforce (RFT) to lead and coordinate the review and update of the Nile Perch Fishery Management Plan (NPFMP), 2009–2014, are some of the other initiatives.

1.4 Lake Victoria Fisheries Management

The management of Lake Victoria fisheries is coordinated by the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO), an apex organization formed through a convention signed in 1994 by the three EAC partner states of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Under the EAC principle of subsidiarity, (which provides for decision-taking at the lowest level to achieve the required effects), the LVFO provides a forum for regional decision-making over the use of a shared resource. The partner states are expected to implement these decisions through national action plans. The main institutions at national level include the fisheries departments that have initiated co-management arrangements with the Beach Management Units (BMUs). Other key stakeholders in the LVFO management structure include the partner states’ fisheries research institutions (FRIs) that support science based management decision-making process at both national and regional levels, and the fish processors (small and large scale) who have a significant role in driving fishing practices. In the LVFO structure, there are national committees with multi-sectoral membership that are expected to be the basic informant and primary implementation group when operationalized. The major priorities of the LVFO for Lake Victoria fisheries is first to stabilise effort at the 2006 level and then make concerted effort to reduce it. The levelling of the effort increase since 2006 could be due to reduction in the catch per unit effort (CPUE) which makes fishing a less attractive activity than when there are abundant stocks. This stabilization effort has partly been achieved through the formation of BMUs, the harmonisation of legislation and increase in MCS activities, in accordance with the Regional Plans of Actions



3

namely; Regional Plan of Action to prevent, deter and eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (RPOA-IUU) fishing and the RPOA-Capacity.

1.4.1 Enforcement and surveillance

Weak enforcement and surveillance systems are the major challenges to Nile perch sustainability. An effective Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) system for Lake Victoria is therefore very important to curb the harvesting immature fish. Actions are being taken at regional and local levels through new co-management arrangements between the national fisheries departments and the BMUS and most recently processing and exporting industry through slot size enforcement. During 2006 and 2007 the focus was on tackling beach seines and monofilament nets through actions on water and land to prevent the export or dealing in undersize Nile perch. Each year, regionally organized monitoring programs were undertaken to enable MCS members from each partner state to observe activities in the other two states. The results showed some success in apprehending illegal operators, confiscation of undersized Nile perch, illegal nets and impounding of vehicles during this period of operation1 (IFMP, 2007). These gains were soon eroded as MCS activities came to a stop due to lack of financial resources following the project closure.

1.5 Lake Victoria Nile perch

1.5.1 Life history

The life history of the Nile perch is well described and supported by research conducted since its introduction into Lake Victoria in the 1950s. Juveniles aggregate in the shallow areas of the lake and spread to the open water as they grow. It is a fast growing species reaching sexual maturity at the age of three to four years and total length (TL) between 50 cm (males) and 84 cm (females). There have however been changes in the sex ratio and sizes of fish at sexual maturity due fishing pressure, with recent studies showing a much smaller TL for female at 50 cm (Njiru et al, 2006; IFMP, 2007).

1.5.2 Status of the Nile perch

There has been a declining trend of Nile perch catches since 2004, but there were slight signs of recovery in 2008 following interventions by the fish processing industry (Table 2). These gains were soon lost due to fishing overcapacity especially the harvesting of immature fish, which appear to go on unabated despite the laws that prohibit both harvesting and trading of juvenile Nile perch. The Nile perch industry has a fairly dependable data, despite the poor statistical data collection by the three riparian states due to available data generated from the regular biennial lake-wide frame surveys since 2000. The lake-wide catch assessment and hydro acoustic surveys provide more accurate data on the biomass, although they are not carried out as regularly as is desirable and therefore creating some gaps in the Nile perch biomass status. There has been a recent development where the lucrative China markets for maws (swim bladders) are encouraging harvesting of bigger Nile perch2.This unregulated regional market of juvenile Nile perch is observed as a threat to sustainability of Lake Victoria Nile perch. The current Nile perch stock is probably at about 40% of its standing stocks. This level is beyond the recommended level for maximum sustainable yield (MSY).Thus the continued fishing at current effort levels may lead to a decline in catches and biomass, resulting in increased over-exploitation of the stock. The use of illegal and undersize nets is singled out as the major threat to the Nile perch fishery and this need to be addressed urgently.

1.5.3 Trends in the Nile perch biomass estimates

The biomass of Nile perch appears to be stabilizing at about 350,000 tons (LVFO Stock Assessment RWG, 2009, CAS and hydro-acoustic reports). To ensure that the annual average catch of 250,000 tons equals the MSY, a total standing biomass of 750,000 tons would be required (LVFO Stock Assessment RWG, 2008). Estimated biomass of Nile perch from the seven surveys since August 2007 has remained fairly stable at around 350,000 tons except in August 2008, when it was estimated just below 250,000 tons.

1 Details of the results of MCS operations are shown in details in Annex 8

2 The effect of this cannot be quantified at this juncture but there is need for careful evaluation as these harvests are likely

to affect the Nile perch recruitment.



4

1.5.4 Population structure of Nile perch

Estimates of Nile perch population structure indicate that the population is skewed towards the juveniles (Figure 1). The Nile perch stock has been increasingly dominated by sizes below the lower limit of the slot size (50 cm TL). Associated with reduced size, there has also been an increase in the rate of turnover in the population and in the production/biomass ratio. This status is attributed to stress experienced by the stock due to overexploitation in that period (Njiru et al, 2006; IFMP, 2007).

Figure 1: Length-frequency distribution of Nile perch recorded from net hauls in September 2011. Source: Stock assessment RWG 2011 report

1.5.5 Nile perch production

As earlier mentioned, the Nile perch (Lates niloticus) was introduced into Lake Victoria in the late 1950s and is now a critical component in the lake’s ecology and fisheries. In late 1980s, it had become well established and some few entrepreneurs from Kenya recognized it as a possible trade commodity due to its abundance in the lake. It therefore became a trade commodity though only small amounts were traded in the local market. By the late 1990s, the Nile perch had gained its importance in the three riparian countries and penetrated international market arena. The Nile perch fishery is now one of the four main fisheries in the lake and has a major socio-economic impact on the three countries lakeside communities.

Table 2: Nile perch annual catches from Lake Victoria (in tons per year) 2000-20113

Year Nile perch catches % Total fish catches

2000 199,068 41 485,739

2001 247,166 39 641,338

2002 227,947 42 541,308

2003 227,947 44 515,111

3 Annex 8 has details of more Lake Victoria species catches from 1959 to 2011



5

2004 227,947 38 604,749

2005 268,152 29 937,995

2006 264,070 24 1,091,604

2007 233,941 23 1,000,907

2008 309,099 37 827,389

2010 276,429 34 808,223

2011 198,624 24 841,794

Source: LVFO, 2011a:

1.5.6 Nile perch exports

The majority of Nile perch is exported to international markets including the European Union (EU), Middle East, Japan, United States of America and Australia. The EU is its prime market, due to higher prices and zero rated duty (AFIPEK records). The Nile perch has therefore a significant contribution to foreign exchange earnings for the three EAC counties. This importance notwithstanding, there is a huge unregulated regional market composed mainly of juvenile Nile perch, which poses a big threat to the fishery recruitment and sustainability. The reduction in fish harvests is also a threat to the export market and therefore socio-economic loss to the countries.

Table 3: Lake Victoria Nile perch Exports4 (2000-2010) in '000 Metric Tons

Kenya 15.8 18 16.5 16.5 16.5 14.5 12.7 13.5 13 10.4 10.8

Tanzania 32.6 32.4 24.7 32.4 34.7 40.8 37.1 47 35.3 20.9 24.16

Uganda 15.9 28.2 25.2 25.1 30 36.6 32 28.1 23.4 17.2 16.3

Region total 64.3 78.5 66.4 74 81.2 91.9 81.8 88.6 71.7 48.5 51.3

Year

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

Table 4: Lake Victoria Nile perch Exports (2000-2010) in Million US dollars

Kenya 34.2 50.4 50.2 50.9 55.6 55.2 50.7 51.1 55.5 51.12 52.9

Tanzania 49.8 79.5 82.5 105 87.5 123.2 126.3 157.5 152.6 99 128.9

Uganda 34.4 79 87.6 86.3 102.9 143.6 137 116.2 115.3 87.3 83.2

Region total 118.4 209 220.3 242 246 322 314 324.8 323.4 237.4 265.0

Year

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

Source: LVFO 2011b; Lake Victoria Nile Perch Exports and Value 1992 – 2011

1.6 Overview of Uganda’s Nile perch fishery

Uganda’s Nile perch fishery, the focus of this study, involves a number of actors, national legislation and regional policies. Much of Lake Victoria’s Nile perch is caught on the lake’s islands and other geographically dispersed locations. Thus fishers sell their fish to fish traders with larger vessels rather than travel long distances to the nearest fish processing facility. These fish traders transport the catch to landing sites on the mainland, where it is sold to factory agents or other fish traders.

4 The weights refer to fish product weight, not raw material equivalent weights)



6

Almost all legal-size Nile perch is processed for export, while tilapia and the freshwater sardines Rastrineobola argentea (dagaa, mukene, omena5) are either consumed locally or exported to regional markets such as Kenya, South Sudan and eastern DRC. These regional markets have also become the primary destinations for the trade in illegally caught immature Nile perch. In 2003, during operations conducted by the Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR), numerous trucks transporting immature Nile perch from Lake Victoria to the DRC were impounded. It was estimated that every week about 10 trucks each transporting an average of 10 tons of immature Nile perch take this route (Benkenstein, 2011). This regional trade has continued to expand as neighbouring riparian countries also supply the immature fish to the illegal traders in Uganda, who appear to enjoy high level protection. The DFR has initiated several management efforts to deter this trade and the harvesting of the illegal immature fish but the efforts are often not supported at the highest policy and political levels thus compromising success of operations and eroding gains.

2.0 Approach to the assignment

The purpose of this assignment is to:- i) Critically examine the operation and performance of the national taskforce approach in Uganda in the

challenging fishing illegalities around Lake Victoria, ii) Examine the feasibility and desirability of establishing or strengthening similar institutional structures

in the other countries bordering the lake, and iii) Analyse and highlight the benefits of a transparent and credible public-private partnership (PPP) to

achieve the agreed goals of an effective and sustainable fisheries management for Lake Victoria.

To achieve this, there was need to phase out the assignment. The first phase was designed to critically analyze the situation in Uganda with respect to the formation and implementation of the NFT to curb Lake Victoria illegalities with a view to documenting the successes and failures; the challenges; and the anticipated benefits of establishment of NFT in Uganda. The study reviewed and examined the background of the events that necessitated the formation of NFT, as well as the successes. It also analysed the failures and challenges facing the implementation of the Ugandan NFT. The opinion of the need for strengthening the NFT including views of the improvement of the initiative and possible replication in other countries including establishment of RFT, were sought from stakeholders in Uganda. The second phase consisted of field visit to Tanzania and Kenya to consult with the fisheries administration, including the Permanent Secretaries, fish processing industry and the fishing communities, to introduce the NFT initiative idea and discuss the options for implementation. Once the NFT and RFT idea and mode of implementation is agreed upon by the stakeholders contacted, the information would be documented in the DFTR and submitted to ACP Fish II and the EAIFFPA, with succinct recommendations that could be forwarded to LVFO Secretariat for consideration by the LVFO CoM.

2.1 Comments on Terms of Reference

Item Comments Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to critically examine the operation of the national taskforce approach to challenging fishing illegalities around Lake Victoria, and to examine the feasibility and desirability of establishing or strengthening similar institutional structures in other countries bordering the lake. The assignment will strengthen the taskforce and highlight the benefits of transparent and credible public-private partnership (PPP) in fisheries to achieve the agreed goals.

The assignment was not expected to strengthen the taskforce as stated in the TOR but rather assisted with development of recommendations for a strategy of strengthening the taskforces, based on costs/benefits and SWOT analysis.

Activities of the Consultant: The Consultant will undertake the following activities as part of this assignment:

The Consultant first undertook a comprehensive study and analysis of the Uganda MCS initiatives including the national fisheries taskforce, before conducting

5 Local names for freshwater sardines: mukene in Uganda; dagaa in Tanzania; omena in Kenya



7

• Analyse (using tools such as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis) the multi-institutional NTF currently operating in Uganda;

• Suggest improvements to the NTF in Uganda to assist in achieving the stated objectives;

• Examine whether a similar taskforce system could be set up in Kenya and Tanzania (note that the industry and the LVFO Secretariat made such a recommendation at their meeting in Nairobi on 25th March 2010);

• Consult stakeholders in each country on the most effective and efficient system suitable for MCS, as well as reporting and evaluation of actions taken.

interviews in Kenya and Tanzania.

• SWOT analysis and RoI benefits was conducted in the three partner states

• The stakeholders’ inputs and recommendation for improved NFT for Uganda were documented and used to derive report conclusion and recommendation.

• The idea of replication of the Uganda NFT model and establishment of RFT were presented to the two countries

• Stakeholders were consulted in each country on their views on the most effective and efficient system suitable for MCS

Use of acronym: NTF in TOR is acronym for National Fisheries Taskforce

For consistency based on the acronym used by Uganda Stakeholders, the Consultant used NFT.

Expected starting date and duration: 1st October 2012 and will be completed within a period of four

(4) months utilising approximately 20–25 person-days.

The commencement date was 15th November 2012 after the briefing session at ACP Fish II in Kampala, Uganda. The completion date was planned to be on or before 10th March 2013.

3.0 Organization and Methodology

3.1 Delivery of Terms of Reference

Terms of Reference How delivered through the

assignment

1 Briefing by the ACP Fish II and EAIFFPA and development of work plan

This took place physically with the RM and EAIFFPA Chairman at ACP Fish II offices in Kampala, Uganda on 15th November 2012.

2 The consultancy was home-based but with travel to consult with the EAIFFPA Chairperson and other key stakeholders in the three Lake Victoria riparian countries (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda) as necessary. In particular the Consultant was required to visit the Fisheries Department (FD) in Nairobi, the Fisheries Development Division (FDD) in Dar Es Salaam,

and the Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR) in Entebbe.

These were undertaken but more stakeholders were interviewed to widen scope of opinion

3 The Consultant was required to prepare a study report providing the following: a) Analysis of the current Uganda’s NFT system and suggesting improvements (e.g. the mobilisation of PPP teams to conduct transparent enforcement); and b) Detailed and cost design of a similar NFT system for Kenya and Tanzania and RFT

These activities were accomplished and documented in the DFTR

4 The consultant was required to prepare following reports within the expected timeframes: a) Inception Report (IR); b) Draft Final Technical Report (DFTR); and c) Final Technical Report (FTR)

The IR and the DFTR were done within the timeframe despite the challenges of getting appointments to meet the policy and management teams in Tanzania.

5 Critically examine the operation of the national taskforce approach in Uganda address the challenging fishing illegalities around Lake Victoria

Field visits and interviews with relevant stakeholders in Uganda on the dates shown on Annex 1. Following the field visit an analysis of NFT was conducted and the information documented in the DFTR.

6 Examine the feasibility and desirability of establishing or strengthening similar institutional structures in other countries

Field visits in Kenya and Tanzania were conducted in the dates shown



8

bordering the lake. on Annex 1 but some others were done outside the itinerary. In these two countries, opinion of credible stakeholders on the most effective and efficient MCS system were sought and evaluated. The idea of taskforce (Uganda model) including suggested costs was introduced for discussion and critiquing. The results of the positions of these countries with respect to the establishments of NFTs and RFT was analysed and recommendations of the consensus made in the DFTR

7 Submission of the draft IR This report was submitted on 19th November 2012, within the time stipulated on the TOR and comments from the ACP Fish II received on 29th November.

8 Submission of final IR 26th December 2012

9 Preparation of the DFTR for discussion with Kenya and Tanzania

By 31st January 2013

10 Submission of DFTR for comments 28th February 2013

4.0 Conduct and details of the assignment

4.1 Fieldwork

The field study was conducted through physical visits and interviews to relevant stakeholders using pre-defined questions with modifications suitable for maximum extraction of information from different stakeholders. The Consultant secured appointments with interviewees in all three countries prior to the visits, through telephone contacts and e-mails. The itinerary of the field visits is shown in Annex 2. Meetings were held with fisheries policy and management teams, the fish processing industry and other relevant stakeholders in each country and the LVFO Secretariat, with the initial visit at the start of the assignment, taking place in Uganda. Based on the information gathered, including the analysis of costs for establishment of NFTs and RFT, the Consultant sought the opinion from grassroots up to policy levels as well as the private sector on the need to establish the NFTs in the three countries and a RFT for the region. This is in an effort to curb the fishing illegalities in Lake Victoria that threaten the sustainability of the Nile perch and other fishes of Lake Victoria.

4.1.1 The Interviews

The interviews with the identified informants in different Lake Victoria riparian countries were conducted face to face through semi-structured questions to find out the following:-

i) Challenges facing Lake Victoria Nile perch industry; ii) Opportunities and importance of the fishery to both the fishing communities and the countries; iii) Management of the shared resource and key players; iv) The status of the Nile perch industry; v) Any information and perception on L. Victoria MCS, NFT and RFT and suggestions of way forward

towards achieving sustainable fisheries management for L. Victoria; vi) Could NFT and RFT be successfully used as tools to achieve sustainable fisheries management for L.

Victoria? If so:- � What are the main impediments to this approach and how can they be overcome? � Proposals and constitution of the taskforces.



9

4.1.2 Uganda’s NFT system study

An in-depth study and analysis of the Uganda NFT system was conducted and information gathered was presented to Tanzania and Kenyan stakeholders. This formed the basis for discussion for proposals of enhanced fisheries management options that would be effective in eliminating illegal fishing and trade.

4.1.3 SWOT analysis

This was conducted through brainstorming sessions with stakeholders in the three countries.

4.1.4 Analysis of Returns on Investments (RoI) in sustainable fisheries management

An analysis of the benefits that would accrue from a transparent and credible public-private partnership (PPP) in fisheries management to achieve sustainable fisheries in Lake Victoria was conducted in all three countries. This was done through presentation of cost of such investments and returns that could accrue in the medium and long terms. Detailed and cost design of a similar NFT system for Kenya and Tanzania was the focus of the discussions with the stakeholders. There were discussions and suggestions on possible sources for sustainable funding of such an arrangement, including a credible management of the fund to achieve the desired results.

4.2 Lake Victoria fisheries status

The importance of Lake Victoria cannot be overstated as it supports a very large population of the riparian states as well as surrounding countries’ communities in terms of fishing, trading and other related activities. The emergence of the Nile perch export industry, the increasing demand for fish, the increasing population, the high rate of unemployment and the open fishing access management regime for Lake Victoria, harvesting of and trading in immature fish, rampant use of illegal gears (undersize nets and beach seines) have all contributed to excessive fishing pressure, which, if not addressed quickly, would create a serious fish stock decline. This situation is recognized by the governments and stakeholders but little is happening on the ground to reverse the dangerous trend, although a number of initiatives have been undertaken. Such initiatives include; policy decisions through LVFO, establishment of working groups, including MCS, ecolabelling, taskforces to clean the lake (Uganda), co-management through establishment of BMUs, self policing by the processing industry, and establishment of NFT (Uganda) among others.

4.3 Initiatives to arrest the fish stocks decline

Many initiatives to save Lake Victoria fisheries have been witnessed in the last few years upon realization that the lake fisheries was at the verge of collapse unless something is done urgently. There was also increased perception of the great economic and social losses for the three countries resulting from the massive illegal trade in immature fish. This importance notwithstanding, there is an apparent lack of political will and it is therefore instructive that there is lack of coherent implementation of measures agreed. The following are some of the initiatives that have been undertaken:-

4.3.1 Policy initiatives through LVFO

The gravity of illegal fishing in Lake Victoria has not escaped the attention of LVFO policymakers at the highest level. The possibility of a collapse of an all important Nile perch fishery with respect to the partner states’ economies, especially foreign exchange earnings and the livelihoods, appear to worry the LVFO Council of Ministers (CoM). Within 2008 and 2010 a number of meetings were convened to discuss solutions for arresting the Lake Victoria fisheries deteriorating situation. In recent years, the LVFO CoM has made commitments to tackle the L. Victoria illegalities. These include the following:-

i) Kampala Declaration in October 2008 recommended zero tolerance to illegal fishing by January 2009. ii) The CoM, during their 7th Session held in Tanzania on 27th February 2009, signed a joint communiqué

requiring partner states to eradicate illegal fishing/trade to 100% (zero level) by December 2009 through implementing zero tolerance to fishing and trading illegalities.

iii) A Regional Work Plan was drawn by the RWG MCS & RWG Co-Management in March 2009 at a meeting held in Nairobi, Kenya to implement zero tolerance to illegal fishing/trade;

iv) The CoM in their 2nd Emergency Session held in Nairobi, Kenya, on 6th November 2009, made commitment to eradicate illegal fishing to save the Nile perch, through an initiative branded “Operation



10

Save Nile perch (OPSN)”. It was agreed that partner states contribute US $1.8 million to fund the effort. Each partner state was obligated to contribute $600 by January 2010.

v) A Regional Work Plan for implementation of the OPSN initiative decision was developed at a meeting held in Jinja, Uganda in January 2010.

vi) The 12th Regular CoM Session held in Munyonyo, Uganda, in May 2010 directed partner states to provide more resources for MCS in Lake Victoria and also to fulfil their commitment to OPSN.

4.3.1.1 Challenges facing the implementation of policies

• Many good will policies have been developed at the highest LVFO policy level but no strategy is in place for their implementation or follow-up.

• Lack of commitment by individual partner states to implement CoM directives.

• LVFO leadership roles for implementation of directives not very well defined. The countries blame the LVFO Secretariat and yet agree that the Secretariat is guided by the Policy Steering Committee (PSC).

• Sustainable funding for LVFO activities by partner states is not yet achieved.

4.3.2 The Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) efforts

There exist National MCS units within the departments of fisheries of the three riparian states, whose mandate is to eradicate illegal fishing in Lake Victoria. MCS by the fisheries staff of the Local Governments in cases of Uganda and Tanzania has also contributed to the fight against illegal fishing and trade. The MCS Regional Working Group (RWG-MCS), comprising of members of departments of fisheries from the partner states and whose role is to monitor and evaluate MCS efforts of the partners states has been operational since 2007. This was an initiative of LVFO through the Implementation of Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) project for Lake Victoria.

4.3.2.1 Regional MCS efforts

Regional MCS actions during 2006 and 2007 were coordinated through the LVFO’s (RWG-MCS) to implement the LVFO Regional Plan of Action to prevent, deter and eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (RPOA-IUU) fishing signed by LVFO Council of Ministers. This RPOA provides the framework for national and local-level actions. In addition, a regionally harmonized MCS strategy and action plan was approved by the Council of Ministers, followed by the development of MCS Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) manual by RWG- MCS. The SOPs manual was approved by the LVFO CoM in 2008.

4.3.2.2 National MCS Efforts

i) General efforts of the partners states

Much of these efforts were supported by the IFMP project (2004-2008), where the overall regional strategy for the MCS operations was translated into national action plans to increase compliance through broadening the types of activities of the national MCS teams. These included operations on both water and land, conducting sensitization exercises, building partnerships with other stakeholders, collecting intelligence and cross-referencing with other sources. The patrol operations are guided by a regionally agreed and approved operations manual and patrol teams include government officers and BMU members. From the interviews conducted with the stakeholders in the three countries, this procedure of joint surveillance is still ongoing at national level, but better pronounced in Uganda. At national level, the emphasis of actions is on the enforcement of the reviewed and harmonized legislation and fisheries regulations. The current management regulations specific for the Nile perch fishery, enforced at the national level, include: slot size 50 – 85 cm (total length); 5” (127 mm) minimum (stretched) mesh size (Uganda and Kenya) and 6” (152 mm) in Tanzania for Nile perch; minimum hook sizes for Nile perch: 8-11 (Tanzania), minimum size 9 (Uganda) and not specified in Kenya (where long lines are less commonly used) and prohibition of vertical integration of gill nets.

ii) Uganda’s “Operation Clean” / “Operation save Samaki” effort

In 2003-2004, Uganda’s Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR) teamed up with Presidential Guard Brigade (PGB) and the police force to establish a paramilitary force to enforce law in an effort to deal with the



11

escalating fishing and fish trade illegalities in Lake Victoria. The communities were also part of the team and provided reliable intelligence information on illegalities. The fish export sector in Uganda is rated very high due to the foreign exchange earnings and its support for the national economic growth. In this regard, it was felt that there was need to protect the natural resource from the worrying decline due to rampart illegal fishing. The reason for this initiative by the DFR was to curb the increasing illegalities especially trade in immature fish, and cross- border illegal fishing and trade. The DFR was the team leader for this operation, which was well funded and therefore quite effective. The enforcement team was well trained, uniformed and with efficient communication systems. The success of the operation depended on the intelligence information for precise action and also made snap checks on roads, fishnet shops and markets. The use of life jackets was also enforced to ensure safety while fishing in the Lake. The only downside of this initiative was the use of excessive force during its operations. The most significant achievement and benefits of the operation was the enormous decrease in trade of immature fish and thus decrease in demand for the same, thus leading to decrease in harvesting of immature fish. There was a notable increase in demand for fish over 50cm (legal) and this translated in the increase of prices and improvement of livelihoods for the communities. The amount and value of exports also increased during this period. It should be noted that at the time, the fish factories were involved in processing increasingly small sizes of fish and the Operation Save Samaki got bogged down due to corruption accentuated by factories through illegitimate payments of the MCS/Save Samaki enforcement team put in place to combat the malpractice to “escort” illegal fish to their factories instead. Additionally, political interference and the demand for small fish by the politically well connected traders, who would not give up on the lucrative trade, were some of the impediments to this initiative. Therefore, despite some initial success, these challenges were not surmounted and the enforcement team was disbanded.

iii) The Uganda’s National Fisheries Taskforce (NFT) initiative

This was an initiative of Uganda fisheries stakeholders, which was established in 2008 with the aim of achieving a coordinated approach and effort in tackling fishing illegalities in Lake Victoria. The membership constituted of officers from the DFR, Uganda Fish Processors and Exporters Association (UFPEA), Uganda Police, Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) and BMU representatives. The main objectives of this NFT are to enforce the law on the use of illegal fishing gear and the trade of immature fish. The DFR was given the lead institution role as well as the mandate to solicit resources from key government agencies or institutions to create a synergistic approach to addressing the national fisheries economic and security concerns. There were however challenges in the NFT implementation in Uganda. Some of these included lack of sustainable funding, poor support at the policy level, inadequate knowledge of fisheries laws by the collaborating institutions, the effort in one country may not have been sufficient in a shared fisheries resource (tragedy of the commons), and therefore the need for effective collaboration by the partner states through buying into and implementing the idea.

4.3.2.3 Challenges facing national and regional MCS efforts

• Inadequate financial resources from the DFR to support operations.

• Lack or inefficient equipment for patrols.

• Use of BMUs was limited due to lack of financial resources to support their roles in the MCS.

• Political interference.

• Illegal trade by well connected people which breeds corruption and impunity.

• Huge and significant amount of fish resources taken by the illegalities that involve many people and operators and generate enormous profits.

4.3.3 Self Monitoring and control program by Nile perch processing and exporting industry

Self-monitoring is an independent inspection system of control set up and funded by the fish processing industry’s associations. Right from its inception, it involved consultations and coordination at regional level between the three countries’ industry associations (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda). Even prior to start-up of



12

implementation, the associations interacted with the LVFO and their respective fisheries departments in order to ensure support and effective partnership which were considered to be necessary for the success of this initiative. This “self policing” initiative was considered by the fish processing associations as the best way forward after realizing that neither of the three countries fisheries authorities showed sufficient commitment to effectively stop the fishing, processing and trading in immature fish. This situation was exacerbated by the industry itself as it was involved in processing small sized fish with impunity. The independent inspection unit inspects the factories and reports to the National Processors and Exporters Associations who in turn reports to the Competent Authorities of the respective partner states if sanctions are needed. The region’s industrial fish processors and exporters have thus embraced the need to reduce fishing of undersize Nile perch since the scarcity of the large fish was forcing them to accept fish as small as 30 cm long to keep their businesses running. The fishing of Nile perch that have not reached maturity is detrimental to the recruitment of the fishery. Due to this enormous wastage, UFPEA decided in September 2007 to make an effective follow-up to the regionally agreed approach. However, a measure of pragmatism was needed to ensure industry adherence to this initiative. In this regards, it was agreed initially that the minimum size of Nile perch to be accepted would be 40 cm of total length (TL), instead of the regulatory 50 cm. The plan clearly stipulated that after one year the regulatory TL of 50 cm would be adhered to and that the industry associations would take it as the standard for the self-monitoring inspections. The three national associations of fish processors developed a self-monitoring and control program through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This required that each country commits to the following:-

• Development of an independent inspectorate body with the power to enter factories unannounced and

to inspect the compliance in terms of size distribution of fish;

• Establishment of a regional East African Fish Industry Association; and

• Implementation of the RPOA- Capacity for licensing conditions according to species and review of

the mesh sizes for Nile perch.

The industry engaged independent inspectors of integrity from the three countries who were to report the results of all inspections to the chief executive officers (CEOs) of the associations. The CEOs, in turn, were given a mandate to recommend to the Head of the fisheries departments application of punitive measures to any factory found to be non-compliant. The enforcement mechanism has been agreed upon by the East African Industrial Fishing and Fish Processors Association (EAIFFPA). Independent inspections for the compliance of 50 cm TL slot size are currently conducted without notice and at random. A team comprising of the associations’ inspectors for the three countries has carried out inspections in all three countries in order to build confidence that compliance is effective. The higher cost of this “regional” inspection has however, limited the frequency of such inspections. Due to this effort, there has been remarkable compliance by the processing plants with visible results of increase in volumes of the 50 cm and above sizes of Nile perch for processing. All the processors interviewed stated that they had seen a decrease in the number of undersize-size fish offered to their agents as a result of the self-monitoring operations for slot size compliance by the factories. The industry has also shown remarkable resilience in using their own money to fund the operations despite the poor collaboration by other stakeholders especially the partner states’ governments. These gains notwithstanding, fisheries surveys continue to reveal that the Nile perch stock is in a state of decline and may be approaching crisis point unless more measures are taken, although recruitment is being maintained at the moment. All stakeholders appear cognizant of this predicament and there is therefore a strong resolve to reverse the situation. The processors are implementing strict regimes on size criteria for the fish they purchase but the huge regional market for illegal small fish is negating this effort. Strengthened co-management system is thus necessary to curb IUU fishing and specifically the control of the regional trade in undersize Nile perch. It is the view of the majority of stakeholders that the three governments should be more proactive in control of the harvesting and marketing of illegal undersize fish, which has a negative impact on the abundance of the Nile perch within the slot size.



13

4.3.3.1 Challenges facing the industry self policing initiatives

• The self policing though successful at the industry level, the lack of support to eliminate or at least reduce the harvesting and trade in illegal fish have presented a major challenge.

• The unchecked domestic markets in the three countries encourage trade in immature fish though the fisheries laws in all the three countries prohibit such trade. This has negated the gains from the industry effort.

• A lucrative uncontrolled domestic market from factory rejected undersize (below slot size) fish

• Fishing in restricted areas ((De Beule, 2012).

• Fishing without the necessary permits, (De Beule, 2012).

• Use of illegal gears such as beach seines, monofilament and undersized gill nets and lack of political will to eliminate illegal gears especially the beach seines

• The restriction to fish only in own waters, without any window of opportunity to allow negotiated sourcing of raw material from other states is beginning to frustrate some of the countries with smaller

fishing grounds, Kenya in particular.

4.3.4 Community-based and local-level enforcement efforts

An important local-level factor in fisheries enforcement is the use of peer pressure from the local BMUs. Each BMU has a committee member specifically responsible for MCS issues and BMU members have been conferred legal powers to support this function. As a result BMUs are able to seize illegal gear and boats. Habitual offenders are reported to the local fisheries officers or police who take Court action when necessary. However, their ability to enforce fisheries legislation is largely confined mainly to sensitization on the use of legal gears due to their limited capacities, though they have the powers to confiscate and burn the illegal nets. The BMUs vet the fishers and make recommendation to the departments of fisheries as to which members should be licensed. Some BMUs with patrol boats (most of them provided by IFMP project), participate in active pursuit but this is not yet effective. BMUs are also responsible for vetting boats for registration. The recently established regional, national and districts BMU Networks have been found to be effective in intelligence information gathering and sharing with law enforcers for effective enforcement. Local NGOs such as Association of Fishers and Lake Users of Uganda (AFALU) have also tried to fight against illegal fisheries by carrying out law enforcement as well as sensitization of the fishers on the state of the fisheries including promotion of legal fishing for sustainability.

4.3.4.1 Challenges impeding BMUs’ effectiveness

• The BMU capability for MCS is undermined by lack of resources.

• The BMUs are part of the community and therefore their involvement in arrests of illegal fishers may not auger well with the community. This renders them ineffective.

• BMUs are still fragile and are sometimes patronized by the administration rendering them voiceless.

4.3.5 Private Sector independent initiatives

In Uganda, a group of stakeholders are getting together to address the illegal fishing and the unabated local and regional trading in small undersize fish. Private Sector Foundation Uganda (PSFU) through the policy advocacy unit in conjunction with the DFR at Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries

(MAAIF) convened a consultative workshop on sustainability of the fish sector in Uganda through better fishing practices. The workshop attended by key stakeholders involved in the entire Fish Sector was held in Entebbe, Uganda on 24th October 2012. Over 60 sector stakeholders attended the workshop representing various key groups including:- Fishermen; BMUs; UFPEA; AFALU; EAIFFPA; National Fisheries Resources Research Institute (NaFIRRI), National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA); National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE); URA-Customs Unit, Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS); LVFO, Uganda Manufactures’ Association (UMA); Parliamentary Committees of Agriculture and National Economy Chairpersons, traders in fisheries materials and commodities, and Civil Society. The State Minister for fisheries attended the workshop as the chief guest. The workshop was sponsored by Uganda Fishnet Manufacturers Limited (UFML).



14

The main objective of this workshop was to consult and strategize a multiagency approach to protect the declining fish stocks and ensure sustainability of the Uganda fisheries sector through enforcement of the already existing laws, while developing new approaches and strategies. The most significant recommendation of the workshop was the need for the EAC to include monofilament and nets below 4 inches on Schedule 2 of the EAC Customs banned list and countries to ensure implementation of the Common External Tariff as set by the EAC. The Establishment of a “Fisheries Authority” is considered by a number of key stakeholders in Uganda the as a necessary institutional change for more effective fisheries management. It is envisaged that this change would pave a way for the private sector to contribute to funding of MCS activities and therefore the need for the process to be expedited. .

4.3.5.1 Challenges faced by the PPP initiative

• No working MOU developed and thus reliance on goodwill of different institutions may not be tenable.

• Lack of sustainable funding for the joint efforts. Different sectors may not consider the initiative a priority in resource allocation.

• The Customs staff may not appreciate the negative effects of illegal fishnets importation and may therefore be lax in enforcement.

• Lack of leadership in the implementation and follow-up of the workshop decisions. No further tangible action since the workshop.

4.3.6 Overall Challenges of implementation of the initiatives

There appears to be stakeholders’ goodwill for sustainable management of Lake Victoria fisheries as evidenced by the policy and MCS initiatives. There is however, very little or no commitment for implementation of the agreed measures by partner states. Political patronage, institutional failures and corruption at all levels are major impediments to the implementation of initiatives for the sustainable management of Lake Victoria fisheries. The vulnerability of BMUs also prevents them from being effective players in the fisheries management.

4.4 NFTs and RFT options for sustainable fisheries management for Lake Victoria

4.4.1 The Uganda NFT approach

The Uganda NFT approach to MCS for Lake Victoria that was started in 2007 through the effort of UFPEA is an initiative aimed at multiagency collaboration to ensure sustainable management of Lake Victoria fisheries in Uganda. The aim of the taskforce was to enforce the relevant laws in order to bring to book those fishing with illegal gears and methods, importing illegal fishing gears, trading in immature fish, and trading without proper documents. It was anticipated that the NFT would bring about coordinated approach to enhance efficiency towards sustainable fisheries management and marketing through harmonious working relationship. The NFT vision is to establish a new MCS system that will eliminate illegal fishing methods and practices that has caused decline of fish production to the current low levels. The overall NFT objective is thus to jointly, with all relevant institutions and entities enforce national fisheries good governance on land and water by controlling importation and usage of illegal fishing gears, and curbing IUU fishing, and trade in immature fish. The NFT operate within the territorial boundaries of Uganda and its areas of jurisdiction include: the landing sites; fishing grounds; fish processing establishments in Uganda; fishing vessels; transport vehicles and vessels; border posts; roads; and markets. The NFT developed its own SOPs to ensure all participating institutions know their roles and application of laws during MCS operations. The SOPs therefore stipulates the institutional roles on MCS.

4.4.1.1 NFT institutional roles

i) DFR the lead Institution:

• Coordination and initiation of operations of MCS activities;

• Resource mobilization and allocations in consultation with other NFT members;

• MCS records keeping and Information management;



15

• Monitoring of NFT performance and progress;

• Initiation of setting standards for MCS operations;

• Prosecution of offenders.

ii) Uganda Police

• Law enforcement that include water and land patrols; spot checks; arrests of law breakers; and impoundment of illegal gears and equipment.

• Source and exchange intelligence information

• Provision of security during operations.

• Charge and prosecution of suspects

• Regular and spot checks for immature fish and illegal gears in transit;

iii) URA/Customs

• Verification of fish, fishery products and equipment imported, exported or on transit through the territory of Uganda. Customs handle these goods and must therefore ensure authentic documentation.

• Familiarize themselves with the necessary legal document and goods, to ensure they do not allow entry and exit of illegal fish and equipment.

• Customs has full powers to lead and assist the NFT on MCS at the entry and exit points.

iv) UFPEA

The industry has played a big role in the self policing and as part of NFT, they have the following role:-

• Collaborating with the other departments in the NFT;

• Share the intelligence information on fisheries illegalities;

• Contribute resources where possible to fight fisheries illegalities;

• Sensitize and disseminate information on the dangers of illegal fishing/trade to its members.

v) BMUs

The BMU Instrument of 2003 enables the taskforce operatives to link up with BMUs for intelligence information on fisheries illegalities and perpetrators of illegal activities. All operatives are required, where relevant, to cooperate with BMUs and use the institution appropriately for effective MCS. The National BMU chairperson is a member of the NFT.

4.4.1.2 NFT institutional structure

i) National level structure

The structure of the NFT for MCS is two levels; Policy and operational.

Policy structure

The policy arm of the NFT is chaired by Minister of State for Fisheries. Other members for policy are Permanent Secretary, Commissioner for Fisheries (secretary), Commissioner General URA, Inspector General of Police and Chairman, UFPEA. The SOPs stipulates that the policy team should meet at least once quarterly to review progress of NFT and where necessary give direction. Operational structure

The operational arm of the NFT is chaired by the Commissioner, DFR. Members include DFR officers responsible for Regulations, statistics and prosecution; UFPEA Chairman and CEO; Police Commandant; and URA enforcement officer. The operational team according to SOPs should meet once a month, but can call emergency meetings when necessary. The national operational methodology includes:-

• Deployment of District Fisheries Taskforce as soon as informers relay information, especially on conflict of interest areas.

• Counter- checking district fisheries taskforce



16

• Compliance with the NFT-Policy directives

• NFT-MCS (Operational) will select informers of reputable character in each zone

• Informers will operate under cover and on monthly contract that may be renewable upon good performance

• Informers shall report operational information to NFT-MCS (Operational), CFO or the hot line at DFR

• DFR contacts the Commandant Police Marine to get in touch with the respective District Police Commander (DPC) who shall give operational report to Commandant for cross referencing

• DFR directs the responsible District Fisheries Officer (DFO) who shall get in touch with the respective DPC to provide security personnel to undertake the operation and report to DFR

• The DFR has a right to assign DFO from one district to operate in another district in writing

ii) The Local Fisheries Taskforce for MCS This NTF organ comprises district operatives from institutions relevant and connected to the taskforce. The taskforce has the ability to mobilize operational resources from the central government or district. The district taskforce should report and get technical guidance from the national taskforce operational arm. DFO is the team leader for this team backed by DPC. iii) NFT Authorized Officers

The NTF developed its own Code of Conduct for Authorized Officers and use relevant laws to provide immunity from civil or criminal liability. The NFT, identifies, appoints and deploys Authorized Officers (AOs). The issuance of Authority Cards to the AOs is done by DFR. All AOs whose Authority cards are withdrawn due to poor performance shall be published in the media for the public to know. The CFO issue a deployment letter to the AO stating date, zone of operation and the duration of the operation. The NFT informers too are identified and issued with deployment letter stating date, zone of operation and the duration of the operation. Upon satisfactory performance the deployment may be renewed by the CFO.

4.4.1.3 Challenges facing the NFT

Although this approach looked very promising in the early years of NFT formation, sustainability became an issue. The collaborating institutions were quite willing to partner with DFR but sustainable funding for the initiative and DFR commitment was lacking. The policy arm hardly ever convened the meetings as stipulated and no funding was forthcoming for the team to carry out their mandates. There was no structure to allow private sector to contribute to the cost of NFT operations. The corrupt traders and fishers appeared to have their way and DFR and NFT were not given much powers of independence to arrest and prosecute. Political interference with the operations intimidated the AOs and DFR and therefore reduced efficiency. It is important to take cognizance of the fact that financial power and influence originating from the significant earnings along this illegal chain fuels and oils corruption in the system that is expected to fight the vice. As a result, the officials involved become compromised by the fishers and traders of illegal fish and therefore end up protecting illegalities rather than fighting them. This makes these activities thrive and grow. It will therefore be important for the restructured NFT to identify the mechanisms that make the illegalities thrive and put an effective strategy in place to eradicate malpractices. Comments on the structure by stakeholders

i) The majority stakeholders’ opinion on the Uganda’s NFT structure and function was that the policy structure of the NFT should not be headed by the minister but rather by the PS responsible for fisheries due to the nature of the ministers’ functions which compromise availability.

ii) The DFR was emphatic on the need to register and set limits on the number of vessels. The vessels should be issued with tamper proof number plates and given deadline to register. This would put in check the current open access regime. These limits would be based on 2006 Frame Survey numbers.

iii) People consulted expressed the need to define the reporting and the command structures at the operational level to avoid different centres of power due to the multiagency composition of the NFT. The reporting system can be developed through MOUs or better still though a policy and legal processes. In this regard, the NFT would have some autonomous status.



17

iv) Sustainable funding of NFT activities need to be defined and established to make the NFT sustainable to avoid breaks in operations.

v) The collaborators from other institutions ought to be released from their normal duties so that they report directly to the NFT leading institution under the defined NFT structure and protocols

vi) The composition of NFT was acceptable to all the people consulted but there was general feeling that the name should change from a “taskforce” to a more permanent nomenclature.

vii) There was need to restructure the DFR to effectively accommodate the NFT. The State Minister is lobbying for the DFR reform, first to upgrade it to a Directorate from the Commission and also to transform the Department into a Fisheries Authority within the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry & Fisheries (State Minister’s personal communication with the Consultant, 2013).

4.4.2 NFT: The Kenya’s perspective

The cross-section of Kenyan stakeholders interviewed was of the view that something has to be done to salvage the Lake Victoria fisheries from imminent collapse. A joint effort was supported but according to the PS Kenya, the Uganda NFT should be modified so that the entire MCS is linked to LVFO and managed from the Secretariat. For such an arrangement to function well there would be need for sustainable funding and commitment by the partner states. He however suggested that for effectiveness, the LVFO Secretariat should be restructured and expanded to include both programme and administrative areas in order to it a more viable institution for direct linkage with EAC (Proposed structure by PS shown in Annex 5) to receive direct budget from this regional organization. Creation of a Fund at LVFO Secretariat for MCS is envisaged to be necessary and it was suggested by many stakeholders that contribution to the Fund must be a commitment by all beneficiaries and the partner states’ governments. Many, especially the processing industry were of the opinion that this Fund should be managed by an established LVFO Management Board that could be formed by expanding the current LVFO Executive Committee, in the restructured LVFO Secretariat. The Board would be all inclusive (Fisheries policy and management, industry and community) and would source and manage their money for MCS operations. It would thus operate as a corporate body where management decisions are passed by the Board. The Executive Secretary (ES) would thus be accountable to the Board. The restructure LVFO Executive Committee was regarded a good option to expedite the process and to minimize duplication and expenses. The Board would also ensure statutory meetings are held as stipulated in the LVFO Convention and this would be a solution to the current situation where these meeting have not been held and no one appears to be accountable. The BMUs in Kenya also felt that their main role in this joint arrangement would be limited to vetting bona

fide fishers for licensing and providing intelligence information for the MCS operations. The actual taking part in arrests by BMUs being part and parcel of the fishing communities has its disadvantages as it compromises their security at the community level. They can however give helpful information incognito as happened during Uganda’s “Operation Save Samaki” with remarkable success. The BMUs indicated that they are not well equipped for the complicated MCS that include arrests and prosecutions. Kenya supported the establishment of the NFT, so long as there was harmonized approach by the three countries especially on the sustainable funding. Kenya has also embarked on establishment of a national MCS interagency arrangement initiative that involves 13 ministries. The Kenyan process has gone through policy and legal processes and has been incorporated in the Fisheries Bill, yet to be approved. The major advantage of this arrangement is that it would deter corruption and make operators who hitherto feared the backlash from arrests more bold in carrying out their roles. This notwithstanding, there would be need to sort out reporting, accountability and command systems so that players do not have an obligation only to reporting to their superiors in their institutions. The need to develop SOPs and TORs for operations, enforcement and reporting systems through a consultative process is crucially important at the outset. The challenges facing MCS operations in Kenya are similar to the other two countries and although the National MCS unit is established, there are major impediments in fulfillment of its mandate due to lack of funding. As in Tanzania, all the money collected from fisheries levies is submitted to treasury and therefore the MCS units depend on usual Treasury allocations that are not adequate and not disbursed on time. The



18

RWG- MCS has also been inactive following the closure of the IFMP project. A permanent solution for MCS is crucial and could be achieved through a well developed NFTs and RFT according to Kenya’s stakeholders.

4.4.3 NFT: Tanzania’s perspective

All the stakeholders interviewed from grassroots, the industry, the management and the top policy expressed their concerns on the continued decline of fisheries due to the increased fishing capacity caused by illegal fishing and the open access regime to fishing where the government licenses all new entrants without any limitations. This situation is exacerbated by the continued illegal fishing and fish trade compounded by inadequately facilitated MCS systems. The ineffective MCS system according to the Fisheries Development Division (FDD) is due to personnel shortage, inadequate financial resources and the limited facilities allocated for MCS activities, besides corruption at all levels of those given the responsibility to protect the resource. There are no vehicles for example allocated specifically for MCS operations and the patrol vessels are inappropriate and in disrepair. The importation of cheap illegal fishing nets, especially the monofilament nets is another problem that needs to be addressed through a multiagency approach. As a result of these challenges among others, there has been significant decrease in fish quantities and sizes harvested attributed to overfishing and uncontrolled illegal fishing. There is a national MCS unit based in Dar –Es-Salaam and three regional MCS sub-units based in Mwanza, Bukoba and Musoma but overfishing is still an issue. The main reasons for the overfishing of the fisheries resources and solutions were given by stakeholders as follows:- i) Lack of ownership by the users exacerbates and inhibits sound resource utilization. It was suggested that

all stakeholders must own the lake resources 100%. This can be achieved through the following:-

• Continuous awareness creation to all stakeholders especially users, through a developed methodology such as use of peers to ensure fishers own and steward the resource.

• There must be political will at all levels combined with action.

• Corruption at all levels and especially at the highest level must be addressed and stopped without fear or favour.

ii) The fragmented distribution chain is creating space for corruption in fishing and marketing of immature

fish. Centralized auction centers would resolve this problem and the FDD would have full control of the management and utilization. The small fish would eventually have no market as they would not be delivered at the centers for fear of arrest. At the moment the FDD is mandated to protect fisheries resource but the local government utilizes it through levies at the village level. This is not tenable as the beneficiaries from revenues (the local governments) may not feel obligated to protect the resource. For example, local government would prefer to charge levies for immature fish rather than impound them and this makes illegal fishing and trade thrive.

iii) Inadequate implementation of resolutions and decisions taken at the meetings. The example cited was the

CoM decision to fund the OSNP, which was not fulfilled and there appears to be no mechanism or leadership to ensure compliance. Another example was when in 2009, the Minister responsible for fisheries convened a meeting of the MPs, Regional Commissioners (RCs), District Executive Directors (DEDs), BMUs, Councilors, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and the fish processing industry association to discuss the issues of fishing illegalities. There has however been no follow-up on the decisions made at the meeting as at the time of the study.

iv) Political and administrative reforms are necessary to ensure effective management. It was therefore, suggested that there is need for restructuring the LVFO including the Secretariat to achieve efficiency and provide leadership in sustainable management of the shared resource. Both Kenya and Tanzania expressed the desire to have the reformed and restructured LVFO directly linked to EAC.

v) Ensuring good governance. This can be achieved by developing a protocol for accountability that includes ensuring follow-up and enforcement of collective decisions. The changes due to staff mobility



19

and appointments at all levels of government and private sector must be well managed so that institutional memory is maintained.

vi) Strengthening of MCS activities. The stakeholders said the governments ought to provide more financial

resources and facilities for sustainable management of the lake. There is need for advocacy to sensitize the ministry responsible for fisheries on the benefits of investing in MCS. The FDD said they used to have adequate resources when there was a retention scheme where the US 12 cents was retained by the FDD for its operations. When this changed and all the revenues were submitted to the treasury, the MCS activities suffered and illegalities and fishing effort increased due to the inadequate treasury allocated finances. The inadequate MCS encouraged thriving of illegalities which contributed to a decline in the harvested legal fish, thereby reducing the revenues from fish exports remitted to the government from about 7 Billion Tanzanian shillings (Tsh) to the current level of about 3.7 billion Tsh

vii) Based on the proposal to have the US $ 0.03 dedicated to the management of Lake Victoria it would cost

only about 900 million Tsh to curb the harvesting of immature fish, which if left to mature would tremendously increase mature and good size Nile perch landings and thus increase the revenue collections and foreign exchange to the government. The community would also benefit from increased earnings and the processing industry would prosper, thus increasing the economic benefits in the lake basin through a flourishing of the industry. The problem is how the policymakers, especially the Ministry of Finance would become knowledgeable about the impact of such an investment and agree to receive less revenue but aware of the incremental benefits in the short term from such a decision. It is difficult to convince the Ministry of Finance to accept the proposal to receive US $ 0.03 less per kilogramme from the fisheries levies, unless they are made to understand that the measure would yield more returns for them in the mid-term (in about 1 year) and long term (posterity) since levies are based on weight and the more fish are allowed to mature the more weight is harvested and marketed and therefore more revenues.

The stakeholders supported a joint well coordinated and funded approach and were of the opinion that this would not only deter corruption, it would also make MCS activities more efficient and effective. The proposal of the membership composition of the joint team was the same as that of Uganda and Kenya. Tanzania also proposed that the taskforce be managed as a corporate body with a Board of Directors and a Chairperson. They considered the name of the taskforce as inappropriate because in their opinion the proposed institutional arrangement should have a permanent status. The all inclusive NFT should have and manage its own funds sourced from all stakeholders as well as the interested donors and development partners. In order to expedite the acceptance of such an entity, the stakeholders suggested that the currently inactive LVFO National Committees that were established under the LVFO Convention but never operationalized be used to give the arrangement an acceptable mandate. The already approved establishment of the LVFO National Committees in the convention would expedite the process. They however cautioned that the idea although good, must be supported through political and financial decisions by all players for sustainable funding of the entity and management of the funds. There may be need for legal process to establish the taskforce in order to give it a legal empowerment especially in ensuring effective law enforcement. Some stakeholders suggested the need for an agreed closed season from fishing of about 2 months from November to January each year for the lake but others argued that this would negatively impact on their markets if there is a break in consistent supply to their clients.

4.4.4 Regional Fisheries Taskforce initiative

The need for a Regional Fisheries Taskforce (RTF) was supported by all stakeholders consulted. The stakeholders interviewed were of the opinion that the properly structured RFT would oversee and provide direction to NFTs to ensure harmonized approach to fisheries management. The RFT would be under the re-structured LVFO and proposed membership would include, Directors of Fisheries of partner states; the Chairpersons of the NFTs, the LVFO ES, the EA Chairperson of the industry and the BMU networks. The RFT would meet annually or when necessary. The RFT would be linked to the MCS Department (in a restructured LVFO) and would be an improved form of RWG- MCS under the watchful management of the Secretariat.



20

4.5 SWOT Analysis of the establishment of NFT and RFT systems for MCS

The SWOT analysis was conducted through round table meetings with stakeholders in Tanzania and Uganda and also through individual meetings and consultations in Kenya as well as Tanzania and Uganda. Strengths Weaknesses 1. Recognition of importance of sustainable management

by all stakeholders 2. Willingness by all stakeholders to participate in

innovative approaches that would help solve the problem of fish stocks decline.

3. Well established fish processing industry with an interest in Nile perch sustainability, witnessed through their self-policing initiatives.

4. LVFO institution in place and functioning, with adequate structures such as RWG, and NWGs

5. Existence of National Committees in the LVFO convention provides an easy entry point to the formation of the NFTs

6. Fisheries legislation in place in all three countries 7. Well trained personnel in the fisheries and law

enforcement 8. Existence of policies and guidelines including SOPs 9. Different sectors with different competencies and

strengths acting together

1. Political interference in MCS activities 2. No follow-ups on decisions including those of CoM 3. No commitment by government to provide adequate

facilitation for MCS 4. Different sectors participating have different priorities

according to their mandate and undefined reporting systems

5. Poor infrastructure, both physical and cold chain

6. Low capacity of both personnel and equipment for

effective MCS and inadequate funding for MCS activities

7. No independent arrangement in place for monitoring and evaluation of the industry

8. Weak governance at all levels 9. Dormant LVFO National Committees 10. Rampant illegalities in fishing and marketing 11. Protection of perpetrators by system 12. Transparent and credible elections of BMU officials

may not be achieved (tendency for illegal fisheries to appoint their own)

13. Interest in revenue raising from natural resource superseding conservation (conservation mandate by the FD and utilization by local government in Uganda and Tanzania )

Opportunities Threats

1. A highly valuable resource with a resilient and highly productive Nile perch fishery

2. Resource revenues and levies adequate for fisheries management

3. Significant contribution to foreign exchange earnings in partner states

4. Established premium markets for the Nile perch exports, with international recognition and preference of the Lake Nile perch products

5. Lake Victoria fisheries able to sustain itself through resource rent, given the opportunity

6. Fairly unpolluted environment 7. Collaborating and supporting institution already

in place 8. MCS units in place in all countries 9. Socio-economic importance of the lake fisheries

known by the highest level of decision makers 10. Lake Victoria basin recognized as an economic

focal point for the EAC region 11. Realization of the dangers of the declining fish

stocks by all key stakeholders

1. High level Corruption 2. Open fishing access regimes 3. Inadequate funding for MCS activities 4. The expanding regional market for illegal fish 5. Political interference 6. Declining trends of fish stocks that could lead to

fisheries collapse 7. Lack of political will to curb fishing and trading

illegalities 8. Likelihood for need for legal identity of the

taskforces 9. Possible disagreements by partner states on the

establishment of a harmonized sustainable Fund for NFT and RFT

10. Disagreement by the 3 countries on the establishment of NFT and RFT

4.6 Return on investment (RoI) in MCS for Lake Victoria Fisheries:

All stakeholders recommended need for higher investment towards more effective MCS activities for better benefits for users and the environment. There were several proposals on how to ensure sustainable funding for MCS activities:-



21

i) The three governments to increase funding for MCS activities. This has not been achieved in the past and therefore very unlikely to succeed despite the governments’ current concern about the declining stocks.

ii) Establishment of harmonized national MCS Fund for each country to be provided by the governments. This is very unlikely to be realized considering that even the fund for OSNP was not honoured by the partner states despite the CoM directive.

iii) Establishment of national interagency MCS unit funded by individual governments. The success of this is doubtful as evidenced by the case of the Uganda’s NFT limited success due lack of an established system for sustainable funding and little support at the policy level.

iv) Establishment of interagency NFTs (based on Uganda’s model) and the RFT managed by LVFO and fully funded by EAC. This would be an option but cannot work under the current structure of LVFO where accountability is an issue and the linkage to EAC is still not yet concluded though in progress.

v) Majority of stakeholders interviewed were of the opinion that the NFTs and the RFT ought to be given a name that has permanency. Adoption and activation of the LVFO National Committees (for NFT) and reforming the RWG-MCS (for RFT) was suggested.

vi) Stakeholders also proposed that the NFT should operate as corporate body at the national level with its own bank account and empowered to make its own decisions on operation for fisheries law enforcements. NFT with such a status would need to go through a policy and legal processes for adoption by partner states. The processors expressed their willingness and desire to fund such an arrangement as long as they have a say on the management of funds and operations. They implied that they were already spending substantial resources in self-policing activities and would prefer a holistic approach.

vii) A sustainable and self financing NFT from Lake Victoria fisheries resources was the most popular option with stakeholders. It is estimated that US$ 1.6 to 1.8 million per year is adequate for sustainable management of Lake Victoria. If processors could agree to pay about US $ 0.03 (3 US cents) or US $ 0.035 per exported kilogram of fish, they could raise about US$ 1,539,000 or US$ 1,795,500 respectively based on 2010 total regional Nile perch exports (Table 3). Additional funds could be sourced from fishers at an agreed rate per weight of fish sold, the governments and EAC. This would provide equitable and sustainable contribution to the MCS Fund for NFTs and RFT. The money the industry is currently raising for self policing would be discontinued to give way to this proposed more sustainable system. This approach that would involve the legal Lake Victoria fisheries stakeholders and beneficiaries in the funding of NFTs and RFT is regarded as the most viable option that would achieve an effective and sustainable MCS operated by these semi-autonomous arrangements (NFTs and RFT). Although this was supported by all stakeholders consulted, there was general agreement that these taskforces would need to be further developed to ensure their sustainability. This would be achieved through a consultative process towards the development of TORs, SOPs and a reporting mechanism.

All stakeholders interviewed were in agreement that there would be incremental benefits from the MCS

investment explained above (on vii). The investment is envisaged to at least double the current incomes derived by the legal Nile perch operators at each step of the value chain when the MCS is fully implemented and sustained. The investment would also guarantee sustainable funding for the NFTs and

RFT operations, in addition to other anticipated gains such as:- i) Increase in the legal size fish catches as the small fish would get the opportunity to mature to legal

sizes within the year of implementation of the NFTs and RFT. ii) Increased fishers’ incomes anticipated to more than double, thus contributing to improved livelihoods. iii) Increase in the earnings of the fish processing and exporting industry. iv) Increase in foreign exchange earnings of the partner states as more fish would be exported. v) Increased income for the partner states from levies based on increased weight of exported fish; vi) Fisheries habitat improvement contributing towards the resource sustainability. vii) Ecolabelling processes to safeguard the international markets would be accelerated.



22

4.7 Restructured LVFO Secretariat for effective fisheries management

For LVFO to survive and serve its mandate effectively there is need for its restructuring according to the stakeholders interviewed. This view was strongly held by the policy, the management and the industry. The LVFO was the first EAC body to be established after the collapse of the Community in 1977 due to the importance associated with the fisheries sector in the region. Thus, the fisheries of shared resource and their impact on the very large population make the sector the focus for attention. In this regard, many stakeholders were of the opinion that the LVFO should not be placed under LVBC, which does not appear to have specific fisheries sector role and instead the Organization should enjoy direct link to EAC. The LVFO Secretariat is pursuing this and has made presentation to EAC which was discussed in February 2011 (Personal Communication with ES, LVFO, 2013). Further, there is evidence of autonomy with respect to these two institutions in the EAC Development Strategy 2011/12 – 2015/16 (EAC, 2011).

5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusion

The analysis of the Uganda NFT MCS initiative for sustainable management of Lake Victoria fisheries revealed that with a little modification of the institutional arrangement and development of a sustainable funding mechanism, it could provide the best option for achieving maximum benefits from the resource. It provides a win- win situation for all bona fide fisheries resource users and beneficiaries. However, the illegal fishers and corrupt officials who would be the losers in this arrangement would likely fight back and therefore the need for risk analysis and risk management strategies before the implementation of the new MCS arrangement through the NFTs and the RFT. The investment in the efficient and effective MCS through this process would:-

i) Reduce the illegal fishing and trading; ii) Deter high level corruption; iii) Reduce harvesting of immature fish and give them a chance to reproduce thereby increasing the

biomass and availability of more value sizes of fish for the processing industry and other consumers. iv) Increase the fishers’ earnings through sale of more, bigger and high value fish; v) Increase government revenues as more fish exports mean more levies to the government vi) Facilitate and encourage involvement of key players in ecolabelling process due to sustainable

management and therefore safeguard international markets. There is need to address the open access regime to reduce the fishing capacity because it would be effort in futility if the MCS to curb illegalities succeeds only for the situation to be exacerbated by increased fishing pressure through licensing more boats and fishers. There is therefore the need to set limits on number of fishers and boats that would be licensed to fish in the three countries. The LVFO had suggested the 2006 levels as the benchmark. There was suggestion that vessels should be issued with tamper proof number plates and given deadline to register to facilitate the MCS operations. There was also general consensus that LVFO need restructuring to make it more efficient. The restructured and expanded LVFO would be linked to EAC for direct funding. The stakeholders made a strong recommendation on the urgent need for the convening of a CoM Session by June 2013 to consider operationalization and transformation of the LVFO National Committees into NFTs and establishment of the RFT. The same session would be expected to consider and approve the setting of the MCS Fund and LVFO Management Board. According to majority of the stakeholders, it would be desirable that the ES EAC is invited to the CoM session so that the issues of Lake Victoria fisheries management can be given the importance they deserve at the highest regional organization. For the funding of the MCS activities to save the lake fisheries from collapse, all stakeholders consulted agreed on the need to establish a sustainable funding mechanism that would enable the players to contribute equitably and ensure the money is used for the NFT and the RFT activities. The industry would be willing to contribute so long as there would be equitable contributions in the three countries which would be achieved through levies of agreed rates per kilogram of exported fish. It is estimated that US$ 1.6 to 1.8 million per year is more than adequate for sustainable management of Lake Victoria. Based on 2010 statistics for Nile perch exports, payment of US $ 0.03 (3 US cents) or US $ 0.035 per exported kilogram of fish directly by



23

processors before they are issued with export permits, could raise about US$ 1,539,000 or US$ 1,795,500 respectively. This would provide equitable and sustainable contribution to the NFTs and RFT MCS Fund and provide a holistic approach to sustainable management of Lake Victoria fisheries which the industry is willing to consider as long as it discontinues the contributions for self policing programme. Additional funds could be sourced from fishers at an agreed rate per weight of fish, the partner states and EAC.This option was supported by all though it was agreed that there would be need to further develop appropriate systems and protocols agreeable to all to ensure the NFTs and RFT sustainability. The benefits that are envisaged to accrue from this investment that would guarantee sustainable funding of the NFTs and RFT operations would include:- an increase in the legal size fish catches as the small fish would get the opportunity to mature; increase in fishers’ incomes and therefore improvement of their livelihoods; increase in the processing industry’s earnings; increase in foreign exchange earnings and levies for the partner states based on weight of fish exported; and acceleration of ecolabelling processes to safeguard the international markets.

5.2 Recommendations

5.2.1 Short term measures

5.2.1.1 Improvement of the NFT in Uganda

1. There is need to hold a workshop of all key stakeholders (fisheries) and collaborating institutions to discuss improvement of the current NFT in Uganda into a more viable entity with a sustainable source of funding and a dedicated multiagency staff with a clear line of command. This should be spearheaded by UFPEA in collaboration with the ACP Fish II, which would present the options to achieve this for discussion by the workshop. High level policy makers should be invited so that the decisions take effect without delay. The following would be the expected outcomes of the workshop:-

i) Concrete recommendations of the sources of funds from all stakeholders including the governments, the industry, the fishers and traders. The strategies of collection and management of these funds should be discussed and agreed upon.

ii) Determination of the NFT membership and agreement on members’ the roles iii) Discussion and approval of the SOPs for implementation. iv) Empowerment of the institutions of the NFT charged with procedure for arrests and

prosecutions of wrong doers, with clear guidelines in order to carry their roles effectively and avoid any overlaps that may weaken the taskforce mandate.

2. A study should be conducted on the regional market to establish the destinations for the juvenile Nile perch. This study should also investigate the reasons for this high demand of small fish and who the target consumers are and explore the potential for legal fish in these markets and others. The sources of immature fish in the partner states should be investigated.

3. An attempt should be made to quantify the volumes of immature fish harvested and marketed in order to estimate economic losses from illegalities.

4. Once the NFT is in place its major task should be to identify the mechanism that make the malpractices thrive and develop a strategy to dismantle them.

5.2.1.2 Establishment of NFTs in the partner states

The process of establishment of NFTs in the three countries following the improved Uganda model should commence immediately. The Uganda model was acceptable to all stakeholders with the modification at the policy level that interviewees felt should be headed by the Permanent Secretaries responsible for fisheries in the partner states rather than the ministers. The NFTs should also have adequate funds, equipment such as patrol boats and good communication systems. Trained and disciplined personnel for operations are an essential prerequisite for success. The acceptance and the establishment of NTFs in partnership is a process

that would be achieved through:- 1. Development of a short brief showing the RoI for MCS as described in Section 4.2 and the

incremental benefits that would accrue. This can be done by ACP Fish II in collaboration with the Consultant and the EAIFFPA.



24

2. Advocacy to policymakers, and industry to understand the benefits of investing in a sustainable MCS based on demonstrable incremental benefits and returns on investment in MCS (Section 4.6). This should be done as soon as possible preferably by end of May 2013. This can be done by an individual or group of individuals who are change agents, through person to person meetings or through a workshop with the use of the cost/benefit analysis to demonstrate the gains of such an investment. The industry’s association CEOs could take up the role of advocacy to the proprietors and the directors of fisheries could undertake advocacy to the PSs using the brief developed (No.1 above).

3. Convening a workshop of high level decision makers including the Ministers, the Permanent Secretaries, the fish processing industry CEOs and owners, the BMUs and the LVFO Executive Secretary preferably by June 2013 to discuss the NFTs and RFT strategy for acceptance and adoption by all stakeholders.

4. The processing industry can be in the forefront in the organization of such a workshop. There will be an advantage in inviting the EAC ES to the workshop. This workshop should be held before the CoM Session to ensure the recommendations are considered by the Ministers.

5. Recommendations of the meeting should be prepared through by the LVFO Secretariat and passed on to CoM for consideration and approval. The issues that would be put forward for discussion by CoM would include:

i) Establishment of multiagency National and Regional MCS (NFT and RFT) institutional arrangements for effective management of Lake Victoria with an autonomous and auditable Fund to be managed through an agreed mechanism and protocols.

ii) Determining an appropriate name for the NFT and RFT with linkages to the LVFO secretariat, which could include the restructuring of the National Committees already provided for in the LVFO convention.

iii) Establishment of a LVFO Management Board to which the ES would be accountable. Expansion of the current Executive Committee to include the industry and community representatives is an option for such a management arrangement, which would not require policy or legal processes. This proposal met with approval of the LVFO ES as a way forward to enhancing accountability at the Secretariat level.

iv) Approval of establishment of a funding mechanism that directly benefits from Lake Victoria fisheries levies and is managed through agreed protocols.

v) Reviewing the ongoing LVFO Secretariat re-structuring process with a view to linking it to EAC to benefit from direct funding as this would be advantageous to the establishment and also the funding of NFTs and RFT.

6. Establishment of a sustainable funding mechanism based on direct use of Lake Victoria fisheries revenues to facilitate MCS through the established NFTs and RFT operations lake-wide as soon as possible. This should be spearheaded by the processing industry through dialogue with the countries. If the industry and the partner states agree, the process could commence immediately, but care must be taken that there is harmony in the three states. The EAIFFPA can oversee this process.

5.2.2 Medium term measures

1. The open access regime situation ought to be addressed in order to reduce the fishing capacity. This would be the responsibility of the partner states based on their agreement to maintain capacity at or lower than the level of 2006 according to CoM Session held in 2009. This should begin with licensing of fishing vessels and putting the limits to the maximum numbers that can be licensed in the three countries.

2. There is need to restructure and expand LVFO to manage its mandate effectively with a link to EAC for sustainable funding assurance. The process has started and LVFO Secretariat is making follow-up especially now that Rwanda and Burundi are EAC members.

3. It is urgent to review and implement the existing "Regional Plans of Actions" (RPOA), since this would facilitate activities leading to the ecolabelling. An ecolabel would help maintain discipline that would ensure legal size Nile perch harvests, besides safeguarding international markets. The LVFO CoM and Conference of Ministers of Fisheries and Aquaculture (CAMFA), through their respective Decisions, endorsed the need for countries to develop programmes that would lead to fisheries ecolabelling, implying support at the highest policy levels in East Africa and Africa.


Countries"


25

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Terms of Reference

Assignment title Support to East African Industrial Fishing and Fish Processors Association (EAIFFPA) to strengthen the taskforce approach in reducing illegal fishing and trade on Lake Victoria

Beneficiary country Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda

Work plan activity Activity No. 1.3, RFU-EA Project No. EA-1.3-A3

Administrative Supervisor

Programme Coordinator, ACP Fish II Programme Coordination Unit (CU) 36/21 Avenue de Tervuren, 5th Floor, Brussels 1040, Belgium Tel.: +32 (0)273 90062 – Fax: +32 (0)273 90068

Technical Supervisors

• Regional Manager, ACP Fish II Programme Regional Facilitation Unit for Eastern Africa (RFU-EA), Kitante Close, Plot 14, 2nd Floor, Speke Apartment 5, Kampala, Uganda Tel.: +256 (0)414 251 640 – Fax: +256 (0)414 251 714

• EAIFFPA Chairperson, Greenfields Uganda Limited, Plot 15/17 Dr. Lubega Road, Entebbe, Uganda Tel.: +256 (0)414 321 141

Background information and rationale

Lake Victoria’s resources play an important social and economic role for the three riparian countries (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda). These resources currently support the livelihoods of over 2 million people through food, income and employment generation for fishers, boat owners, fish traders, local business enterprises at fish landing sites and the wider economies of villages and towns in the lake basin. Additionally, they provide a tax base and export earnings, and contribute between 0.5 and 1.6% of the GDP annually in each country, according to various estimates. Nile perch (Lates niloticus), the dominant and most commercially significant lake’s fishery has, however, amongst others, faced two major threats in recent years, namely the declining stocks and fish quality. Available statistics suggest that Nile perch is now overfished and urgent measures are required so that the stock can recover. There is also a need to improve fish handling and processing at all levels of the value chain from the point of capture to the market so as to meet the stringent international market sanitary standards. It is against this backdrop that several management measures have been taken with a view to recovering the stocks and a stream of benefits to the resource users and other stakeholders. The most conspicuous of these measures include the “self-monitoring and control” initiative (by the fish industry, first in Uganda in September 2007, thereafter in Kenya and Tanzania), the “zero-tolerance” policy towards illegal fishing and trade (February 2009), the launching by the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation (LVFO) Council of Ministers of the “Operation Save Nile Perch” (OSNP, November 2009), and the establishment of a Regional Fisheries Taskforce (RTF) to lead and coordinate the review and update of the Nile Perch Fishery Management Plan (NPFMP, 2009–2014). This RTF, which represents an innovative public-private partnership (PPP), is made up of key stakeholders in co-management, including representatives from the Beach Management Units (BMUs), the fish industry and local government, as well as representatives from national fisheries management organisations, research institutes and the LVFO Secretariat.


Countries"


26

At the national level it is reported that only the Uganda’s National Fisheries Taskforce (NTF) was set up in 2008 for monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) purposes. It is comprised of representatives from the Uganda Fish Processors and Exporters Association (UFPEA), the Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR), the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), the Police and the National BMU Network. The NTF, which is directly involved in three main activities (namely data collection, information gathering, as well as enforcement and implementation of the existing fisheries laws), has so far undertaken sensitisation and resolute enforcement operations. Generally, most of these measures have not yielded the expected results, as illegal fishing and trade of Nile perch are still rampant and widespread. The task, therefore, consists of bringing the combined synergies and powers of the private and public sector to bear on this illegal activity and formulate a collaborative response with a view to reducing these illegalities, and particularly to curbing the removal of undersized or immature Nile perch from the lake. Given the challenges faced, a regional and multi-institutional approach is necessary for the management of the shared resource and the taskforce system is one approach.

Purpose of the assignment

The purpose of this assignment is to critically examine the operation of the national taskforce approach to challenging fishing illegalities around Lake Victoria, and to examine the feasibility and desirability of establishing or strengthening similar institutional structures in other countries bordering the lake. The assignment will strengthen the taskforce and highlight the benefits of transparent and credible public-private partnership (PPP) in fisheries to achieve the agreed goals.

Activities of the Consultant

The Consultant will undertake the following activities as part of this assignment:

• Analyse (using tools such as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis) the multi-institutional NTF currently operating in Uganda;

• Suggest improvements to the NTF in Uganda to assist in achieving the stated objectives;


• Consult stakeholders in each country on the most effective and efficient system suitable for MCS, as well as reporting and evaluation of actions taken.

Expected outputs The Consultant will prepare a study report providing the following:

• Analysis of the current Uganda’s NTF system and suggesting improvements (e.g. the mobilisation of PPP teams to conduct transparent enforcement);

• Detailed and cost design of a similar NTF system for Kenya and Tanzania.

Qualifications and experience of the Consultant

The Consultant selected for this assignment will be a Fisheries Specialist or have qualifications in natural resource management and/or experience in institutional aspects of fisheries management and compliance issues. Experience in international and/or regional (in Eastern Africa) trade issues, MCS issues, institutions for fisheries management and governance will be a distinct advantage.

Location and travel Home-based but with travel to consult with the EAIFFPA Chairperson and other key stakeholders in the three Lake Victoria riparian countries (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda) as necessary. In particular the Consultant will be required to visit the


Countries"


27

Fisheries Department (FD) in Nairobi, the Fisheries Development Division (FDD) in Dar es Salaam, and the Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR) in Entebbe.

Expected starting date and duration

1st October 2012 and will be completed within a period of four (4) months

utilising approximately 20–25 person-days.

Reports Title of Report Content Time of Submission

Inception Report (IR) Analysis of existing situation and work plan for the project. The 10-page report will be submitted to EAIFFPA and RFU-EA/CU, for comments.

No later than 5 days after the Consultant arriving in the place of posting for the first time. Comments, if any, on the IR must be provided within 5 days from receipt.

Draft Final Technical Report (DFTR)

Description of achieve-ments, problems encoun-tered, proposed methodol-ogy, calendar of activities, places to visit and people to consult and outline of the content of FTR.

Within one week of the Consultant leaving the country on completion of the assignment. Comments on the DFTR, if any, must be provided by EAIFFPA and RFU-EA/CU within 14 days.

Final Technical Report (FTR)

Revised DFTR taking into account changes and com-ments from EAIFFPA and RFU-EA/CU.

Within 10 days after receiving comments on the DFTR. If no comments on the report are given within the time limit of 14 days, the DFTR shall be considered as the FTR.

Format of Final Technical Report

Format

• MS Word Style

• Pages numbered

Structure

• Title Pages, Table of Contents, List of Annexes, List of Tables, List of Figures, List of Photographs (if appropriate), Abbreviations and Acronyms

• Executive Summary (1 to 2 pages)

• Body of Report (up to 20 pages)

• Conclusions and Recommendations (each recommendation must be preceded by a conclusion) linked to the main content

Annexes

• Annex 1 – Terms of Reference

• Annex 2 – Work plan and people met (including contact details)

• Annex 3 – Itinerary

• Annex 4 – Detailed, stand-alone Study Report Please refer to the ACP Fish II guidelines for reports available at: http://acpfish2-eu.org/index.php?page=templates&hl=en

Estimated cost EUR 9,990


Countries"


28

Please note that this is a Global Price Contract already including fees, per diems, international and national travel expenses and incidentals.

Payment schedule A 30% advance may be paid to the Consultant on the signing of contract to support the operational activities. If any advance is requested, an original invoice duly signed must be submitted to the CU including all relevant details (Name of the consultant and address, name of the bank, bank account number (IBAN), percentage of the total contract value requested). If any information is missing the CU will not be able to process the payment unless duly justified. The balance will be paid on approval of the Final Technical Report (FTR) once the Consultant submits the final invoice together with two copies of the FTR.

Annex 2: Itinerary and work programme

Phase 1: Uganda NTF Study: and Final IR and DFTR Preparation

Date Activity Location Persons/institutions

concerned

15th Nov 2012 Briefing meeting with ACP Fish II and EAIFFPA

Kampala, Uganda

• ACP Fish II Regional Manager

• EAIFFPA Chairperson

15th to 19th Nov 2012

Preparation of inception report and literature review

Nairobi, Kenya Consultant

20th Nov 2012 Electronic submission of the inception report to:-

− Regional Manager

− EAIFFPA Chairperson and

− Programme Coordinator, ACP Fish II Programme Coordination Unit


21st to 30th Nov 2012

Literature review and preparations for field visits, including setting dates and agenda for meetings with interviewees by telephone and e-mails


11th to 12th Dec 2012

Field visits in Uganda Entebbe, Uganda

• EAIFFPA

• Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR)

− Minister of State

− MCS officer

− Statistics

• BMU Network


Countries"


29

• AFALU


Travel to Uganda and conduct interviews

Kampala, Uganda

• LVFO (MCS)

• ACP Fish II

• UFPEA

• Uganda Investment Authority (UIA)

• Marine police

• URA

• NEMA

Phase II: Field study in Kenya and Uganda; and DFTR and FTR preparation and

submission 12th -28th Dec 2012

Finalization and submission of the IR; and preparation of DFTR


15th to 30th Jan 2013

Preparation of DFTR Nairobi, Kenya Consultant

4th - 5th Feb 2013 Consultations and interviews

Nairobi, Kenya

• DOF

• PS

• Kenya Fish Processors and Exporters Association (AFIPEK)

− Chairman

− Executive secretary

26th -27th Feb 2013

Travel to Mwanza, Dar es-Salaam and conduct interviews

Mwanza, Tanzania

• MCS officer

• Regional Director

• Tanzania Fish Processors Association (TIFPA)

27th Feb 2013 Travel to Dar es- Salaam and conduct interviews

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

• Department of Fisheries

• Fisheries Economist

• Fish processors association

28th February Conduct Interviews and consultations

Kisumu, Kenya

• Department of Fisheries

• Regional BMU Network (RBN) Chairman

28th Feb - 4th March 2013

Report writing Nairobi, Kenya Consultant

5th March 2013 Draft Report submission to EAIFFPA and RFU-EA/CU

Nairobi, Kenya Consultant/ACP Fish II

8th -10th March 2013

Incorporation of comments on DFR; and preparation and submission of Final Technical Report (FTR)



Countries"


30

Annex 3: Inception Report

Support to East African Industrial Fishing and Fish Processors Association (EAIFFPA) to

strengthen the taskforce approach in reducing illegal fishing and trade on Lake Victoria

Project ref. N° PROJECT EA-1.3-A3

Region: East Africa

Country: Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania

Date: 19th

November 2012

Assignment by:

Nancy Gitonga

Support for taskforce approach in reducing illegal fishing and trade on L. Victoria


31

Acronyms

ACP Africa, Caribbean and the Pacific ADF Assistant Director of Fisheries AFALU Association of Fishers and Lake Users of Uganda AFIPEK Kenya Fish Processors and Exporters Association BMU Beach Management Unit DFR Department of Fisheries Resources DFTR Draft Final Technical Report DOF Director of Fisheries EAIFFPA East Africa Industrial Fishing and Fish Processing Association FD Fisheries Department FDD Fisheries Development Division FTR Final Technical Report GDP Gross Domestic Product IR Inception Report LVFO Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation MCS Monitoring Control and surveillance NEMA National Environmental Management Agency NFT National Fisheries Taskforce NPFMP Nile Perch Fishery Management Plan OSNP Operation Save Nile Perch PPP Private Public Partnership PS Permanent Secretary RBN Regional BMU Network RFU-EA Regional Facilitation Unit for Eastern Africa RFU-EA/CU. Regional Facilitation Unit for Eastern Africa/Coordinating Unit RFT Regional Fisheries Taskforce RM Regional Manager SWOT Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats TFPA Tanzania Fish Processors Association UFPEA Uganda Fish Processors and Exporters Association UIA Uganda Investment Authority URA Uganda Revenue Authority Background

Lake Victoria is the second largest lake in the world, covering an area of approximately 68,000 km². The lake is shared by Kenya (6% by area), Uganda (43%) and Tanzania (51%). It is the most productive freshwater body in Africa, with an estimated annual fish landing of over 700,000 tons worth US$ 366 million at the landing beach level before any value addition. The lake supports very many small scale fishers and traders and a large fish export industry estimated at over 100,000 tons of processed Nile perch valued at US$ 300 million annually. The Nile perch (Lates niloticus) is the dominant and most commercially significant lake’s fishery and contribute between 0.5 and 1.6% of the GDP annually in each country, according to various estimates. Lake Victoria’s fisheries resources thus play an important socio-economic role in the three riparian countries as they support the livelihoods of over 2 million people through food, income and employment generation for fishers, boat owners, fish traders, local business enterprises at fish landing sites and the wider economies of villages and towns in the lake basin. This importance notwithstanding, the lake fisheries particularly the Nile perch fishery is facing many challenges, among them overcapacity, harvestable fish stock decline, stringent trade and market demands and poor management and enforcement systems. Available statistics suggest that Nile perch is now overfished and urgent measures are required to restore the fishery. There is therefore, urgent need to address the fish decline using various tools that could



32

include control of inputs and/or outputs and also improve fish handling and processing at all levels of the value chain.

Current efforts to reverse the L. Victoria fish stock decline

It is against this background that several management measures have been taken with a view to reversing the lake’s fisheries decline and ensure benefits to the resource users and other stakeholders are not lost. The most recent and conspicuous of these measures is the “self-monitoring and control” initiative led by the fish processing industry, which started in Uganda in September 2007 and thereafter applied in Kenya and Tanzania. The “zero-tolerance” compliance policy of the harvested Nile perch slot size of not less than 50cm total length by the industry in February 2009; the launching by the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation (LVFO) Council of Ministers of the “Operation Save Nile Perch” OSNP, in November 2009; and the establishment of a Regional Fisheries Taskforce (RFT) to lead and coordinate the review and update of the Nile Perch Fishery Management Plan (NPFMP), 2009–2014) are some of the other measures.

Management of L. Victoria Fisheries through Public Private Partnerships (PPP)

The need for a taskforce to bring the combined synergies and powers of the private and public sector to bear on these illegal activities in Lake Victoria currently appears to be the best option for any tangible progress given the challenges of such a large and shared ecosystem with many players and resource users. The idea is to establish National Fisheries Taskforces (NFT) in the three countries and an effective Regional Fisheries Taskforce (RFT), made up of key stakeholders in co-management. At the national level it is reported that only the Uganda’s National Fisheries Taskforce was set up in 2008 for monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) purposes and comprises representatives from the Uganda Fish Processors and Exporters Association (UFPEA), the Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR), the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), the marine Police and the National BMU Network. The Uganda NTF is directly involved with data collection, information gathering, and enforcement and implementation of the existing fisheries laws. It has so far undertaken sensitisation and resolute enforcement operations though not very effective yet. Comments on Terms of Reference

Objective of the assignment

The purpose of this assignment is to:- a) critically examine the operation of the national taskforce approach in Uganda to the

challenging fishing illegalities around Lake Victoria, b) examine the feasibility and desirability of establishing or strengthening similar institutional

structures in the other countries bordering the lake, and c) analyse and highlight the benefits of a transparent and credible public-private partnership

(PPP) in fisheries to achieve the agreed goals of a sustainable fisheries management for Lake Victoria.

Comments

Through this assignment, the consultant will gather information from credible stakeholders to make informed recommendations on the ways to strengthen the MCS taskforce, an initiative of Uganda private and public sectors. This will be done through face to face interviews with stakeholders to inform on the Uganda taskforce’s successes, challenges and failures. The assignment will NOT strengthen the taskforce as stated in the TOR but will recommend a strategy for strengthening the taskforce, based on cost/benefit and SWOT analysis. Activities of the Consultant

The Consultant will undertake the following activities as part of this assignment:

• Analyse (using tools such as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis) the multi-institutional NFT currently operating in Uganda;



33

• Suggest improvements to the NFT in Uganda to assist in achieving the stated objectives;


Consult stakeholders in each country on the most effective and efficient system suitable for MCS, as well as reporting and evaluation of actions taken. Comment

The consultant will first undertake a comprehensive study and analysis of the Uganda MCS initiatives including the taskforce initiative, before conducting interviews in Kenya and Tanzania. In these two countries, opinion of credible stakeholders on the most effective and efficient MCS system will be sought and evaluated. The idea of taskforce (Uganda model) will be introduced for discussion and critiquing. Expected outputs

The Consultant will prepare a study report providing the following:

• Analysis of the current Uganda’s NFT system and suggesting improvements (e.g. the mobilisation of PPP teams to conduct transparent enforcement);

• Detailed and cost design of a similar NFT system for Kenya and Tanzania.

Location and travel

Home-based but with travel to consult with the EAIFFPA Chairperson and other key stakeholders in the three Lake Victoria riparian countries (Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda) as necessary. In particular the Consultant will be required to visit the Fisheries Department (FD) in Nairobi, the Fisheries Development Division (FDD) in Dar es Salaam, and the Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR) in Entebbe. Comment

The consultant, in addition to EAIFFPA Chairperson, will also consult with ACP Fish II Regional Manager for briefing before the start of the field work. The consultant will strive to interview cross section of stakeholders, from policy levels down to the grassroots level, as well as other agencies that may be deemed relevant to MCS taskforce success, in all the three countries.

Expected starting date and duration

1st October 2012 was the original proposed starting date of the assignment and will be completed within a period of four (4) months utilising approximately 20–25 person-days. Comment

Though the assignment was originally targeted to commence on 1st October 2012, the commencement date changed to 15th November, after discussions between the consultant and the Regional Manager. The completion date will be 4 months after the date of commencement, but due to difficulties of the holiday season with respect to availability of interviewees, the completion date will by the end of February 2013. The final report with all comments incorporated will be during the first week of February but will largely depend on when comments are received

Expected reports

The consultant will prepare following reports within the expected timeframes. Table1: Reports details

Title of Report Content Time of Submission

Inception Report (IR) Analysis of existing situation and work plan for the project. The 10-page report will be submitted to

No later than 5 days after the Consultant arriving in the place of posting for the first time.



34

EAIFFPA and RFU-EA/CU, for comments.

Comments, if any, on the IR must be provided within 5 days from receipt.

Draft Final Technical Report (DFTR)

Description of achievements, problems encountered, proposed methodology, calendar of activities, places to visit and people to consult and outline of the content of FTR.

Within one week of the Consultant leaving the country on completion of the assignment. Comments on the DFTR, if any, must be provided by EAIFFPA and RFU-EA/CU within 14 days.

Final Technical Report (FTR) Revised DFTR taking into account changes and comments from EAIFFPA and RFU-EA/CU.

Within 10 days after receiving comments on the DFTR. If no comments on the report are given within the time limit of 14 days, the DFTR shall be considered as the FTR.

Approach to the assignment

An analysis of the current Uganda’s NFT system will be conducted through desk study and field visits and interviews of the relevant informants. Suggestions on improvements such as the strategy for mobilisation of PPP teams to conduct transparent enforcement will be given based on information gathered in the field and other best practices of similar initiatives in the world. The assignment will provide details and cost design of establishment of NFT system for Kenya and Tanzania. Recommendations will be discussed with beneficiaries and agreed.

Methodology

Literature review

The consultant will endeavor to gather and consult as many relevant documents to the assignment as possible. Some of the documents sought will be those that can shed light to the tried and successful best practices of similar environment worldwide. Field work

The field study will be conducted through physical visits and interviews to relevant stakeholders using pre-defined questions. The consultant will make appointments with interviewees in all three countries through telephone contacts and e-mails and will also hold meetings with Fisheries Management team, EAIFFPA, UFPEA, LVFO and other relevant stakeholders in Uganda at the start of the assignment. The approach to this assignment will include a set of questions to the identified stakeholders and informants. These semi-structured questions will provide information that will assist with the SWOT analysis of NFT and also provide insight to the establishment of a viable RFT and the 3 countries NFTs. Interviews

This assignment will conduct face to face semi-structured interviews with the identified informants in different Lake Victoria riparian countries, to find out the following:

• Challenges facing Lake Victoria Nile Perch industry

• Opportunities and importance of the fishery to both the fishing communities and the countries

• Management of the shared resource and key players

• The status of the Nile Perch industry

• Any information and perception of on L. Victoria MCS, NFT and RFT and

• Suggestions of way forward towards L. Victoria sustainable fisheries management

• Could NFT and RFT be successfully used as a tool to achieve sustainable fisheries management for L. Victoria? If so:- o What are the main impediments to this approach and how can they be overcome. o Proposals and constitution of the taskforces.



35

Proposed work plan

The briefing meeting for the consultant with the ACP Fish II Regional Manager for Eastern Africa and EAIFFPA Chairperson took place on 15th November 2012 at the Programme Regional Facilitation Unit for Eastern Africa (RFU-EA) offices in Kampala, Uganda marking the start of the assignment. The details of the work programme are given in Table 2, which may be slightly adjusted during the implementation period depending on the availability of stakeholders and other logistics. The Regional Manager and the EAIFFPA Chairperson will be notified of any major changes that may occur during the execution of the assignment for guidance and concurrence. Study and analysis of NFT in Uganda

The work plan will be in two phases; the first being the in-depth study and analysis of the NTF initiative in Uganda, and proposal for improvement, including cost estimates and sources of finances for NTF implementation. The Draft Technical Final Report (DFTR) will also be prepared and submitted for comments to ACP Fish II regional manager and EAIFFPA. During this phase the final IF incorporating comments will also be submitted to the ACP Fish II regional manager. Stakeholders’ consultations on NTF in Kenya and Uganda

The second phase will be conducted in February 2013. The work plan will include field work in Tanzania and Kenya; and finalization of the report. The field work will include consultation with the stakeholders in Kenya and Tanzania on the application of NFT in their countries, while evaluating the current MCS status in these countries. The opinion of adopting the proposed Uganda’s NFT and the Lake-wide RFT will be sought. Details of the field programme are shown on Table 2.

Table 2: Itinerary and work programme

Phase 1: Uganda NTF Study: and Final IR and DFTR Preparation

Date Activity Location Persons/institutions

concerned

15th Nov 2012 Briefing meeting with ACP Fish II and EAIFFPA

Kampala, Uganda

• ACP Fish II Regional Manager

• EAIFFPA Chairperson

15th to 19th Nov 2012

Preparation of inception report and literature review


20th Nov 2012 Electronic submission the inception report to:-

− Regional Manager

− EAIFFPA Chairperson and

− Programme Coordinator, ACP Fish II Programme Coordination Unit


21st to 30th Nov 2012

Literature review and preparations for field visits, including setting dates and agenda for meetings with interviewees by telephone and e-mails


11th to 12th Dec Field visits in Uganda Entebbe, • EAIFFPA



36

2012 Uganda • Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR)

− Minister of State

− MCS officer

− Statistics

• BMU Network

• AFALU


Travel to Uganda and conduct interviews

Kampala, Uganda

• LVFO (MCS)

• ACP Fish II

• UFPEA

• Uganda Investment Authority (UIA)

• Marine police

• URA

• NEMA

Phase II: Field study in Kenya and Uganda; and DFTR and FTR preparation and submission

12th -28th Dec 2012 Finalization and submission of the IR; and preparation of DFTR


15th to 30th Jan 2013

Finalization and Submission of DFTR


4th - 5th Feb 2013 Consultations and interviews

Nairobi, Kenya

• DOF,

• Fisheries Secretary

• PS

• Kenya Fish Processors and Exporters Association (AFIPEK)

− Chairman

− Executive secretary

7th -8th February Travel to Kisumu and conduct Interviews and consultations

Kisumu, Kenya

• Assistant Director of Fisheries (ADF),

• MCS officer,

• Regional BMU Network (RBN) Chairman

12th -13th Feb 2013 Travel to Mwanza, Dar es-Salaam and conduct interviews

Mwanza, Tanzania

• MCS officer

• Regional Director

• Tanzania Industrial Fishing and Fish Processors Association (TIFPA)

13th -14th Feb 2013 Travel to Dar es- Salaam and conduct interviews

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

• Permanent Secretary (PS)

• MCS officer

• DOF

• Fish processors

15th -25th Feb 2013 Report writing Nairobi, Kenya Consultant

25th Feb 2013 Draft Report submission to EAIFFPA and RFU-EA/CU


4th -10th March 2013

Incorporation of comments on DFR; and preparation and




37

submission of Final Technical Report (FTR)

Results

Briefing at ACP FISH II RFU

A briefing was held with the ACP FISH II Regional Manager (RM) and the EAIFFPA at the ACP Fish II offices in Kampala, Uganda on 15th November 2012. The Chairman, EAIFFPA provided the background information of the Uganda taskforce initiative. The RM went through the TORs with the consultant, to ensure they were well understood before commencement of the assignment. The RM also provided the consultant with the list of stakeholders that she may find useful for interviews and a letter of introduction of the consultant to the stakeholders to facilitate the field work

Results analysis

The consultant will use the information gathered to:-

• Analyse using tools such as SWOT, cost/benefit analysis the multi-institutional NFT currently operating in Uganda;

• Suggest improvements to the NFT in Uganda to assist in achieving the stated objectives;

• Examine application of a similar taskforce system set up in Kenya and Tanzania and how to achieve this noting that the industry and the LVFO Secretariat made such a recommendation at their meeting in Nairobi on 25th March 2010;

• Use the information gathered from stakeholders consultations in each country to document the most effective and efficient system suitable for MCS, and also evaluate and report actions taken.

Expected outputs

The Consultant will prepare a study report providing the following:

• Analysis of the current Uganda’s NFT system and suggesting improvements (e.g. the mobilisation of PPP teams to conduct transparent enforcement);

• Detailed and cost design of a similar NFT system for Kenya and Tanzania.

Reports submission process

The schedule of report submission process will in conformity with the TORs (Table 1)



38



39

Annex 4: List of people consulted

Name Position Company/Ministry Stakeholder

Patrick Seruyange: +256 414 701 012

Operations Officer Rural Development

European Union Delegation to Uganda

Development partner

Wadanya Jackson +256 414320563; [email protected]

Ag. Commissioner for Fisheries

Office of the Commissioner, Uganda

Fisheries management

Paul Okware: [email protected] MCS Officer Department of Fisheries Resources, Uganda


Philip Borel De Bitche +256 414321141; [email protected]

Managing Director Greenfields Uganda Limited, Uganda and Chairman of EAIFPA and UFPEA

Fish processing Industry

Koane Mindjimba +256 414251640; [email protected]

Regional Manager for Eastern Africa

ACP Fish II, Uganda Development Partner

Bakaaki Robert +256 752946978/782 622945 [email protected]

Chairperson BMU Network, L. Victoria, Uganda

BMU

William M. Tibyasa +256 712 736 413 [email protected]

Executive Officer UFPEA Industry

Ovia Katiti Matovu +256 772 631 058 [email protected]

Chief Executive Officer UFPEA Industry

Prof Maggie Kigozi +256 312 388100

Investment Expert UNIDO Private sector

Mr Buwembo William Secretary General +256 775 724 872

Secretary General AFALU Fishing community NGO

Christopher Lubowa+256 434 125000 [email protected]

Marine Captain LVFO Fisheries management (MCS)

Dr Oliver Mukumbo [email protected]

Senior scientist LVFO Fisheries research

Dick Nyeko +256 772 721 455 [email protected]

Executive Secretary LVFO Secretariat Regional Policy

Hon. Ruth Nankabirwa (MP) +256 414321235; [email protected]

Minister of State, Fisheries Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry & Fisheries, Uganda

Political/Policy

KENYA

Prof. Micheni Ntiba +254 733724710 Permanent Secretary Ministry of Fisheries Development, Kenya

Policy

Guda O. Tom +2540727371074; [email protected]

Regional & National Chairman

National BMU Network-Kenya, Kenya & Regional - BMU Network

BMU

Michael Obadha [email protected]

Provincial Head of Fisheries, Nyanza

Fisheries Department, Kisumu, Kenya




40

Name Position Company/Ministry Stakeholder

Okumu Makogola +254 020 3742320 +254 0733 552032/0721940705 [email protected]

Director of Fisheries, Quality Assurance

Ministry of Fisheries Development, Kenya


Nadir Jessa,+254 722 560 844 [email protected]

Factory Director and Immediate former AFIPEK Chair person

WE Tilley Group Industry

Timothy Odende District Fisheries Officer, Busia

Ministry of Fisheries Development, Kenya


Beth Wagude +254 722 687 971 [email protected]

Executive Secretary AFIPEK Industry

Johnstone Kariuki+254733816122 Inspector AFIPEK Industry

Karim Kurji +254 020 5333355/531002/532925 [email protected]

Proprietor Alpha Group, Fish processing Industry

TANZANIA

Karim Hassanali +254 0202038592 [email protected]

Director Omega Fish Ltd, Tanzania

Fish processing Industry

Baraka S. M. Mngulwi +255713483774 [email protected]

Asst. Director Fisheries Resources Protection, Tanzania


Mwanandi R. Mlolwa 255784909292 [email protected]

Asst. Director, OC Standards & Marketing

Fisheries Resources Protection, Tanzania


Alfred Xavier +255 787 700 449 [email protected]

Managing Director Tanperch, Mwanza, Tanzania

Industry

Rashid B Hoza +255 784274616

Principle Fisheries Officer

Fisheries Department, Tanzania


Charles M. Byarugara +255 784775737 [email protected]

Principal Economist Fisheries Department, Tanzania


Lamack Mongo +255 754 410 317

[email protected]

Principle Fisheries Officer MCS In charge of Mwanza region

Fisheries Department, Tanzania


Benedict M. Maselle +255 78452004 [email protected]

Executive officer TIFPA Industry

Pius Mazima +255 759210841 [email protected]

BMU/Regional BMU network secretary

Mwanza, Tanzania Community

Angelous T. Mahatane +255 787 014 082 [email protected]

Former Regional Fisheries Officer, Mwanza (retired)

Mwanza, Tanzania Private sector

Longinus Tegulima +255 787 226172

[email protected]

Fisheries officer Quality Assurance, Mwanza


Dr. Yohana L. Budeba +255 2861910: [email protected]

Deputy Permanent Secretary

Ministry of Livestock Development & Fisheries

Policy



41

Annex 5: Proposed structure of an expanded LVFO Secretariat

EAC

LVFO POLICY ORGANS

(CoM and PSC)

EXECUTIVE

SECRETARY

DES

(Policy)

LV FO MANAGEMENT BOARD

(The Executive Committee

Expanded to include Industry and

BMU Reps)

DES

(programs)

• Lake Victoria Fisheries

• MCS

• Research

• Projects

• Statists

• Ecolabelling

• Policies

• Finance

• Administration

• Public Relations

• International Relations

• Statutory meetings

• Monitoring and Evaluation



42

Annex 6: List of reports and documents consulted

1. Benkenstein, A. (2011) ‘Troubled Waters’ Sustaining Uganda’s Lake Victoria Nile Perch Fishery

2. EAC (2011) EAC Development Strategy 2011/12 – 2015/16 (EAC, 2011); Deepening and accelerating integration.

3. De Beule, H (2012) case study of Lake Victoria industrial fish processors and exporters associations and their efforts to fight against illegal fishing through the self-monitoring and control initiative, ACP Fish II funded study

4. Gitonga, N.K (2012) Report of the Nile Perch Study Ecolabelling as a Tool to Improve Fisheries Trade and Governance of Lake Victoria, GIZ funded Consultancy report (October 2012)

5. Green Solutions Uganda (2008): Sustainable Financing of Beach Management Units on Lake Victoria

6. IFMP (2007) Annual Report (October 2006 – September 2007). Implementation of a Fisheries Plan for Lake Victoria. Project Number 8ACP ROR 029

7. Management Plan for Lake Victoria. Project Number 8ACP ROR 029.

8. Kenya Fisheries Department (2012) Fisheries Statistical bulletin 2011

9. LVFO (1999). Strategic Vision for Lake Victoria (1999-2015)

10. LVFO Council of Ministers Session Decisions reports (2007-2009)

11. LVFO (2007a).Guidelines for fisheries co-management on Lake Victoria. Funded under IFMP.

12. LVFO (2007b). Regional Operations Manual for Monitoring, Control Manual for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) of Fisheries on Lake Victoria (LVFO SOP No. 11)

13. LVFO (2007c. Regional Action Plan for Management of Fishing Capacity in Lake Victoria (Popular Version)

14. LVFO (2008). The Fisheries Management Plan for Lake Victoria 2009-2014; (Working Proposal Submitted to EAC for Funding under EDF10 Regional July, 2008). Prepared through the support of the Implementation of the Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) EDF Project NO. 8 ACP ROR 029

15. LVFO (2010a). Exit Strategy Report. Implementation of a Fisheries Management Plan for Lake Victoria Project Number: 8ACP ROR 029 17(188-704).

16. LVFO (2010b). Regional Status Report on Lake Victoria Bi-Annual Frame Surveys Between 2000 and 2010.

17. LVFO (2010c) Report of the 5th Special Session of LVFO Council of Ministers

18. LVFO (2011a) Lake Victoria Estimated Total Catch by species (tonnes per year) as complied during LVEMP Synthesis work and updated by LVFO

19. LVFO (2011b) Lake Victoria Nile Perch Exports and Value 1992 - 2011

20. LVFO, (2011c).Report of the lake wide acoustic survey, 4th Sept.-3rd October 2011. EAC Partnership Funds- Support to Monitoring Surveys, Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation, Jinja, Uganda.

21. LVFO (2011d) Regional Catch Assessment Survey Synthesis Report (draft) ( June 2005 to September 2011) Compiled by CAS Regional Working Group Members (November, 2011)

22. LVFO/FAO (2004).LVFO Regional Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing on Lake Victoria and its Basin. (May, 2004).

23. LVFO/FAO (2008).Regional stakeholders’ consultative workshop. Kolping Hotel, Bukoba, Tanzania 13th March, 2008. Joint workshop supported by LVFO and the LVFO/FAO RPOA Capacity Project.

24. Macfadyen, G (2008) Sustainable financing of LVFO institutions and development of a Business Plan for the organisation (July 2008) Consultancy Report No 7 for IFMP, Project number : 8 ACP ROR/029

25. MOFD-Kenya (2008) National Oceans and Fisheries Policy, 2008

26. Njiru, M. P. Nzungi, A. Getabu, E. Wakwabi, A. Othina, T. Jembe and S. Wekesa (2006). Are fisheries management, measures in Lake Victoria successful? The case of Nile perch and Nile tilapia fishery. Afr. J. Ecol., 45, 315–323



43

27. Peacock, N. (2008) Functional Analysis of the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation IFMP Consultancy Report (July 2008)

28. PSFU (2012) Report of the Fish sector sustainability workshop held at Silver Springs Hotel, Thursday, October, 25th 2012:

29. Okware, P. (2012)Standard operating procedures (SOP) for national fisheries taskforce on monitoring control and surveillance (NFT-MCS) Final Draft prepared by NFT-MCS Operations Chairperson

Annex 7: Lake Victoria estimated total catch by species (tons per year) 1959-2011

(As compiled during LVEMP Synthesis workshop and updated by LVFO)

Year Dagaa Haplochromines Nile perch Other Tilapias Total

1959 4219 27126 31345

1960 3503 10903 14406

1961 2490 12240 14730

1962 2985 15831 18816

1963 7452 35090 42542

1964 3964 45449 49413

1965 2631 3 46940 20985 70559

1966 7080 6 40683 20610 68379

1967 17529 2 55312 14883 87726

1968 732 32400 3 81469 8797 123401

1969 520 22815 617 70069 24489 118510

1970 524 24173 648 62083 22270 109698

1971 573 27907 759 54420 19122 102781

1972 1323 24788 878 53656 10969 91614

1973 1768 29068 1121 59526 7978 99461

1974 3757 27119 1222 44637 6876 83611

1975 4558 22458 301 43939 7412 78668

1976 5662 23992 637 33395 14330 78016

1977 9217 43096 4478 42797 4038 103626

1978 11312 45721 3557 25893 22364 108847

1979 10486 28914 7411 58768 3333 108912

1980 12335 3729 4439 13196 64551 98250

1981 13580 25596 23895 43566 21331 127968

1982 14999 26641 37121 48914 12588 140263

1983 24489 22297 82782 33201 8792 171561

1984 26736 15163 106860 69304 3522 221585

1985 34118 11578 125083 71287 3095 245161

1986 44343 16970 221870 86019 7061 376263

1987 39209 1676 242643 75872 7120 366520

1988 56059 2752 301805 77971 12120 450707

1989 62284 5331 319671 61058 24925 473269

1990 232249 1324 338115 96053 87262 755003

1991 235615 4595 209291 69853 70937 590291



44

1992 280214 6006 152303 45932 46619 531074

1993 181760 6081 255635 30425 32906 506807

1994 239130 5119 272057 16005 38211 570522

1995 184783 4844 269561 17371 41742 518301

1996 177152 3914 216799 12582 54925 465372

1997 208645 2454 225004 17593 71099 524795

1998 238170 2577 226663 18474 74757 560641

1999 198803 528 273459 35751 120927 629468

2000 205349 527 199068 24043 56752 485739

2001 289450 1195 247166 13299 88227 641338

2002 208735 1029 227947 18680 82915 541308

2003 186387 1020 227947 17793 79961 515111

2004 204167 69736 227947 11571 89324 604749

2005 453000 138452 268152 5348 71038 937995

2006 602295 146534 264070 7063 69636 1091604

2007 600660 95212 233941 14437 54650 1000907

2008 413,352 40,092 309,099 10,596 52,242 827,389

2010 403,912 70,449 276,429 12,254 43,169 808223

2011 456,721 139,728 198,624 11,734 32,976 841794

Source: LVFO, 2011 statistics

Annex 8: Results of MCS patrols during 2004-2007

2004/5 Patrol effort Kenya Tanzania Uganda Total

National level patrol activities 5 9 6 20 Inter-district patrol activities 4 10 5 19

2005/6 Patrol effort National level patrol activities 5 3 6 14 Inter-district patrol activities 6 3 6 15

2006/7 Patrol effort National level patrol activities 4 11 16 31

Inter-district patrol activities 5 11 4 19

2004/5 Patrol results Kenya Tanzania Uganda Total

Suspects apprehended 836 512 412 1,760 Gears confiscated 7,410 6,606 7,565 21,581 Boats confiscated 38 75 451 564 Fish (tonnes) impounded 18.7 19.1 54.8 92.6

2005/6 Patrol results

Suspects apprehended 455 388 101 944 Gears confiscated 2,873 7,206 8,844 18,923 Boats confiscated 14 78 66 158 Fish (tonnes) impounded 43.2 14.9 7.1 65.2

2006/7 Patrol results Suspects apprehended 209 338 75 622 Gears confiscated 2,060 5,864 8,563 16,487 Boats confiscated 17 31 117 165



45

Fish (tons) impounded 31.3 34.4 89.4 155.1

2004/5 Result per patrol Kenya Tanzania Uganda Total

Suspects/patrol 93 27 37 45 Gears confiscated/patrol 823 348 688 553 Boats confiscated/patrol 4 4 41 14 Fish impounded/patrol 2.1 1.0 5.0 2.4

2005/6 Results per patrol Suspects/patrol 41 65 8 33 Gears confiscated/patrol 261 1,201 737 653 Boats confiscated/patrol 1 13 6 5 Fish impounded/patrol 1.3 13.0 5.5 5.4

2006/7 Results per patrol Suspects/patrol 26 56 6 21 Gears confiscated/patrol 258 273 428 333 Boats confiscated/patrol 2 1 6 3

Fish impounded/patrol 3.9 1.6 4.5 3.1

Sources: Annual IFMP reports APE 1, APE 2 and APE 3



46

Annex 9: The study mission photographs

Nile perch landing in Uganda BMU National Chairman in his office in Uganda

BMU Officials in Uganda Fish auctioning in Uganda

Floating Weighing Burge for Nile perch in Floating Burge to enhance hygiene handling on landing

Tanzania in Tanzania



47

Boats with TZ registration in Ugandan waters Modern fish Landing Jetty by the EU-IFMP project

believed to ferry immature fish across border

Landing site for Nile-perch in Uganda LVFO Headquarters, Jinja, Uganda

Refrigerated Nile-perch Trucks in Uganda Refrigerated truck with ice for Nile perch in Uganda

SWOT analysis session at FDD in Dar, Tanzania SWOT analysis session at FDD Mwanza, Tanzania



48

BMU Network Regional Chairman in Kenya during Minister of State for Fisheries in Uganda in her office the interview.

Patrol boats for LVFO and Uganda in Jinja (procured through IFMP EU project)

Fishing with illegal Monofilament nets

strengthening fisheries management in acp countries technical report... · strengths, weaknesses,...

Documents