kenya marine and fisheries research institute fresh … · technical report kmf/rs/2018/c.2.7.i...
TRANSCRIPT
i
MONITORING THE STATUS OF DEMARCATED FISH BREEDING
GROUNDS IN LAKE TURKANA
TECHNICAL REPORT KMF/RS/2018/C.2.7.i
MARCH 31st 2018
KMFRI Research team and BMU officials monitoring the status of
demarcated fish breeding ground in Lake Turkana (Photo: Courtesy of
KMFRI Communications and Public Relations Team)
KENYA MARINE AND FISHERIES RESEARCH
INSTITUTE
FRESH WATER SYSTEMS RESEARCH
ii
This report is prepared by scientists under the Department of Fisheries Research, the
Directorate of Freshwater Systems of the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research
Institute (KMFRI).
Copyright © 2018 Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute
Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Cover Image: KMFRI Research Team, Lake Turkana 2018 (photo: Courtesy of
Communications and Public Relations Team, Lake Turkana)
Citation:
Olilo CO., Malala JO., Obiero MO., Bironga, C., Keyombe JL., Aura CM., Wakwabi
E., Njiru JM., (2018). Monitoring the status of demarcated fish breeding grounds in Lake
Turkana. KMFRI Fresh water Systems Fisheries Research. Technical Report
KMF/RS/2018/C.2.7.i. pp 30.
Copies are available from:
The Director
Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute
P.O. Box 81651– 80100
Mombasa, KENYA
Telephone: +254 41 475151/2/3/4/5
FAX: 254 41 475157
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet: http://www.kmfri.co.ke
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are very grateful to the Board of Management of The Kenya Marine and Fisheries
Research Institute for allocating the funds used to undertake this activity. Constant
encouragement by the Director of KMFRI enabled timely completion of this project.
The enthusiasm of Ekoyo beach management unit (BMU) that enabled the smooth
implementation of this activity is appreciated. Participation of members of staff of the
Department of Fisheries in the Ministry of Agriculture, Pastoral Economy and
Fisheries of the Turkana County Government is appreciated. We thank all KMFRI staff
for their willingness to work even under difficult conditions. We are also grateful to
all the fishers, BMU members and the fish traders who assisted and cooperated with
us during data collection in the field. This work was fully funded by KMFRI/GoK.
iv
DOCUMENT CERTIFICATION
Certification by Assistant Director (Fresh Water Systems):
I hereby certify that this report has been done under my supervision and
submitted to the Director.
Name: Dr. Christopher Mulanda Aura (PhD)
Signature: Date: 14th March, 2018.
Certification by Director:
I hereby acknowledge receipt of this Report
Name: Prof. James M. Njiru (PhD)
Signature: Date: 18th June 2018
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The overfishing in Lake Turkana has resulted into decreased fish catches with the
consequent decline in fishers’ income and low employment rate in the fishing
industry, thus threatening the food security, increasing poverty levels and depressing
the economy of the lakeside residents of the Turkana County, which is an exclusively
pastoral and fishery dependent economy. There is need to protect fish breeding
ground to enhance the survival and abundance of fish eggs, larvae, juvenile, spawners
and biodiversity at Ekoyo nursery in the lake. The objective of the study was to
monitor the status of demarcated fish breeding ground in Lake Turkana. Based on the
demand by key stakeholders, Beach Management Units (BMUs) at the Ekoyo –
Nariemet complex at Lake Turkana, the technical processes were involved in
monitoring the status of fish breeding ground. Following the successful protection of
the Napasinyang River Mouth in 2016 and Ekoyo in 2017, during baseline surveys in
the months of August 2017 and March 2018, arid climatic conditions of high
temperatures (25 – 40 °C) and low rainfall per annum (200-500 mm) continued to
characterize the lake environment. Alestes baremose, Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus),
Sarotherodon galileus, Nile perch (Lates niloticus), Labeo horie spp, Distichodus
niloticus, Citharinus citharinus, Schilbe uranoscopus, Clarias gariepinus, Synodontis
schall, Brycinus spp., Bagrus bayad, tiger fish (Hydrocynus forskalii) and Barbus sp.
were the dominant species. Ekoyo BMU members cited protection of the site;
frequent patrols and stopping use of small sized gill nets as best practice in protecting
and improving conservation areas. Thus, whereas the use of illegal fishing gear
comprising undersized gillnets, beach seine, and purse seine were major challenges
at the start of the project, these have since been removed for sustainable exploitation,
management and conservation of fish breeding areas. This study recommends
improved patrols and sharing of information with BMUs.
Key words: Lake Turkana – Demarcation - Fish breeding areas – Conservation –
Management – BMUs - Impacts monitoring – Information sharing
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. III
DOCUMENT CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................... IV
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... V
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. VI
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1.2.1 Broad objective ............................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.2 Specific objectives........................................................................................................................................ 2
1. 3 STUDY JUSTIFICATION .......................................................................................... 2
2 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 3 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 SAMPLING ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION AND MAPPING OF FISH BREEDING AREAS .............................................. 5 2.4 DEMARCATION TOOLS ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.5 TRAINING OF BMUS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ...................................................................................... 7 2.6 MAPPING OF THE FISH BREEDING AREA ........................................................................................................ 8 2.7 DEMARCATION OF THE FISH BREEDING AREA .............................................................................................. 8
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 9 3.1 TRAINING OF BMU MEMBERS ........................................................................................................................ 9 3.2 DEMARCATION AND MONITORING .............................................................................................................. 11 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS .......................................................................................................................... 12 3.4 FISH CATCHES AND SPECIES COMPOSITION ............................................................................................... 13
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 17 4.1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE SHARED TO STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................................ 18
4.2.1 Knowledge based management .......................................................................................................... 18 4.2.2 Participatory based management ....................................................................................................... 18
REFERENCE .................................................................................................................... 19
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 22
APPENDIX I. FORWARDING LETTER. MONITORING STATUS OF
DEMARCATED FISH BREEDING AREAS IN LAKE TURKANA C2.7 .................... 22
APPENDIX II: WORK PLAN AND MINUTES ............................................................. 23
APPENDIX III: APPROVED FIELD EXPENSES ......................................................... 24
APPENDIX IV: APPROVED FIELD REQUISITION .................................................... 25
APPENDIX V: POLICY BRIEF ON MONITORING THE STATUS OF
DEMARCATED FISH BREEDING GROUNDS IN LAKE TURKANA ...................... 26
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. LAKE TURKANA SHOWING THE POSITION OF THE MAJOR FISH
BREEDING AREAS INCLUDING THE FERGUSON’S GULF AND EKOYO-
NARIEMET -NAPASINYANG RIVER MOUTH COMPLEX ........................................ 5
FIGURE 2. RIVER NAPASINYANG DELTA, SHALLOW SHELTERED SHORES,
AND MACROPHYTES INCLUDING HIPPO GRASS, TYPHA SPP AND PROSOPIS
JULIFLORA, AT DEMARCATED FISH BREEDING HABITAT, CONSERVATION
AREA OF EKOYO, LAKE TURKANA ........................................................................... 7
FIGURE 3. TRAINING SESSION IN PROGRESS BY KMFRI RESEARCH TEAM
FOR THE BMU OFFICIALS ON OPTIMUM GILLNET SIZES ON THE
PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF FISH BREEDING
AREAS AT EKOYO BEACH FISHING VILLAGE, LAKE TURKANA IN MARCH
2018..................................................................................................................................... 8
FIGURE 4. TRAINING SESSION WITH BMU MEMBERS AT EKOYO, LAKE
TURKANA IN MARCH 2018 ......................................................................................... 10
FIGURE 5. TRAINING AND PLENARY SESSION IN PROGRESS FOR THE BMU
AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS ON PROCESSES OF CRITICAL FISH BREEDING
AREAS PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT AT EKOYO
BEACH, LAKE TURKANA IN FEBRUARY 2018 ....................................................... 10
FIGURE 6. TRAINING SESSION GROUP PHOTOGRAPH AFTER BMU AFTER
INTERACTIVE SHARING OF INFORMATION ON PROCESSES OF CRITICAL
FISH BREEDING AREAS PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
AT EKOYO LAKE TURKANA IN MARCH 2018 ........................................................ 11
FIGURE 7. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AT THE SAMPLING SITES OF THE
DEMARCATED FISH BREEDING GROUND IN LAKE TURKANA FROM AUGUST
2017 TO MARCH 2018.................................................................................................... 12
FIGURE 8. SCAVENGING BIRDS STANDING ON A ROCKY OUTGROWTH AND
A FISHER’S STATIONERY BOAT AT THE CRITICAL FISH-BREEDING HABITAT
AT EKOYO, LAKE TURKANA IN MARCH 2018. ...................................................... 13
FIGURE 9. RETRIEVAL OF FISHING GEAR FROM WATER DURING THE
MONITORING OF PROTECTED FISH BREEDING GROUND AT EKOYO, LAKE
TURKANA AFTER EXPERIMENTAL FISHING DURING MARCH 2018. ............... 14
FIGURE 10. SYNODONTIS SCHALL CAUGHT DURING EXPERIMENTAL FISHING
AT EKOYO CONSERVATION AREA IN LAKE TURKANA IN MARCH 2018 ....... 14
FIGURE 11. ALESTES BAREMOSE CAUGHT DURING EXPERIMENTAL FISHING
AT EKOYO CONSERVATION AREA IN LAKE TURKANA IN MARCH 2018 ....... 15
FIGURE 12. THE NILE TILAPIA OREOCHROMIS NILOTICUS AND TILAPIA ZILLII
CAUGH DURING THE EXPERIMENTAL FISH IN AT EKOYO CONSERVATION
AREA IN LAKE TURKANA IN MARCH 2018 ............................................................ 15
viii
FIGURE 13. FISH SPECIES ABUNDANCE (%) AT EKOYO CONSERVATION
AREA IN LAKE TURKANA IN 2017; KEY TO FIG 7: LIT-LITTORAL ZONE, NSH-
NEAR SHORELINE, OSZ-OFFSHORE ZONE ............................................................. 16
FIGURE 14. FISH SPECIES ABUNDANCE (%) AT EKOYO CONSERVATION
AREA IN LAKE TURKANA IN MARCH 2018 ............................................................ 16
FIGURE 15. FISH CATCHES AS AN OUTCOME OF PROTECTING FISH
BREEDING GROUND AT EKOYO CONSERVATION AREA, LAKE TURKANA IN
MARCH 2018 ................................................................................................................... 27
ix
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 GPS COORDINATES OF DEMARCATED FISH BREEDING AREA
UNDER EKOYO BMU 12TH MARCH 2018 .................................................................... 3
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background information
In intensely fished waters in many of the countries where fishery supports
livelihood, overfishing in lakes has resulted into decrease in fish catches and diversity
with consequent decline on fishers’ income and reduced employment (Sumaila et al.,
2014). As a result, the number of people being newly employed in the fishing industry
has declined thereby increasing poverty levels and decreasing food security. Many
people have turned into fishery as an alternative livelihood to a predominantly pastoral
economy with increased human population in Turkana County. However, these people
use illegal and unregulated fishing gears in shallow inshore fish breeding areas which
catch both juvenile and breeding forms before they can complete their breeding cycle.
Five key effects of the poor fishing methods are: overfishing of fish stock, destruction
of fish habitat, fishing down of the food webs, ecological food web disruption and
increased discard of by- catch (Kolding 1989; 1982; 1993a, b; 1995; Sainsbury et al.,
1987; 1997; 1998; 2000; Auster et al., 1996; Kolding and van Zwieten 2006; Kolding
et al., 2016). The result is increase in both ecosystem and recruitment overfishing. At
the market level, the demand of fish and fish products at high scales and intensity with
current fishing practices, driven by high market demand (internal and external) due to
increasing tastes of different market stratification, has combined with the above
challenges to contribute to unsustainability of the fishery. Along the mid-western side
of Lake Turkana occupied by Nariemet, Ekoyo and Kalimapus beach management units
(BMUs), the presence of river delta, shallow sheltered shores, macrophytes dominated
bay has created conducive habitats that stimulate the breeding of various fish species.
Protection from violent waves has also created calm waters which has made many
fishers to use the area for beach seining, setting of inshore based gill nets and purse
seining using very small mesh fishing nets. Surveys by Kenya Marine and Fisheries
Research Institute (KMFRI) over the years have shown that the area is rich in fish
diversity, but the size and amount of fish landed has decreased. Owing to the declining
water level in he Ferguson’s Gulf, many fishers have immigrated into the area causing
overcapacity of the fishery thereby creating management challenges to the nascent
BMU. At the request of Ekoyo BMU, KMFRI and the BMU identified several
challenges to the sustainability of the fisheries and prioritized a number of actions to be
2
undertaken to alleviate the problems. Top of the list were capacity building of the BMU
membership on sustainable fishing practices, protection of the fish breeding areas and
monitoring of impacts on fishery and post-harvest fish handling. Thus, this report
therefore outlines the joint effort undertaken by KMFRI, Ekoyo BMU and other
stakeholders at minimizing destructive fishing practices in the fish breeding area by
capacity building the BMU membership and initiating the breeding area protection
process.
1.2 Research Problem
The processes and factors that limit fish population size are increased fishing
effort and use of undersize fishing gillnets in fish breeding areas in the littoral and
mid-shore zones that lead to reduction in the spawners and recruitment of fish
stocks in Lake Turkana.
1.2.1 Broad objective
To monitor the status of demarcated fish breeding ground in Lake Turkana to enhance
and sustain fish production through the provision of critical data and information
on the factors that limit the local fish population size to share with stakeholders
for the development and implementation of Lake Turkana fishery management
plan.
1.2.2 Specific objectives
i. To sensitize the BMUs on the importance of protecting fish breeding areas.
ii. To jointly with the BMUs and other stakeholders replace the materials lost after
demarcation of fish breeding areas at Ekoyo.
iii. To collect data and information on fish stocks within the fish breeding areas.
iv. To assess and monitor the impacts of protection and demarcation of fish breeding
areas at Ekoyo fish breeding ground at Lake Turkana.
1. 3 Study justification
Over the years, KMFRI has engaged the fishers of Lake Turkana on the need for
sustainable exploitation of the fishes of the lake. It has also noticed an increase in
the use of illegal fishing gear and increased fishing effort in the inshore waters
specifically in the above-mentioned shallow bays and river channels. Together,
they have identified a number of areas that are now regarded as critical habitats.
3
These areas have been mapped and continuously studied to characterize them in
the process. Demarcation and community based management of these habitats
supported by research findings from such studies were key to the sustainable fish
production as the fishers would be able to take care of the resources within each
locality given that they live there and the utilization of the resources directly affect
their livelihoods.
There are many fishery management challenges facing the area such as
increase in the fishing effort, open access, close proximity to high population
centres such as Kalokol market centre and demand for daily fresh fish supply to
Lodwar Town and Kitale. In addition, smoked and fried fish serving Kitale market
and beyond are also sourced from the lake. Additional challenges include a ready
market for undersized fish that stimulate rampant seining and use of illegal fishing
nets, which are destructive to both the environment and the fishery.
Therefore, in order to reduce destructive fishing practices, community
participation in management of the resource was key as it would assist address
issues of immediate application in conflict reduction in fish resource use, informed
management decisions on the values of the vegetated and grassy areas of Ekoyo
to the broader lake fishery. Therefore, this specific activity was aimed at
addressing the overall objective of research, of enhancing and sustaining fish
production through the provision of critical information to be used in the
development and implementation of Lake Turkana fishery management plan.
2 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Description of the study area
The geographical location of the shoreline is from the southern border of
Kalimapus BMU (N 03º 35´ 33.4´´ - E 035º 51´ 39.6´´) to the western end of
Nariemet beach (N 03º 34´ 31.0´´ - E035º 52´ 23.0´´) (Table 1).
Table 1 GPS Coordinates of demarcated fish breeding area under
Ekoyo BMU 12th March 2018
Station
sampled Latitude Longitude Altitude (m) Depth (m)
4
1. 3°52' 947" 35 °51' 957" 365 0
2. 3° 35' 608" 35 °319' 55" 365 1.3
3. 3° 35' 661" 35 °52' 31" 366 2.6
4. 3° 35' 716" 35 ° 52' 92" 365 3.6
5. 3° 36' 809" 35 ° 51' 636" 366 0
6. 3° 35' 990" 35 °52' 281" 365 10
7. 3° 36' 225" 35 ° 51' 829" 368 0
8. 3° 36' 35" 35 ° 52' 190" 365 10.4
9. 3° 36' 59" 35 ° 52' 95" 365 9.6
10. 3° 35' 938" 35 ° 52' 238" 364 0
11. 3° 36' 145" 35 ° 52' 361" 365 9.2
12. 3° 35' 844" 35 ° 52' 174" 365 0
13. 3° 36' 195" 35 ° 51' 887" 367 9.3
14. 3° 36' 259" 35 ° 51' 767" 366 10.5
15. 3° 36' 289" 35 ° 51' 694" 365 9.9
16. 3° 36' 321" 35 ° 51' 889" 365 8.6
17. 3° 36' 263" 35 ° 51' 565" 362 8.5
18. 3° 36' 145" 35 ° 51' 549" 365 4
19. 3° 36' 82" 35 °51' 519" 367 2
20. 3° 35' 945" 35 ° 51' 545" 365 0.8
It also lies at the first bend, which separates the northern, and the central
sectors of the lake, the latter characterized by the Ferguson’s Gulf and Central
Island. The area geared for monitoring and protection covers the main entrance
of Napasinyang’ River and the western distributaries (Figure 1). The presence of
river delta, shallow sheltered shores, and macrophytes such as Hippo grass, Typha
spp and Prosopis juliflora (Figure 2) has created conducive habitats that stimulate
the breeding of various fish species. Protection from violent waves has also
created calm waters.
5
Figure 1. Lake Turkana showing the position of the major fish breeding areas
including the Ferguson’s Gulf and Ekoyo-Nariemet -Napasinyang river mouth
complex
2.2 Sampling
Prior to monitoring of the demarcated and protected areas, baseline water
quality conditions were measured along transverse transect running from the
littoral areas of the demarcated bay to the offshore zone. Physico-chemical water
quality characteristics such as turbidity, temperature, and electrical conductivity
(EC) were profiled in situ at depth intervals from 20 cm sub surface using a
portable water quality meter (Model YSI Professional Plus A605596, Yellow
Springs OH USA). Fish within the area were sampled using 3 fleets of
monofilament and a fleet of multifilament gill nets. The monofilament nets ranged
in size from 2 - 60 mm while the multifilament nets ranged from 73-264 mm. Size,
weight, sex, maturity, diet and habitat preference were recorded using standard
methods (Hopson, 1982).
2.3 Criteria for identification and mapping of fish breeding areas
The following criteria were generally used to identify and map the fish breeding area:
i. Public participation and consultation with all the BMUs and other stakeholders
would ensure project ownership.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Moite
Mugur
Kerio
Lotar
F. Gulf
Selicho
Sibiloi
Nachukui
Omo Delta
Lowarengak
Koobi Fora
El Molo Bay
Napasinyang'
Loiyangalani
Eliye Springs
7 Kerio
Turkwel
2
1
10
9
6
7
3
5
4
8
Om
o
37°20'0"E
37°20'0"E
36°40'0"E
36°40'0"E
36°0'0"E
36°0'0"E
35°20'0"E
35°20'0"E
4°4
0'0
"N
4°4
0'0
"N
4°0
'0"N
4°0
'0"N
3°2
0'0
"N
3°2
0'0
"N
2°4
0'0
"N
2°4
0'0
"N
Legend
! Area name
River
Island
Swamp
Breeding site
Lake 0 20 40 60 8010
Kilometers®
6
ii. Indigenous knowledge on these fisheries needs to be documented during
identification and mapping of new fish breeding grounds in the lake.
iii. Collect baseline data based on scientific protocol to identify new breeding areas
suitable for conservation.
iv. Assessing the distribution and abundance of larvae, juvenile and adults that are
ready for recruitment at each stage in the life history of fishes in the lake.
v. Establishing the life cycles of fish diversity in the lake.
vi. Documenting fish biodiversity in the conservation areas and the entire lake
ecosystem.
vii. Establishing the abundance and distribution of nesting, mature gravid male and
female spawners.
viii. Using instrumentations such as Geographic Positions System (GPS) to
identifying and demarcating the boundaries and location of the fish breeding
areas
2.4 Demarcation tools
i. A stakeholders’ meeting was convened to establish, map and validate the
boundaries of fish breeding areas.
ii. Conservation was a process that involved the participation of stakeholders and
BMUs (fishers, fish processors and markers), fisheries managers, and scientists
and funders (KMFRI staff) and youth in the mapping, validation and
demarcation of the fish breeding areas.
iii. The tools used in the process were; heavy sinkers, thick marine type nylon
manila ropes (size 13), buoys of any colour (yellow and red), but large enough
to be visible approximately 200 meters away from the shore line (Figure 2).
7
Figure 2. River Napasinyang Delta, shallow sheltered shores, and macrophytes
including Hippo grass, Typha spp and Prosopis juliflora, at demarcated fish
breeding habitat, conservation area of Ekoyo, Lake Turkana
2.5 Training of BMUs and other stakeholders
Prior to training, KMFRI and Ekoyo BMU executive committee held several
consultative meetings dating back to 2017 to identify challenges and prioritize
BMU needs, which were based on earlier written request to KMFRI to provide
support to address several challenges. After accepting, KMFRI committed to
undertake community capacity building on protection of fish breeding areas
including monitoring the impacts amongst others. In total, four meetings were
held during the months of August 2017, December 2017, February and March
2018, and, which were mainly, focused group discussions. Representation
comprised youth, women and men who were drawn from the various arms of the
BMU (e.g. boat owners, net menders, fishers, processors, transporters, traders,
etc) (Figure 3).
8
Figure 3. Training session in progress by KMFRI research team for the BMU
officials on optimum gillnet sizes on the protection, conservation and management
of fish breeding areas at Ekoyo Beach fishing village, Lake Turkana in March
2018
2.6 Mapping of the fish breeding area
Identification of the fish breeding areas in Lake Turkana was done in 2012
and 2016 using a combination of information generated from indigenous
knowledge of the fisher communities and the empirical data collected during
KMFRI expeditions and other historical data from literature. The study entailed
preliminary interpretation of existing information on the critical habitats and geo-
referencing where necessary. Map of the previously identified areas was produced
using GIS technology. After validation during community meetings, the area
covered by Ekoyo BMU was identified and prioritized for demarcation.
2.7 Demarcation of the fish breeding area
After sensitization meetings involving BMU executive and general
membership, demarcation process was initiated and completed in 2016. It
involved the use of traditional sinkers, modern cemented sinkers, thick twined
9
manila ropes, traditional floaters and modern styrofoam buoys. Each buoy was
given an ID number, which was to be used for monitoring and if stolen, for
traceability. During the demarcation representatives form KMFRI, Ekoyo BMU and
Turkana County Department of Fisheries participated. Each position where
sinkers were placed were geo-referenced using Garmin GPS model and depth
taken using geo-referenced Eagle Fish Finder model. The fish stocks were sampled
using monofilament gillnets, fish retrieved and samples caught were sorted
according to the species (Figure 4).
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Training of BMU members
Six executive members of the BMU comprising of 2 women and 4 men were
trained in order to go and sensitize the BMU members on the planned activities
and get their consensus. A follow-up meeting was held for 11 representative
members, which comprised of 4 women and 7 men to identify the BMU members
to work with KMFRI during the demarcation process. A final meeting comprising
of 24 members drawn from all segments of the BMU was held on 2nd March 2018
to sensitize the members on the importance of sustainable fishing, protecting fish
breeding areas, the value of conservation and management of fish breeding areas
and the roles of the various part of the BMU membership, and monitoring of fish
protected areas (Figures 4, 5, and 6). Some of the challenges identified by Ekoyo
BMU members were lack of adequate resources to protect the breeding area,
invasion of the fish breeding site by none members of Ekoyo BMU, lack of patrol
and rescue boats and increased use of illegal fishing gear such as undersize nets,
beach seine and boat seining by immigrant fishers.
10
Figure 4. Training session with BMU members at Ekoyo, Lake Turkana in March
2018
Figure 5. Training and plenary session in progress for the BMU and community
members on processes of critical fish breeding areas protection, conservation and
management at Ekoyo Beach, Lake Turkana in February 2018
11
Figure 6. Training session group photograph after BMU after interactive sharing
of information on processes of critical fish breeding areas protection, conservation
and management at Ekoyo Lake Turkana in March 2018
3.2 Demarcation and monitoring
An area estimated at 10.5 km2 was demarcated using buoys. It extended
from the western boundary of Nariemet BMU and the central part of Ekoyo BMU.
It stretched from the shoreline to a depth of 10.5 m. The boundary references and
depths are indicated in Table 1. It was agreed that no fishing should take place
from the buoys to the macrophytes and the selected channels. The responsibility
for monitoring was to be shared by KMFRI, Ekoyo BMU and County Department
of Fisheries. KMFRI was given the responsibility of undertaking research to
monitor changes in fish populations and communities, water quality, plankton and
benthic organisms and macrophytes. Ekoyo BMU was given the responsibility of
monitoring on compliance of non-entry of fishers in the demarcated area and
report offenders to the fisheries department. The fisheries department was given
the responsibility of enhancing their normal monitoring, control and surveillance
(MCS) and where possible take action against non-compliance by fishers. All
actors were requested to report the results of their activities during community
consultative meetings called by the BMU, KMFRI or Fisheries Department
monitoring changes during the process was initiated to be undertaken by The
identified team comprising of KMFRI/Ekoyo BMU and County officials members
of the community. Two meetings were held for two consecutive days educating
12
and training the local community on critical fish breeding habitats protection,
conservation and management. At the two meetings each beach was tasked to
identify 3 individual youth champions who would join the research team on the
demarcation process. The joint participation in the meeting is important as it
enables representatives from each community to be part of the demarcation
process then go back and sensitize the rest of the members. At each site the
anchors would be placed at an interval of 50 metres.
3.3 Environmental factors
The environmental factors did not show significant (p<0.05) differences between
2017 sampling period and 201 8 (Figure 7). Turbidity ranged from 100 to 180
NTU, conductivity ranged from 3850 to 3982 μScm-1, temperature ranged from 26
to 33 °C, pH ranged from 8 to 9.2, dissolved oxygen ranged from 2.9 to 7.6 mgL-1,
oxidation reduction potential ranged from to 104 to 109 mV. These values
indicate the salinity nature of Lake Turkana, despite it supporting freshwater
fisheries.
Figure 7. Environmental factors at the sampling sites of the demarcated fish
breeding ground in Lake Turkana from August 2017 to March 2018.
13
3.4 Fish catches and species composition
The fish breeding ground and fishing area were also marked by the presence of
several fish eating birds’ population residing in that area (Figure 8). Experimental
fishing in the area showed varied fish species reside in the area (Figures 9, 10, 11,
and 12). Figures 13 and 14 show the percentage abundance of the fish species
caught in various habitats during baseline survey in August 2017, and February
and March 2018. Alestes baremose was the most abundant species in the littoral,
nearshore and offshore zones while, Lates niloticus in March 2017, while
Citharinus citharus was the least abundant in August 2017. A total of 14 species
were caught, 11 of which were of commercial importance while the rest support
local consumption.
Those supporting commercial fishery were: Alestes baremose, Nile Tilapia
(Oreochromis niloticus), Sarotherodon galileus, Nile perch (Lates niloticus), Labeo
horie, spp, Clarias gariepinus, Distichodus niloticus, Citharinus citharinus, Bagrus
bayad and tiger fish (Hydrocynus forskalii) and Barbus sp. Those caught for local
consumption were Schilbe uranoscopus, Synodontis schall and Brycinus spp. The
improved conservation efforts by the stakeholders are evidenced by the improved
catches of fish in the area (Figure 15).
Figure 8. Scavenging birds standing on a rocky outgrowth and a fisher’s stationery
boat at the critical fish-breeding habitat at Ekoyo, Lake Turkana in March 2018.
14
Figure 9. Retrieval of fishing gear from water during the monitoring of protected
fish breeding ground at Ekoyo, Lake Turkana after experimental fishing during
March 2018.
Figure 10. Synodontis schall caught during experimental fishing at Ekoyo
conservation area in Lake Turkana in March 2018
15
Figure 11. Alestes baremose caught during experimental fishing at Ekoyo
conservation area in Lake Turkana in March 2018.
Figure 12. The Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus and Tilapia zillii caugh during the
experimental fish in at Ekoyo conservation area in Lake Turkana in March 2018
16
Figure 13. Fish species abundance (%) at Ekoyo conservation area in Lake Turkana
in 2017; key to Fig 7: LIT-Littoral zone, NSH-Near shoreline, OSZ-Offshore zone.
Figure 14. Fish species abundance (%) at Ekoyo conservation area in Lake Turkana in March 2018
17
Figure 15. Fish catches as an outcome of protecting fish breeding ground at
Ekoyo conservation area, Lake Turkana in March 2018
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Conclusions
KMFRI and Ekoyo BMU successfully addressed two important challenges that
had earlier been identified by the BMU as limiting their capacity to manage the
fishery resources within the BMU. These were: capacity building of the BMU
through training on sustainable fisheries and protection of the fish breeding areas
and under their jurisdiction. Secondly, joint demarcation of the fish breeding area,
initiation of monitoring and sharing of responsibilities on monitoring and
reporting. The experiences gained by implementing this activity and the results of
the monitoring will be applied in managing similar areas within Lake Turkana and
develop a management plan for the lake. Thus, whereas the use of illegal fishing
gear including undersize gillnets, beach seine and purse or boat seine were major
challenges at the start of the project, these have since been improved for
conservation, management, development and sustainable use of fish breeding
areas.
18
4.2 Recommendations to be shared to stakeholders
4.2.1 Knowledge based management
It is recommended that Ekoyo BMU being new since its constitution, still needs
a lot of support to enable its members uplift their living standards and understand
the essentials of managing fish breeding areas. The support may be in the areas of
further capacity building, provision of suitable nets and vessels, which can be used
to fish in deeper waters, beach infrastructure such as development of fish cold
chain and fish bandas. Alternative livelihoods, which may draw some members
away from fishing would reduce fishing pressure and ensure fewer people fishing
within the BMU area. It is also recommended that KMFRI should work with Ekoyo
BMU to consolidate the findings of this study by providing technical support at
every level of the fish value chain to reduce wastage and losses for the benefit of
the poorer members of the community (Documentations are in appendices I and
II).
Knowledge to be generated and shared by the BMUs membership and other
stakeholders should include:
i. Information on trends in water quality and productivity within the breeding
areas;
ii. Monitoring of changes in the distribution and abundance of various fish
species both from fishery dependent and fishery independent sampling
established effort;
iii. Continued capacity building on the importance of the protected areas as
fish nursery grounds and refugia;
iv. Improved surveillance by BMUs;
v. Data and information on fishing efforts.
4.2.2 Participatory based management
i. Continued monitoring of fish breeding ground to ensure compliance with
fisheries management and regulations Act of 2016 laws of Kenya;
ii. Fishing crafts can be allowed safe passage through the protected zone
iii. KMFRI scientists should continue with monitoring exercise to to undertake
assess impact of the demarcation on the habitat and fish population and the
19
research should be non-intrusive and compatible with the conservation
principles.
iv. During the monitoring of fish breeding ground, the BMUs members should
participate in the joint research to appreciate the benefits of conservation.
v. For optimal conservation, limited access to fishing should be allowed in the
conservation area after six months of continuous protection of fish breeding
grounds based on understanding between scientific findings, fishers patrol and
surveillances, fishery mangers and other stakeholders.
vi. There is need to control, regulate and monitor the number of gillnets, boats and
fishers allowed legally in the lake.
vii. There is need to use size 4 inches of the gill net mesh sizes for optimal
conservation after protection.
viii. There is need for closed seasons to ensure larvae enter juvenile stage and
juvenile to enter adult fish ready for entry into fishery.
ix. The size of gillnets used should be 4 inches to enable catching of fish with the
allowable length at first maturity.
x. Environmental protection of the beaches should be improved to minimize
dumping, littering and pollution of designated conservation Ecotones.
xi. A participatory approach is important to ensure inclusivity in conservation of
fish breeding areas.
REFERENCE
Auster, P.J., Malatesta, R.J., Langton, R.W., Watling, L., Valentine, P.C., Donaldson,
C.L.S., Langton, E.W., Shepard, A.N., Babb, I.G. (1996). The impacts of
mobile fishing gear on seafloor habitats in the Gulf of Maine (Northwest
Atlantic): implications for conservation of fish populations. Reviews in
Fisheries Science, 4, 185 202.
Hopson, A. J. (1982). Lake Turkana: A report on the findings of the Lake Turkana
Project, 1972–1975. Vols 1‐6. Stirling, Overseas Development Administration
and University of Stirling, Institute of Aquaculture. 1614 p.
Kolding, J. (1989). The fish resources of Lake Turkana and their environment. Bergen:
University of Bergen. Department of Fisheries Biology. Kolding, J. (1992). A
summary of Lake Turkana: An ever‐changing mixed environment.
Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie, 23, 25–35.
20
Kolding, J. (1993a). Population dynamics and life‐history styles of Nile tilapia,
Oreochromis niloticus, in Ferguson's Gulf, Lake Turkana, Kenya.
Environmental Biology of Fishes, 37, 25–46. DOI: 10.1007/BF00000710
Kolding, J. (1993b). Trophic interrelationships and community structure at two
different periods of Lake Turkana, Kenya: A comparison using the Ecopath II
box model. In V. Christensen, & D. Pauly (Eds.), Trophic models of aquatic
ecosystems. ICLARM conference proceedings.(pp. 116–123). Makati:
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.
Kolding, J. (1995). Changes in species composition and abundance of fish populations
in Lake Turkana, Kenya. In P. Hart & T. J. Pitcher (Eds.), The impact of species
changes in African lakes (pp. 335–363). New York: Springer.
Kolding, J., and van Zwieten, P. A. M. (2006). Improving productivity in tropical lakes
and reservoirs. Challenge Program on Water and Food–Aquatic Ecosystems
and Fisheries Review Series). Cairo: WorldFish Center.
Kolding, J., and van Zwieten, P. A. M. (2012). Relative lake level fluctuations and their
influence on productivity and resilience in tropical lakes and reservoirs.
Fisheries Research, 115, 99–109. DOI: 10.1016/j. fishres.2011.11.008.
Kolding, J., van Zwieten, P. A. M., Marttin, F., and Puolain F. (2016). Fisheries in the
drylands of Sub‐saharan Africa: Building resilience for fisheries‐dependent
livelihoods to enhance food security and nutrition in the drylands. FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular, fipi/firf/m c1118. Rome: Food and
Agriculture Organization.
Sainsbury, K.J. (1987). Assessment and management of the demersal fishery on the
continental shelf of northwestern Australia. Tropical Snappers and Groupers:
Biology and Fisheries Management (eds J. J. Polovina & S. Ralston), pp. 465
503. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Sainsbury, K.J., Campbell, R.A., Lindholm, R., Whitelaw, A.W. (1997).
Experimental management of an Australian multispecies fishery: examining
the possibility of trawl-induced habitat modification. Global Trends: Fisheries
Management (eds K. Pikitch, D. D. Huppert and M. P. Sissenwine), pp. 107
112. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Sainsbury, K. J. 1998. Living marine resource assessment for the 21st Century: What
21
will be needed and how will it be provided? In Fishery Stock Assessment
Models, pp. 1–40. Ed. by F. Funk, T. J. Quinn II, J. Heifetz, J. N. Ianelli, J. E.
Powers, J. F. Schweigert, P. J. Sullivan, and C.-I. Zhang. Alaska Sea Grant
College Progra Report No. AK-SG-98-01. University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
Alaska, USA.
Sainsbury, K. J., Punt, A. E., and Smith, A. D. M. (2000). Design of operational
management strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. – ICES
Journal of Marine Science, 57: 731–741.
Sumaila, U. Rashid, Christophe Bellmann, and Alice Tipping (2014). Fishing for the
Future: Trends and Issues in Global Fisheries Trade. E15 Initiative. Geneva:
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and
World Economic Forum, 2014. www.e15initiative.or.
22
APPENDICES
Appendix I. FORWARDING LETTER. MONITORING STATUS OF
DEMARCATED FISH BREEDING AREAS IN LAKE TURKANA C2.7
23
Appendix II: WORK PLAN AND MINUTES
1. The target: Demarcation and protection of critical fish habitats and
monitor the impacts of this process on the fisheries at Ekoyo BMU.
2. Reason: To Meet the PC targets by 31st March 2018
3. Objective: To undertake assessment and monitoring the impacts of
demarcation of fish breeding areas and share this process and reports
with the BMU at Ekoyo Lake Turkana.
4. Planned Activities:
a. Communities meetings for sensitization and education of critical fish breeding
areas
b. Community monitoring exercise
c. Fish and water quality baseline data
5. Expected output:
a. Minutes of meetings for sensitization and education of critical fish breeding
areas
b. Community assessment and monitoring and GPS positions
c. Fish, water quality and community baseline data
24
Appendix III: Approved field expenses
25
Appendix IV: Approved field requisition
26
Appendix V: Policy brief on monitoring the status of demarcated fish
breeding grounds in Lake Turkana for dissemination to stakeholders
Policy advice no: KMF/RS/2018/c.2.7.i
Title: Monitoring the status of demarcated fish breeding grounds in Lake Turkana
Preparation
This brief trusts on the latest available scientific information to give both strategic and planned
advice to fisheries managers for timely interventions for sustainable management of Lake Turkana.
Strategic tools proposed herein are geared towards arresting the declining trend of fisheries
27
production in the lake (an economic mainstay in the region), through demarcation of fish breeding
ground.
Executive Summary
The objective of the study was to monitor the status of fish breeding ground in Lake Turkana
to enhance food and nutrition and sustain fish production through the provision of critical
data and information on the factors that limit the local fish population size.
There was need to protect fish breeding ground to enhance the survival and abundance of
fish eggs, larvae, juvenile, spawners and biodiversity at Ekoyo nursery in the lake.
Ekoyo BMU members cited protection of the site; frequent patrols and stopping use of small
sized gill nets as best practice in protecting and improving conservation areas.
Thus, whereas the use of illegal fishing gear comprising undersized gillnets, beach seine,
and purse seine were major challenges at the start of the project, these have since been
removed for sustainable exploitation, management and conservation of fish breeding areas.
This study recommends improved patrols and sharing of information with BMUs.
Introduction
Lake Turkana is an important desert lake that provides ecosystem services to the human population
residing along the lake (e.g. fisheries and transport). It is an important ecosystem whose
sustainability depends largely on the ownership of the processes by the indigenous people. Capacity
development for the stakeholders is one of the needs by the local BMUs required for sustainable
management of the fishery resources. Therefore, this report outlines the joint effort undertaken by
KMFRI, Ekoyo BMU and other stakeholders at minimizing destructive fishing practices in the fish
breeding area by capacity building the BMU membership and initiating the breeding area protection
process.
Approaches and Results
Lake Turkana lies at the first bend, which separates the northern, and the central sectors of the
lake, the latter characterized by the Ferguson’s Gulf and Central Island. The area geared for
monitoring and protection covers the main entrance of Napasinyang’ River and the western
distributaries (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Lake Turkana showing the position of the major fish breeding areas including the
Ferguson’s Gulf and Ekoyo-Nariemet -Napasinyang river mouth complex
Criteria for identification and mapping of fish breeding areas
ix. Public participation and consultation with all the BMUs and other stakeholders.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Moite
Mugur
Kerio
Lotar
F. Gulf
Selicho
Sibiloi
Nachukui
Omo Delta
Lowarengak
Koobi Fora
El Molo Bay
Napasinyang'
Loiyangalani
Eliye Springs
7 Kerio
Turkwel
2
1
10
9
6
7
3
5
4
8
Omo
37°20'0"E
37°20'0"E
36°40'0"E
36°40'0"E
36°0'0"E
36°0'0"E
35°20'0"E
35°20'0"E
4°40
'0"N
4°40
'0"N
4°0'0
"N
4°0'0
"N
3°20
'0"N
3°20
'0"N
2°40
'0"N
2°40
'0"N
Legend
! Area name
River
Island
Swamp
Breeding site
Lake 0 20 40 60 8010
Kilometers®
28
x. Indigenous knowledge, documentation, identification and mapping of new fish breeding
grounds in the lake.
xi. Collection of baseline data based on scientific protocol.
xii. Assessing the distribution and abundance of larvae, juvenile and adults that are ready for
recruitment at each stage in the life history of fishes in the lake.
xiii. Establishing the life cycles of fish diversity in the lake.
xiv. Documenting fish biodiversity in the conservation areas and the entire lake
ecosystem.
xv. Establishing the abundance and distribution of nesting, mature gravid male and female
spawners.
xvi. Geographic Positions System (GPS) to delineate, identify and demarcate the
boundaries and location of the fish breeding areas
Demarcation tools
iv. A stakeholders’ meeting to establish, map and validate the boundaries of fish breeding
areas.
v. Involvement of stakeholders and BMUs (fishers, fish processors and markers), fisheries
managers, and scientists and funders (KMFRI staff) and youth in the mapping, validation
and demarcation of the fish breeding areas.
vi. Heavy sinkers, thick marine type nylon manila ropes (size 13), buoys of any colour (yellow
and red), but large enough to be visible approximately 200 meters away from the shore line
.
Training of BMUs and other stakeholders
Six executive members of the BMU comprising of 2 women and 4 men were trained in
order to go and sensitize the BMU members on the planned activities and get their consensus. A
follow-up meeting was held for 11 representative members, which comprised of 4 women and 7
men to identify the BMU members to work with KMFRI during the demarcation process. A final
meeting comprising of 24 members drawn from all segments of the BMU was held on 2nd March
2018 to sensitize the members on the importance of sustainable fishing, protecting fish breeding
areas, the value of conservation and management of fish breeding areas and the roles of the various
part of the BMU membership, and monitoring of fish protected areas. Some of the challenges
identified by Ekoyo BMU members were lack of adequate resources to protect the breeding area,
invasion of the fish breeding site by none members of Ekoyo BMU, lack of patrol and rescue boats
and increased use of illegal fishing gear such as undersize nets, beach seine and boat seining by
immigrant fishers.
Demarcation and monitoring
Responsibility for monitoring were shared as follows:
KMFRI: Monitoring changes in fish populations and communities, water quality, plankton
and benthic organisms and macrophytes.
Ekoyo BMU: Monitoring on compliance of non-entry of fishers in the demarcated area and
report offenders to the fisheries department.
The fisheries Department: Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) and where possible
take action against non-compliance by fishers.
Fish catches and species composition
The fish breeding ground and fishing area were also marked by the presence of several fish eating
birds’ population residing in that area. Experimental fishing in the area showed varied fish species
reside in the area. Figures 3 and 4 show the percentage abundance of the fish species caught in
various habitats during baseline survey in August 2017, and February and March 2018. Alestes
baremose was the most abundant species in the littoral, nearshore and offshore zones while, Lates
niloticus in March 2017, while Citharinus citharus was the least abundant in August 2017. A total
29
of 14 species were caught, 11 of which were of commercial importance while the rest support local
consumption.
Those supporting commercial fishery were: Alestes baremose, Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis
niloticus), Sarotherodon galileus, Nile perch (Lates niloticus), Labeo horie, spp, Clarias
gariepinus, Distichodus niloticus, Citharinus citharinus, Bagrus bayad and tiger fish (Hydrocynus
forskalii) and Barbus sp. Those caught for local consumption were Schilbe uranoscopus,
Synodontis schall and Brycinus spp. The improved conservation efforts by the stakeholders are
evidenced by the improved catches of fish in the area .
Figure 2. Fish species abundance (%) at Ekoyo conservation area in Lake Turkana in 2017; key
to Fig 2: LIT-Littoral zone, NSH-Near shoreline, OSZ-Offshore zone.
Figure 3. Fish species abundance (%) at Ekoyo conservation area in Lake Turkana in March
2018
30
Conclusion
KMFRI and Ekoyo BMU successfully addressed two important challenges that had earlier been
identified by the BMU as limiting their capacity to manage the fishery resources within the BMU.
These were: capacity building of the BMU through training on sustainable fisheries and protection
of the fish breeding areas and under their jurisdiction. Secondly, joint demarcation of the fish
breeding area, initiation of monitoring and sharing of responsibilities on monitoring and reporting.
The experiences gained by implementing this activity and the results of the monitoring will be
applied in managing similar areas within Lake Turkana and develop a management plan for the
lake. Thus, whereas the use of illegal fishing gear including undersize gillnets, beach seine and
purse or boat seine were major challenges at the start of the project, these have since been improved
for conservation, management, development and sustainable use of fish breeding areas.
Implications
The constitution of Ekoyo BMU is new, it needs a lot of support to enable its members uplift
their living standards and understand the essentials of managing fish breeding areas. The support
may be in the areas of further capacity building, provision of suitable nets and vessels, which can
be used to fish in deeper waters, beach infrastructure such as development of fish cold chain and
fish bandas. This implies that alternative livelihoods, which may draw some members away from
fishing, would reduce fishing pressure and ensure fewer people fishing within the BMU area. This
also implies that KMFRI should work with Ekoyo BMU to consolidate the findings of this study
by providing technical support at every level of the fish value chain to reduce wastage and losses
for the benefit of the poorer members of the community.
Recommendations
vi. Monitoring of changes in the distribution and abundance of various fish species both from
fishery dependent and fishery independent sampling established effort;
vii. Continued capacity building on the importance of the protected areas as fish nursery
grounds and refugia;
viii. Continued monitoring of fish breeding ground to ensure compliance with fisheries
management and regulations Act of 2016 laws of Kenya;
ix. KMFRI scientists should continue with monitoring exercise to undertake assess impact of
the demarcation on the habitat and fish population and the research should be non-intrusive
and compatible with the conservation principles.
x. During the monitoring of fish breeding ground, the BMUs members should participate in
the joint research to appreciate the benefits of conservation.
xi. For optimal conservation, limited access to fishing should be allowed in the conservation
area after six months of continuous protection of fish breeding grounds based on
understanding between scientific findings, fishers patrol and surveillances, fishery mangers
and other stakeholders.
xii. There is need to control, regulate and monitor the number of gillnets, boats and fishers
allowed legally in the lake.
31
Appendix VI: Further dissemination
32
33