SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Fisheries objectives;
  • fisheries policy;
  • Lake Victoria;
  • welfare-based fisheries management

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. ‘Wealth vs. welfare’ or ‘wealth and welfare’?
  5. Lake Victoria fisheries
  6. The direction of fisheries policy
  7. Moves towards WBFM?
  8. Welfare by default?
  9. Wealth and welfare?
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. References

Fisheries policies often pursue multiple objectives, which may, in some instances, be in conflict or competition with each other. It may not be possible, for example, to create or maintain employment and generate increasing volumes of revenue for government whilst also sustaining stocks and biodiversity. Two approaches to fisheries management, one focused on capturing wealth and limiting access and the other on maintaining access for employment and providing community development and welfare, present contrasting policy advice, with different points of emphases and objectives. This article examines the case of Lake Victoria, where the three main commercial fisheries are seen to contribute to different objectives for the lake's fisheries. Insights from the debate between wealth-based and welfare-based approaches to fisheries management provide a framework for the analysis of fisheries policy and practice on the lake. From the analysis, it is concluded that whilst there is much rhetoric in support of a wealth-based approach, this has not been followed through in implementation, reflecting the lack of political support for new taxation and limiting access. The welfare functions of the fisheries are significant, but could be substantially strengthened through greater investment in the provision of services to fisheries communities. The approaches are not mutually exclusive, but pursuing wealth-based management must support livelihoods, employment and development, as well as fisheries management objectives. Without the incorporation of welfare objectives, fisheries policies will not be politically accepted or fully implemented, suggesting the need for a balance between wealth and welfare objectives and measures.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. ‘Wealth vs. welfare’ or ‘wealth and welfare’?
  5. Lake Victoria fisheries
  6. The direction of fisheries policy
  7. Moves towards WBFM?
  8. Welfare by default?
  9. Wealth and welfare?
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. References

Fisheries policies often strive to achieve multiple, and sometimes conflicting, objectives (Hilborn 2007). This may be because of the power and influence of certain stakeholders in a policy arena, because of political expediency or due to the existence of multiple and complex fisheries with different conditions and needs. The existence of multiple objectives raises challenges for management approaches and measures. This is seen in debates over whether small-scale fisheries in low-income countries should adopt management measures that seek to capture the inherent wealth in fisheries and prioritise revenue generation or adopt measures that prioritise employment and income generation.

The call for greater economic efficiency through revenue generation and reduced access results from concern over declining fish stocks and inadequate recognition and capture of the inherent wealth in fisheries (Cunningham et al. 2009; World Bank and FAO 2009). Reducing access would inevitably lead to the exclusion of some fishers and therefore the application of a ‘wealth-based fisheries management’ (WBFM) (Cunningham et al. 2009) approach to small-scale fisheries in low-income countries is considered inappropriate by others. They argue that where there are limited alternative livelihood opportunities, it would be impossible, as well as politically unacceptable, to implement such an approach (Cochrane 2000; Ratner and Baran 2008; Béné et al. 2010). A welfare oriented approach is advocated instead, where the employment function of fisheries is recognised and supported, along with investment in education and health, and the promotion of human rights and gender equity (Béné et al. 2010). Both Cunningham et al. (2009) and Béné et al. (2010) suggest that progression towards a wealth-based approach is desirable, though Béné et al. give greater emphasis to the need for the necessary conditions to be in place in the political economy of a country before a wealth-based approach is considered. How far, then, are wealth and welfare-based approaches to fisheries management compatible or contradictory? Can progress towards a wealth-based approach be pursued whilst supporting the welfare functions of a fishery?

To answer these questions, the key characteristics of wealth- and welfare-based approaches to fisheries management are identified from the literature to provide a framework for analysing the case of Lake Victoria fisheries, East Africa, where it is estimated that two million people depend on the resource for their household livelihood (LVFO 2012). The article introduces Lake Victoria's fisheries and analyses relevant policies, legislation and plans of the three countries, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, bordering the lake, and sharing its resources, as well as those of the regional fisheries management organization, the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization. In addition to reviewing relevant policies, plans and legislation, information is taken from a number of surveys and studies that were carried out under the EU-funded Implementation of a Fisheries Management Plan for Lake Victoria project (IFMP) between 2003 and 2010. The IFMP studies include consultancy reports on revenue and financing options for the fisheries (Acworth et al. 2008; Macfadyen 2008) and socio-economic monitoring surveys (LVFO 2007c, 2008a).

From the analysis of fisheries management policies and implementation on Lake Victoria, it was found that there is strong rhetoric in favour of a more wealth-based approach, influenced by donor-funded projects and characterised by commitment to moving towards more sustainable financing of fisheries from fisheries-generated revenue and managing fishing capacity. Efforts to control fishing capacity are, however, limited by political expediency, with politicians concerned about the impact of limiting access to the fisheries and the lack of alternative livelihood opportunities. The shift to financing the sector from fisheries-generated revenue has also proved to be difficult in practice, due to the complexities of revenue generation arrangements and delays in bringing in higher taxes on fish exports. The overall management approach on Lake Victoria is not, however, strongly supportive of a welfare approach either, as although the fisheries provide significant employment and income-generating opportunities, much more could be done to improve the living conditions and access to services within the fisheries communities. The landing sites are poorly served by key public services, with education levels, for example, amongst the fisheries communities lower than national averages.

The experience of fisheries management to date on Lake Victoria illustrates the difficulty of implementing either approach in a strong, coherent way and can be characterised as attempting to balance wealth- and welfare-management objectives and measures, reflecting the overarching objectives of fisheries contributing to national economies, but also providing employment and local livelihoods. The case study suggests that the approaches are not totally mutually exclusive, but that greater honesty in policy objectives and commitment to implementation is needed.

‘Wealth vs. welfare’ or ‘wealth and welfare’?

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. ‘Wealth vs. welfare’ or ‘wealth and welfare’?
  5. Lake Victoria fisheries
  6. The direction of fisheries policy
  7. Moves towards WBFM?
  8. Welfare by default?
  9. Wealth and welfare?
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. References

The crisis in global fisheries is well documented, with 80% of the world's marine fisheries estimated to be overexploited, depleted, recovering from overexploitation or fully exploited (FAO 2010). This crisis has largely been attributed to governance failure, with the World Bank (2004, p. 3) suggesting that ‘weak governance is the main underlying cause of overfishing’. The World Bank and the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) (2009) argue that there are strong economic dimensions to the global crisis in marine fisheries, stating that ‘if marine capture fisheries were organized to move fisheries in the direction of maximizing economic efficiency, then national fisheries sectors, fishing communities, and society as a whole would reap substantial economic benefits’ (World Bank and FAO 2009, p. 2). The state of inland fisheries is less well understood, with the FAO observing that there are contrasting views on the status of inland fisheries, ranging from concern that the sector is in ‘serious trouble’ to a view that the sector is growing and that much production and growth has been unreported (2010, p. 9). There is a view in literature that inland fisheries are often undervalued and that their importance in revenue generation and livelihoods is not sufficiently reflected in national policies or politics (FAO 2010; Welcomme et al. 2010), with Welcomme et al. (2010) expressing concern that the emphasis on overfishing in inland fisheries, influenced by experience in marine fisheries, has led to a view that aquaculture is the answer to declining catches, contributing to the neglect of inland capture fisheries.

In 2009, the FAO and World Bank published a report entitled ‘Sunken Billions’ with the aim of demonstrating how much potential revenue is lost from fisheries and to advocate for greater recognition of the need for the pursuit of economic efficiency in fisheries management. The report sets out seven points in its way forward, including the need to generate estimates of economic and social costs and benefits of reform to encourage dialogue, learning from reform processes, particularly with respect to the political economy of reform and the nature of reform pathways that could be followed (World Bank and FAO 2009). The report contributed to the call for greater recognition of the economic benefits of reforming fisheries management with the objective of economic efficiency and recognises that there are multiple paths towards that aim.

Cunningham et al. (2009, p. 272) go further and argue that there is a need to focus explicitly ‘on the inherent wealth of the fish resource in order to improve the practical performance of fisheries policy and management worldwide, and especially in developing countries’. They advocate progression towards a ‘WBFM’ approach, where the inherent wealth within fisheries is captured and contributes to economic growth, poverty alleviation and social welfare. The approach they advocate would involve the allocation of use rights and the introduction of appropriate fiscal measures to enable the economic rent to be captured, where economic rent refers to the profit obtained by an enterprise over and above that would be considered normal. The approach goes beyond advocating rights-based fisheries management, however, as the authors observe that ‘most current rights-based systems provide only a partial solution to stopping the destruction of wealth in fisheries, and such arrangements continue to evolve’ (2009, p. 275). WBFM requires the establishment of ‘meaningful fisheries management units (FMUs)’ each having an appropriate set of management instruments”, which would largely be market-based (2009, p. 279). A ‘fishery management unit’ refers to one or more target species that can be managed with the same objectives and instruments, rather than using broad-brush terms such as ‘small-scale’ or ‘industrial’ within a management context.

The adoption of a WBFM approach would require a transition, with the principle of WBFM established within national fisheries policy and recognition given to the failure of past policy which ‘has led to too many people and vessels depending directly on too few fish’ (Cunningham et al. 2009, p. 283). The approach then is likely to include capacity reduction and the search for alternative livelihoods (Cunningham et al. 2009). In moving towards WBFM, however, Cunningham et al. (2009, p. 279) state that the first step is to ‘improve the management of the fishery so as to generate sustainable wealth from fish resources’, which sounds rather a challenge given their recognition of the failure of much fisheries policy to prevent depletion of fish stocks. The principles of a WBFM approach were endorsed at the first Conference of African Ministers for Fisheries and Aquaculture (CAMFA) in 2010, where the report of the meeting urges ‘Member States and Regional Economic Communities (RECs) to Integrate wealth-based fisheries best practices into regional and national plans in order to expedite the sector growth and contribute enormously to the economic growth of States’ (African Union 2010, p. 5), providing further support for the approach at the international level.

In a stark response to the WBFM approach, Béné et al. (2010, p. 347) argue that what is needed instead is a ‘welfare model’ for fisheries management, where there is ‘investment in fisherfolk's health and education, improving the governance and efficiency of fishing-related labour markets, supporting gender equity, addressing justice and security, and upholding basic human rights’. Béné et al. (2010, p. 349) do not, however, completely reject WBFM, but suggest that there should be a transition towards such an approach, which would ‘follow the transformation of the rest of the formal economy, not precede it’. They argue that ‘poor governance and a weak public and private institutional context make it very difficult to ensure the creation, or subsequently the equitable redistribution, of this rent’ (2010, p. 348). The welfare model differentiates between providing a ‘labour buffer’, that is, jobs for unskilled labour, and a safety-net function (Béné et al. 2010). The labour buffer function reflects the relatively high level of dependence on fisheries of poorer sections of society in low-income countries than better-off households. Where there are few other alternative employment opportunities and limited access to capital, common pool resources, which fisheries often are, can play an important role in the livelihoods of the rural poor. Fisheries may also serve as a safety-net for periods of individual or collective economic crisis, for example when agricultural crops fail. The safety-net function is assumed to offer temporary assistance rather than be an essential long-term contributor to livelihoods.

Fundamental to the wealth vs. welfare debate is whether the emphasis of fisheries management should be on conservation and economic efficiency or maximization of catch and employment. With reference to arguments over individual transferable quota programmes, Hilborn (2007, p. 155) summarises this as a debate over objectives: ‘proponents of economic efficiency against those more concerned about jobs, social equity and community impacts’. Bromley (2009, p. 285), however, refers to this as a ‘false choice’, arguing that the concept of efficiency has been misrepresented by economists, presenting an either or case: economic efficiency or ‘jobs, social equity and community impacts’. He advocates instead a system where limits are recommended by scientists, which are then used to provide permits for a fixed amount of time, with a royalty payment for the privilege to fish and the opportunity for others to enter the fishery as the permits come up for renewal. This would be problematic in small-scale fisheries in developing countries, where, unless there are real alternative employment and income-generating opportunities, it would be very difficult to reduce access to fisheries and the lack of adequate scientific information would make it difficult to set limits (Cochrane 2000; Ratner and Baran 2008).

The question of access to fisheries is fundamental to the debate, whether the property regime should shift to private property rights, with a limited number of permits or quota, remain open to all or have common access for defined groups of people. There are strong advocates in favour of limiting access to fisheries, with the crisis in fisheries attributed not only to weak governance, but also to inadequate property rights regimes (World Bank 2004). Hilborn (2007, p. 157) argues that ‘eliminating open access and Olympic systems that provide incentives for high exploitation rates’ would lead to a situation where a new consensus can emerge where stakeholders reach agreement on how fisheries should be managed. Limiting access, then, is often seen as an essential part of the move towards more sustainable fisheries management.

In addition to the defining feature of access rights in these approaches, there are important gender and power dimensions, as the wealthier, more powerful and male segment of the fisheries population may well benefit from the transition to WBFM more than poorer fishers and women. Welfare-based approaches, however, should have the capacity to be informed by a gendered perspective, reflecting the different gender roles and needs within fisheries. Many, more traditional approaches to fisheries management have neglected the gender dimensions of fisheries, despite the ‘strong gender divisions of labour’ (Choo et al. 2008, p;.178) within fisheries. There is, however, growing recognition of the importance of fisheries for women and their role in often the ‘poorest paid and least recognized jobs in the fish supply chain’ (Choo et al. 2008, p. 176).

Finally, a major challenge for either management approach is the interaction of fisheries with the wider political, governance and economic environment in which it is situated, influencing the direction and effectiveness of fisheries management (Hilborn 2007; Béné et al. 2010; Ratner and Allison 2012). The wider political, governance and economic environment will inevitably influence decision-making within fisheries practice, management and governance at all levels, with a strong bearing on the choice, design and implementation of management approaches.

These key characteristics of the two approaches are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. Key characteristics of wealth- and welfare-based approaches to fisheries management
Wealth-based fisheries managementWelfare-based fisheries management
Principle of WBFM established in national fisheries policyRecognition of welfare functions (labour buffer and safety net) in national fisheries policy
Fisheries management units establishedInvestment in health and education of fisherfolk
Improve management to generate sustainable wealthImprovement of governance and efficiency of fishing-related labour markets
Fiscal measures to capture rentPursuit of gender equity
Allocation of use rightsBasic human rights upheld
Commitment to capacity reduction and search for alternative livelihoodsEmployment maximised

Lake Victoria fisheries

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. ‘Wealth vs. welfare’ or ‘wealth and welfare’?
  5. Lake Victoria fisheries
  6. The direction of fisheries policy
  7. Moves towards WBFM?
  8. Welfare by default?
  9. Wealth and welfare?
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. References

Lake Victoria is the second largest freshwater lake in the world and is a major fisheries resource in East Africa, with the fisheries contributing to the livelihoods of approximately two million people, including household members of those working within fisheries, as well as to local government revenue and to the national economies. Around US $600 million a year is generated in wealth, at the beach level and through exports (MRAG et al. 2008), with employment generated through boat owners employing boat crew (on average three per boat) and processing and trading fish, by both the processing factories and by local processors and traders, many of whom are women. There are few limits on entry to the fisheries, with constraints including the need to purchase a fishing permit and a boat licence and either secure employment or raise the capital to buy or rent a boat and gears. There are no limits on the number of licenses issued each year, though many fishers operate without a licence. To enter the fisheries, though, potential fishers should introduce themselves to beach leaders and seek permission to fish from the landing site.

The fisheries are largely artisanal, with labour intensive fishing from relatively small boats using paddles or sails, yet highly commercialised, with well-established trading routes for all three commercial fisheries. Although the fisheries of Lake Victoria had been commercially oriented since the 1920s, with the introduction of the gillnet fishery (Ford 1955), it wasn't until the 1970s and 1980s that commercialization took off, leading to massive increases in the numbers of boats and fishers on the lake, transforming lifestyles, societies and economies. The Nile perch fishery expanded considerably in the 1980s, becoming a high value, lucrative fishery, attracting the establishment of fish processing factories around the lake. Nile perch were introduced into the lake in the 1950s and 1960s, leading to the destruction of native fish species and whilst some have been critical of the destruction of biodiversity, others have noted the significant contribution to local economic growth and employment (Pringle 2005). Nile tilapia was also introduced around the same time and a more domestic and regional trade has built up around this fishery. In addition to the Nile perch and Nile tilapia fisheries, there is a third commercial fishery, the smaller sardine-like fish, known in the region as dagaa, mukene or omena. This is caught for both domestic consumption and for trade within the region and beyond in Africa, with much of the dried fish being transported to Southern Africa.

The total catch from Lake Victoria has increased during the last 20–30 years, with an annual catch of 100 000 tonnes in 1979 to over one million tonnes in 2007. There is, however, considerable concern about the status of the fish stocks, particularly of Nile perch, with estimates suggesting that the stocks have declined substantially in the 2000s (Kayanda et al. 2009). Dedicated efforts to recover the stocks through a ‘Nile perch recovery plan’ agreed in 2008 have yielded results, though the stocks are still perceived to be at a level of concern (LVFO 2010).

Responsibility for Lake Victoria's fisheries rests with the governments of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, which together formed a Regional Fisheries Organization in 1997. The Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO) has a complex structure of a Council of Ministers and Executive, Fisheries Management and Scientific Committees, made up of directors, or their delegated representatives, of the national fisheries departments and national fisheries research institutes. From 2010, representatives of fishing communities and the private processing industry joined the Executive Committee, as part of the adoption of a co-management approach. The work of LVFO was supported by a series of donor-funded projects in the 1990s and 2000s, notably by the European Union through the Lake Victoria Fisheries Research Project (LVFRP) in the 1990s and early 2000s and the Implementation of a Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP), 2003–10. In addition to scientific research and monitoring, and supporting compliance, the projects supported efforts to rationalise revenue raising and bring more of the revenue raised through taxation and charges back into fisheries, and make boat and fisher licensing more effective as management tools. In addition, the FAO provided support for the development of a Regional Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity, agreed in 2007. LVFO and the member states have also been supported through the World Bank funded Lake Victoria Environmental Management Project (LVEMP), Phase 1 of which ran from 1997 to 2005, with a second phase for eight years beginning in 2009.

In addition to the management role of the three governments, co-management was introduced on the lake in the late 1990s, with the support of LVEMP and IFMP. By 2006, all fisheries communities around the lake had formed community-based Beach Management Units (BMUs), in accordance with national legislation and guidelines. There are around 1069 BMUs on the lake, covering approximately 1400 landing sites, as some landing sites are too small to form a BMU on their own and so join with a neighbouring site or sites. Everyone working at a beach in fisheries is required to be registered with a BMU, together forming a BMU Assembly, with each BMU required to democratically elect a committee, whilst complying with guidance on composition to promote equitable representation from all major stakeholder groups within the beach-level fisheries. Each committee is required to have a membership made up of 30% boat owners, 30% boat crew, 30% ‘others’ (including fish processors, boat builders and net repairers) and 10% fishmongers. In addition, the national BMU Guidelines for each country require that at least three of the 9–12 committee members are women.

Beach Management Units have a range of functions, including the registration of people working in fisheries at the beach, the registration of vessels, the development and implementation of fisheries management and beach development plans and coordination of monitoring activities with neighbouring BMUs, and have the remit to raise revenue for their own activities, which should be set out in a plan approved by the BMU Assembly. At levels above the beach level, representatives of BMUs meet together within BMU Networks and with fisheries officers and potentially other government officers, NGOs, processing factories and traders in Co-management Committees. These have been formed at sub-district, district, national and regional levels to support the coordination and coherence of decision-making and implementation between and within levels, though not all have remained active.

The direction of fisheries policy

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. ‘Wealth vs. welfare’ or ‘wealth and welfare’?
  5. Lake Victoria fisheries
  6. The direction of fisheries policy
  7. Moves towards WBFM?
  8. Welfare by default?
  9. Wealth and welfare?
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. References

As Lake Victoria is a shared resource, fisheries management is influenced by national policies and legislation and by regional agreements, which both feed into and are influenced by national policies and legislation. The aims and objectives of fisheries policies are found in the national fisheries policies and are also stated in other national polices, strategies and plans, as shown in Table 2. The policies of Tanzania and Uganda have a significant emphasis on conservation and sustainable management of fisheries resources, with no mention of employment objectives, although revenue contribution is noted and improved livelihoods in the 2010 Fisheries Sector Development Programme of Tanzania. The fisheries policy in Kenya reflects much more closely the priorities of both wealth- and welfare-based management approaches, with four key themes within its overall objective: wealth creation, employment, food security and revenue generation, perhaps reflecting the more recent development of the policy in 2008, compared to 1997 in Tanzania, though a new policy is expected in 2012 or 2013, and 2004 in Uganda. In the national development plans, there is an emphasis on growth within fisheries, not necessarily through increasing catch, but through adding value during processing and through aquaculture and stocking small water bodies.

Table 2. Fisheries policy objectives: national and regional
 Fisheries policyOther documents
Kenya

National Ocean and Fisheries Policy (Republic of Kenya 2008)

Overall objective: to enhance the fisheries sector's contribution to wealth creation, increased employment for youth and women, food security, and revenue generation through effective private, public and community partnerships

There are nine specific objectives in the policy, including

 • To promote conservation and management of fisheries resources

 • To generate the maximum amount of employment

 • To maximise revenue from fisheries and other related activities

Kenya Vision 2030 (Republic of Kenya 2007)

Kenya will raise incomes in agriculture, livestock and fisheries even as industrial production and the service sector expand. This will be carried out by processing and thereby adding value to her products before they reach the market. This will be accomplished through an innovative, commercially oriented and modern agriculture, livestock and fisheries sector

Tanzania

Fisheries Sector Development Programme (United Republic of Tanzania 2010a)

The overall goal of the Fisheries Sector Development Programme is to develop a sustainable, competitive and more efficient fisheries and aquaculture industry that contributes to the improvement of the livelihoods of stakeholders and the national economy whilst preserving the environment

National Fisheries Sector Policy and Strategy Statement (United Republic of Tanzania 1997)

The overall goal is to promote conservation, development and sustainable management of the fisheries resources for the benefit of the present and future generations 11 specific objectives

 • To put into efficient use available resources in order to increase fish production so as to improve fish availability as well as contribute to the growth of the economy

 • To encourage and support all initiatives leading to the protection and sustainable use of the fish stocks and aquatic resources

National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty II (United Republic of Tanzania 2010b)

Goal 2: Reducing Income Poverty Through Promoting

Inclusive, Sustainable, and Employment-Enhancing Growth and Development

 • Growth of fisheries sub-sector increased from 2.7% in 2009 to 5.3% by 2015

 • Good management of revenue accruing from fisheries sector

Goal 4: Ensuring Food and Nutrition Security, Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

 • Food security at household, district, regional, and national levels ensured through increasing food crops, livestock and fishery production

 • Promoting increased fish production through aquaculture to complement

declining capture fisheries

Uganda

National Fisheries Policy (Department of Fisheries Resources 2004)

Goal: The overall fisheries sector goal is to ensure increased and sustainable fish production and utilization by properly managing capture fisheries, promoting aquaculture and reducing post harvest losses

There are 13 policy areas stated in the policy document, including sustainable management and development of fisheries, decentralization and community involvement in fisheries management, district, sub-county and community co-operation in fisheries management and institutions and funding mechanisms

Agriculture Sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan: 2010/11–2014/15 (Government of Uganda/MAAIF 2010)

 • Strengthening controls of illegal fishing

 • Promoting and supporting aquaculture and cage farming

 • Stocking of small water bodies including dams

These priorities were incorporated into the National Development Plan (Republic of Uganda 2010)

LVFO

LVFO Strategy 1999

Foster a common systems/resource management approach amongst the Contracting Parties in matters regarding Lake Victoria, with the goal of restoring and maintaining the health of its ecosystem, and assuring sustainable development to the benefit of the present and future generations

Council of Ministers Joint Communiqué, October 2008

Call for the governments to develop mechanisms for shared resource exploitation and shared-management, including the limitation of access and the use of user rights

Recommends the establishment of an endowment/revolving/trust fund at the LVFO secretariat where processors and other stakeholders can contribute funds for sustainable management of Lake Victoria and BMU activities

Regional Plan of Action to prevent, deter and eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing for Lake Victoria (2004)

Regional Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity in Lake Victoria (2007)

Fisheries Management Plan II (2009–2014)

Vision: Sustainable utilization of fisheries resources, managed through good governance to create prosperous fishing communities

Goal: contribute to the sustainable economic growth and reduction of poverty in East Africa

Purpose: effectively co-manage fisheries resources of Lake Victoria for sustainable fish production and socio- economic benefits

FMP II Objectives

Biological

 • Optimise sustainable fish production

Ecological

 • Minimise impacts of fishing on non-target species, particularly prey species

Conserve biodiversity hotspots

Economic

 • Maximise contribution to macro-economic growth through foreign exchange generated by exports of fish products

Maximise net income of participating artisanal fishers

Social

Maximise contribution to food security within national markets

 • Optimise utilization of fisheries resources through value addition

At a regional level, a ‘Strategic Vision for Lake Victoria’ (LVFO 1999) was developed for the period 1999–2015, which has a strong conservation emphasis, with a Fisheries Management Plan developed in 2001, replaced by a second plan in 2009. In addition, two Regional Plans of Action (RPOAs) have been created, on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing (LVFO 2004) and on managing fishing capacity (LVFO 2007b), which once agreed at regional level are then to be enacted into national legislation. This has not, however, happened completely for either of them. The policies and activities of the LVFO are directed by decisions made by the Council of Ministers, composed of the Ministers of Fisheries of each partner state, that is the body that approves documents such as the RPOAs. The 2008 and 2009 Communiqués of the Council of Ministers, for example, called for reductions in illegalities and in fishing capacity through the implementation of RPOA IUU and Capacity (LVFO 2008b, 2009b) and to eradicate ‘illegal gears, capture and trading in immature fishes to a minimum 50% by June 2009 and 100% by December 2009’ (LVFO 2009b). These ambitious targets have not been met and progress towards implementation of many of the measures in the RPOA Capacity is slow (Nunan and Kirema-Mukasa 2011). The two RPOAs, however, illustrate the concern within fisheries research and management about the sustainability of fishing, particularly within the Nile perch fishery, associated with illegalities and the level of fishing capacity.

In 2009, the second Fisheries Management Plan (FMP II) was approved, which contains three separate fishery management plans, recognising the different management measures needed for each of the three commercial fisheries. The vision of FMP II reflects the ‘Strategic Vision for Lake Victoria’ (LVFO 1999) in emphasising sustainability, whereas the goal suggests greater emphasis on the WBFM approach, as it seeks to contribute to sustainable economic growth and to the reduction of poverty in East Africa. There is, though, no mention of maintaining employment through the fisheries at the overarching vision, goal and purpose level. Within the specific fishery management plans, however, there is recognition that the different objectives, as shown in Table 2, have a different priority within each of the fisheries. The plan ranks both of the economic priorities as the primary objectives of the Nile perch fishery, whilst the dagaa and tilapia fisheries are more oriented towards the social objectives, as well as to the biological and ecological objectives. The economic and social objectives do not, however, refer to employment levels within the fisheries, though the document itself does refer to the importance of the fisheries for employment in the region.

The national policies then do not explicitly follow either wealth- or welfare-based approaches, though clearly there has been, and remains, substantial concern about stock levels and the level of extraction from the fisheries, attributed to high levels of illegalities and the level of fishing capacity around the lake. Conservation has dominated the policy objectives, with little mention of employment and livelihoods. The multiple objectives within the national policies are not clearly aligned to different fishery management units on the lake and other, more overarching, policy documents emphasise the need to invest in aquaculture in the face of declining catches from capture fisheries, suggesting that capture fisheries are not seen as having the potential to sufficiently recover to meet growing demands for fish.

Moves towards WBFM?

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. ‘Wealth vs. welfare’ or ‘wealth and welfare’?
  5. Lake Victoria fisheries
  6. The direction of fisheries policy
  7. Moves towards WBFM?
  8. Welfare by default?
  9. Wealth and welfare?
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. References

Wealth-based fisheries management requires that the economic rent is captured through revenue collection to facilitate economic efficiency. This should lead to a reduction in overcapacity and over-investment and thus to more sustainably managed fisheries, as well as to greater contribution by fisheries to economic growth and poverty reduction. According to Cunningham et al. (2009) the first steps in moving towards WBFM involve the establishment of fishery management units, more sustainable management and recognition by policy-makers of the inherent wealth within fisheries. On Lake Victoria, there are three well-established fisheries, which each could be managed as separate ‘fishery management units’, but although there are separate management plans for each of the three main species within the lakewide FMP II, these have not really yet influenced policy and practice at the national and local levels. This is evidenced in Table 2, in which there is little mention of the different characteristics and management needs of the three fisheries, although there is legislation on gear size and type for each fishery in national legislation.

A further step towards a wealth-based management approach is put forward as the improved management of the fisheries to generate sustainable wealth. Initiatives to improve management of the fisheries are diverse on Lake Victoria, as they would be in most fisheries, ranging from reviewing gear sizes to implementing co-management, in an attempt to engage fisheries stakeholders in the management process. The key challenge for fisheries management has been the scale of illegalities on the lake, from fishing with smaller than permitted gears to trading in undersized fish (LVFO 2009a,b, 2010). Despite high level commitment to addressing illegalities (LVFO 2009a,b), it is not possible to conclude that the lake fisheries are yet managed to generate sustainable wealth.

Central to WBFM is the capture of rent within fisheries to support fisheries management and national development through revenue to government. Fiscal measures to capture rent efficiently are not, however, fully in place, although there is a vast array of fees and licenses paid around the lake. Revenue is collected at many points in the value chain, by the BMUs themselves and by, or for, local and central government. Fisheries are very much seen as an important source of local and national revenue though the revenue system is not designed to incentivise sustainable fisheries behaviour. The main source of revenue at the district level from fisheries in Tanzania and Uganda is fees charged for the landing and sale of fish, the collection of which, in most cases, is contracted out. The private sector and BMUs are invited to bid in Uganda and Tanzania to collect revenue at markets and landing sites for district local government and must remit at least the minimum price, with no limit to the level of profit that can be accrued by the winning tenderer. In Tanzania, revenue collection is put out to tender for 80% of landing sites, with 45% of tenders held by BMUs in 2008 (Acworth et al. 2008). It has been estimated that about one third of revenue collected by the tender holder is remitted to local government in Tanzania, compared to around 6% in Uganda, indicating large profits for the Ugandan tender holders (Acworth et al. 2008). This results in potentially significant funds being taken out of the fisheries and not even used for wider development purposes (Ellis and Bahiigwa 2003). As the collection of many local revenue sources are obliged to be contracted out, challenging the collection of revenue from fisheries would require challenging a much bigger system of revenue raising. The award of tenders for revenue collection to individuals or companies rather than BMUs contributes to the challenge of BMUs having very low revenues, stifling their activities and contributing to their de-legitimization (Lawrence forthcoming).

Revenue is also generated from the Fish Movement Permit (FMP), which is issued to allow people to transport fish within country and is used as a way of tracing fish to where it was landed. In Uganda the FMP is issued by BMUs and is paid on a per kg basis, whereas the FMP is incorporated into fees paid to tender holders in Tanzania. In Kenya, the FMP is paid once a year by traders. The revenue from the FMP in Uganda is divided between the district and sub-district local government and BMUs, with the BMUs being eligible for 25% of the FMP revenue, though they do not always receive this amount. Legislation in each country allows BMUs to raise revenue for their own activities and running costs, although sources of revenue should be agreed by the BMU Assembly before being implemented by the BMU Committee. Revenue raised is used for paying for transport to attend meetings, go to the bank or to see a fisheries officer in another location, pay for stationery, fuel for the use of a motorised boat for surveillance operations and for development within the beach area, for example, though some BMUs may pay allowances to committee members as well. Most BMUs in practice, however, have very limited funds with which to carry out these activities.

Both LVEMP and IFMP supported the development of plans for funding fisheries management and research on the lake from revenue generated within fisheries, rather than relying on donor and/or government funding. LVEMP began this endeavour with a series of studies on how a fish levy trust fund could be developed. These studies in the early 2000s made recommendations on the types of institutional arrangements needed, who could contribute, levy rates, methods of collection of levies and how the resulting funds should be used (Macfadyen 2008). Although the recommendations from the studies were harmonised in 2004, there is no fish levy trust fund yet in place in any of the three countries. At the May 2010 meeting of the LVFO Council of Ministers, the partner states were urged again to put in place the fish levy trust fund (LVFO 2010). It had already been proposed in Uganda in the draft Fisheries Bill 2004 (Government of Uganda 2004), though this has yet to be finalised and passed, and is included in the 2012 Fisheries Management and Development Bill in Kenya (Government of Kenya 2012), so progress may be made on this issue in the coming years.

Tanzania and Kenya do however have export levies. In Tanzania, the export levy is charged at around 3% and represents 50–60% of revenue from Lake Victoria fisheries (Macfadyen 2008). Between 30 and 50% of the revenue generated from the export levy is given back to the Fisheries Division by the Ministry of Finance through a retention scheme, which enables revenue from fisheries to be reinvested in the sector, with some of the revenue sent to regional and district levels for direct use in fisheries management such as patrols and landing site infrastructure. Funding is not provided to BMUs directly from this revenue, although fisheries communities benefit to some degree from the reinvestment. This is in stark contrast to Kenya and Uganda. In Kenya the levy is charged at 0.5% and raises much less revenue and in Uganda there is currently no export levy, though the introduction of such a levy is included within the 2004 Fisheries Bill, yet to be passed. For 2007/2008, it was estimated that the export levy raised US $5.3 million for the national government in Tanzania (Macfadyen 2008).

A WBFM approach would also involve the allocation of some form of use rights, to control access to the fisheries. These are far from being allocated within the fisheries of Lake Victoria. Concern about fishing capacity has been demonstrated through the adoption of the RPOA Capacity, in which commitment was made to not go above 2006 levels of Nile perch fishing capacity, measured partially in terms of numbers of gears targeting Nile perch and to bring in species-specific licensing. This approach to licensing has been proposed in the 2012 fisheries bill in Kenya, but has not yet been implemented and would only be a step towards a process of allocating use rights which limit access. The lack of alternative livelihoods is indeed one of the reasons for which the restriction of access to the fisheries is politically unattractive, as well as the challenge of how decisions would be made about who would get licences and who would not. The need for the identification and promotion of alternative livelihoods is included in the RPOA Capacity (LVFO 2007b), though no action has yet been taken to push this agenda forward. The implementation of an effective system of use rights, which limits catch or fishing capacity is not really on the political agenda. Although there is commitment in the RPOA Capacity to generate more information on capacity measures, progress towards even this limited commitment is slow.

A number of policies have been adopted then that support the rhetoric of a wealth-based approach to fisheries management, but delivery on this rhetoric has proved difficult, despite the potential that exists for more of the existing revenue sources to be captured to support management and even development. Revenue-raising within fisheries is part of the broader landscape of government revenue raising and therefore perhaps beyond the capacity of one sector to push for change. In addition, a user rights scheme that works to limit access, whether by numbers of fishers, vessels or catch, also seems far from adoption and would be very difficult to implement.

Welfare by default?

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. ‘Wealth vs. welfare’ or ‘wealth and welfare’?
  5. Lake Victoria fisheries
  6. The direction of fisheries policy
  7. Moves towards WBFM?
  8. Welfare by default?
  9. Wealth and welfare?
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. References

If there is little evidence of a strong commitment towards a wealth-based management approach of Lake Victoria fisheries, are there elements of a welfare-based approach? The characteristics of a welfare-based approach include providing jobs for unskilled labour, a safety-net for times when alternatives are limited and maximising employment. This suggests that access to the fisheries should not be limited or constrained and should therefore be ‘open’. Many consider Lake Victoria fisheries to be open access, despite there being limited constraints on access such as the need to obtain a fishing licence, securing employment as a boat crew or having the capital to buy a boat and gear. As observed by Lawrence (in progress), the view of Lake Victoria fisheries being open access is supported by the fact that licensing is not used as a tool to restrict effort, the costs of entering the fisheries are relatively low and enforcement of legislation is limited, contributing to a prevalence of illegalities, including fishing without a licence. Entry into the fisheries, then, is not limited to a particular number of fishers. Since at least 2006 there have been almost 200 000 fishers around the lake, including boat crew and owners. The majority of these are male and it has been estimated from BMU registration data and other sources that between a quarter and a third of those working in fisheries at the beach level are women. The number of fishers has increased by around 50% since 2000, as shown in Table 3, with the number of vessels increasing by around the same percentage. Most of the vessels are powered by paddles, with almost a third operated by an outboard engine in Uganda and Tanzania, and just 12% in Kenya. Between 2008 and 2010, a decline in the number of vessels and fishers was recorded, though reasons for this are not sought in the frame survey, the decline of the Nile perch stocks could be at least partially responsible. In addition to the many people working directly in fisheries, including fishers, traders, processors and boat builders, at, and around, the approximate 1400 landing sites there are many other households and businesses in villages and towns that rely on the fisheries sector.

Table 3. Number of fishers and vessels, 2000–10
 200020022004200620082010% Change 2000–10
Number of fishers129 305175 890153 066196 426199 242193 45950
Number of vessels42 51952 47651 59268 83667 51364 68952

One of the arguments in favour of a welfare approach to fisheries management in developing countries is that the fisheries provide a safety-net for individuals and nations in times of crisis. It is unclear, however, how far this is the case on Lake Victoria, although it is known that many people with fisheries also farm as part of their livelihoods (Geheb and Binns 1997). Fisheries remain, however, the most important source for many within the sector. Respondents of a lakewide survey estimated that fisheries provides between 70 and 80% of their household income, with around 70% for women, 74% for boat owners and over 80% for boat crew (LVFO 2008a).

There is no intervention in fishing-related labour markets though and limited efforts to promote gender equity. In the co-management system there is a requirement that at least one third of BMU Committees members are women. Around 75% of BMUs complied with this by 2006, though very few women had executive positions, with only 2% of Chairpersons being female compared to 33% of Treasurers and 5% Secretaries (LVFO ). Many income-generating opportunities are gender specific, with very few women working as boat crew, but local processors at the beach level are more likely to be women than men. Gender roles and relations are considered highly relevant in understanding the prevalence and nature of HIV/AIDS in the fisheries sector, which in the developing world is considered to be a ‘hot-spot’ for HIV/AIDS (Allison and Seeley 2004; Kissling et al. 2005), with women seen as particularly vulnerable, due to the pressure to engage in risky sexual behaviour to secure access to fish at many landing sites (Béné and Merten 2008; Nunan 2010). This is clearly an issue that should be addressed by a welfare-based approach to fisheries management. Whilst there is a strategy to tackle HIV/AIDS within the fisheries communities of Lake Victoria (LVFO 2007a), resources to support implementation have not materialised to a sufficient degree.

A welfare approach to fisheries would also emphasise the need for development within fisheries communities, including ensuring access to education, health and other infrastructure, for example. Table 4 sets out some of the data from Lake Victoria reflecting access to services. The data were drawn from the lakewide socio-economic monitoring surveys in 2007 and 2008 (LVFO 2007c, 2008a) and from the biennial frame surveys and illustrates the limited access to and uptake of many services, apart from mobile phone network coverage.

Table 4. Services around the lake (2007 and 2010 data)
 KenyaTanzaniaUgandaLakewide
  1. a

    LVFO (2007c).

  2. b

    Frame Survey National Working Group – Kenya (2010), Frame Survey National Working Group – Tanzania (2010) and Frame Survey National Working Group – Uganda (2010).

Bank accountsa
Boat owners26224230
Boat crew52.554
Women1071812
Savings schemesa
Boat owners56342639
Boat crew46111323
Women79443151
Landing sites with a health clinic within 2 kmb38314638
Landing sites with electricityb11847
Landing sites with potable drinking waterb491711
Landing sites with mobile phone networkb92928389

In terms of access to education, most of the landing sites have a primary school within 2 km, however survey data have shown that many boat crew and women in Uganda in particular had no education or had not completed primary schooling (LVFO 2008a). Completion rates are lower in the fisheries communities compared to the national primary school completion rates for 2005 in all three countries, suggesting that more attention should be paid to education within fisheries communities, reaching out to adults as well as children.

Finally, a welfare-based approach to fisheries management would imply a human-rights based approach, recognising the rights of fishers to food and decent work (Allison et al. 2012). As a measure of rights, the Freedom House Index rates Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda as only partly free, with only moderate protection of political rights and civil liberties (Freedom House 2012). The status of rights within the countries is necessarily reflected within fisheries, though the suggestion by Allison et al. (2012) and in the welfare-based approach (Béné et al. 2010) that a rights-based approach is adopted within fisheries management and development would strengthen the poverty reduction potential. There is limited indication of a human rights approach being taken within fisheries policy and management on Lake Victoria, with the requirement that women and boat crew, previously not given formal status in fisheries management structures, serve in BMU Committees (LVFO 2007d). This suggests a small step in terms of a desire that all stakeholders be represented and participate in management, but in practice the nature and extent of effective participation and representation varies (Nunan et al. 2012).

Wealth and welfare?

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. ‘Wealth vs. welfare’ or ‘wealth and welfare’?
  5. Lake Victoria fisheries
  6. The direction of fisheries policy
  7. Moves towards WBFM?
  8. Welfare by default?
  9. Wealth and welfare?
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. References

Table 5 provides a summary of the wealth- and welfare-based analysis of fisheries management on Lake Victoria, analysing policies and practice. The management of Lake Victoria fisheries is characterised by elements of both approaches, though with more rhetoric on the side of WBFM than practice. The fisheries are important as a source of employment and income, with the revenue potential for investment in fisheries and wider development largely unrealised, despite the diversity of charges, taxes and fees in place around the lake at multiple levels. The policies and strategies of the three governments and of LVFO speak to both agendas, though with significant emphasis placed on sustainability and conservation, influenced by concern about declining stock levels and catches of Nile perch.

Table 5. Analysis of wealth- and welfare-based fisheries management characteristics on Lake Victoria
Wealth-based fisheries managementLake VictoriaWelfare-based fisheries managementLake Victoria
Principle of WBFM established in national fisheries policy

• More explicit in Kenya's 2008 policy compared to Tanzania's (1997) and Uganda's (2004)

• RPOA Capacity approved in 2007 with the aim of monitoring and controlling capacity

• LVFO 2009a,b Fisheries Management Plan does not have a strong WBFM focus, though has an objective of maximising contribution to macro-economic growth through foreign exchange generated by exports of fish products

Recognition of welfare functions (labour buffer and safety net) in national fisheries policy

• More explicit in Kenya (‘generate maximum employment’), than in Tanzania and Uganda

• LVFO's FMP Vision includes reference to the creation of ‘prosperous fishing communities’; economic objectives include: maximise net income of participating artisanal fishers

Fisheries management units establishedThree fisheries management units recognised in LVFO FMP (2009). No explicit reference to separate fisheries in national policies, only through specific legislation e.g. on gears.Investment in health and education of fisherfolkPrimary healthcare fairly accessible, though standards vary. Education levels in fisheries communities lower than national averages. No evidence of specific investment
Improve management to generate sustainable wealthNile perch recovery plan agreed to but financial commitments not realised to pursue the planImprovement of governance and efficiency of fishing-related labour marketsNo evidence of intervention in fishing-related labour markets
Fiscal measures to capture rentFiscal measures exist but limited in scope in terms of capturing rent and reinvestmentPursuit of gender equityLimited pursuit of gender equity. Places on BMU committees reserved for women
Allocation of use rightsNo limits on licensing, though commitment to limit Nile perch capacity at 2006 level in RPOA Capacity, but not acted on to dateBasic human rights upheldNo evidence of a human rights-based approach taken within the fisheries sector. Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda all assessed as ‘partly free’ by Freedom House in 2011
Commitment to capacity reduction and search for alternative livelihoods

Commitment to capacity management in RPOA Capacity, but implementation not significant

Need for alternative livelihoods recognised in RPOA Capacity, but no significant pursuit of this

Maximising employmentAccess is relatively open; no limit on number of licenses; number of fishers recorded in biennial frame survey just under 200 000 between 2006 and 2010

From a wealth-based management perspective, policies include pledges to limit the fishing effort for Nile perch at 2006 levels, introduce species-specific licensing and monitor and develop measures to manage fishing capacity. In addition, there has been lakewide commitment within fisheries for many years for the introduction of a fish levy, yet only Tanzania has really introduced this, due to lack of political commitment. Despite these policy commitments, access remains fairly open, with high employment and multiplier effects for the local and regional economies. Although there are significant welfare benefits, the fisheries sector and communities have not benefited from any significant investment.

The management approach of Lake Victoria's fisheries can be characterised as being poorly resourced by government and hence poorly implemented, supporting the WBFM call for capturing more of the wealth to support management and governance.

Conclusion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. ‘Wealth vs. welfare’ or ‘wealth and welfare’?
  5. Lake Victoria fisheries
  6. The direction of fisheries policy
  7. Moves towards WBFM?
  8. Welfare by default?
  9. Wealth and welfare?
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. References

Can, then, the management of Lake Victoria fisheries be characterised as wealth- or welfare-based, or perhaps neither, instead reflecting an approach focused on maintaining stock levels and catches, with the rent capture and limits on access agendas too politically contentious to seriously take on? The case of Lake Victoria highlights the complexity of objectives in a mixed, small-scale fishery, aiming to contribute to government revenue and economic growth, whilst also delivering on employment and other welfare objectives. The case raises questions for policy and commentary on management approaches concerning the drive towards, and potential for, a wealth-based approach. The initiatives associated with a more WBFM approach have been driven forward with donor support, potentially raising questions about political commitment and priorities. National political priorities for the fisheries have been more concerned with tackling illegalities, as a way to reduce catches and bring stock levels back to what are perceived as more sustainable levels. The donor supported projects have included elements to develop financial sustainability and move towards a more closed system, with limited access. A shift in these directions beyond rhetoric has proved difficult, suggesting that without economic development within the countries and creation of alternative employment opportunities, the pragmatic approach taken by the national governments to fisheries management on Lake Victoria is inevitable. This supports Béné et al.'s (2010, p. 349) contention that ‘until developing countries’ economies have been strengthened, formal social-security mechanisms established, and institutional and governance conditions put in place to ensure an effective redistribution of the sector's rent, pursuing a wealth-based approach would be premature and harmful’. In addition to this assertion, however, it appears that pursuing a wealth-based approach is constrained by insufficient political support and government capacity to implement such an approach, although elements of it, particularly capturing more of the revenue, would be helpful in strengthening government resources and capacity, rather than so much of the revenue leaving the sector and being used for private gain.

The welfare-based management approach is also difficult to pursue in a meaningful way because of the need to attract government investment in the fisheries communities, to improve living conditions, access roads, electricity supplies, access to healthcare and education, amongst many other public services. This is beyond the remit of a fisheries department to commit to as many other government departments would have to commit resources for the improvement of access to public services. Fisheries departments can, however, raise awareness of the need for improved services and lobby other departments for greater recognition of the needs of fisheries communities and work with local governments in seeking local resource as well as national resource allocation.

Investigating fisheries management regimes for elements of wealth- and welfare-based management approaches highlights the difficulties fisheries managers face in being direct in communicating their objectives, which in this case, speak to multiple agendas. The findings reflect the challenges of sectoral approaches where greater awareness of, and attention to, fisheries communities and management is needed from many government departments, particularly for a welfare-based approach. The analysis enabled by the framework provided by these approaches highlights areas where progress could be made to improve welfare, through, for example, the recognition of rights and investment in the development of fisheries communities. Such welfare improvements could then lead to an approach that encapsulates some of the wealth-based management thinking, especially the capture of rent for use in fisheries management and development, as well as contributing to economic growth and poverty reduction.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. ‘Wealth vs. welfare’ or ‘wealth and welfare’?
  5. Lake Victoria fisheries
  6. The direction of fisheries policy
  7. Moves towards WBFM?
  8. Welfare by default?
  9. Wealth and welfare?
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. References

This article draws on research undertaken by the authors through the European Union-funded Implementation of a Fisheries Management Plan project (EDF No.8 ACP ROR 029), led by the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO). The authors acknowledge the support of LVFO and the national fisheries research institutes in enabling the study to be carried out and the cooperation of all interviewees and focus group participants. The views presented here are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of LVFO, the service contract partners (Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG) Ltd., PMTC and Lamans), the European Union or the national fisheries departments and research institutes.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. ‘Wealth vs. welfare’ or ‘wealth and welfare’?
  5. Lake Victoria fisheries
  6. The direction of fisheries policy
  7. Moves towards WBFM?
  8. Welfare by default?
  9. Wealth and welfare?
  10. Conclusion
  11. Acknowledgements
  12. References
  • Acworth, J., Malleret-King, D., Advani, R. and Namisi, P. (2008) Sustainable Financing of Beach Management Units on Lake Victoria, Consultancy Report No. 11. Green Solutions (Unique Forestry Consultants – East Africa Ltd.), Kampala.
  • African Union (2010) Report of the First Conference of African Ministers for Fisheries and Aquaculture. African Union, Addis Ababa.
  • Allison, E.H. and Seeley, J.A. (2004) HIV and AIDS among fisherfolk: a threat to ‘responsible fisheries’? Fish and Fisheries 5, 215234.
  • Allison, E.H., Ratner, B.D., Åsgård, B., Willmann, R., Pomeroy, R. and Kurien, J. (2012) Rights-based fisheries governance: from fishing rights to human rights. Fish and Fisheries 13, 1429.
  • Béné, C. and Merten, S. (2008) Women and fish-for-sex: transactional sex, HIV/AIDS and gender in African Fisheries. World Development 36, 875899.
  • Béné, C., Hersoug, B. and Allison, E.H. (2010) Not by rent alone: analysing the pro-poor functions of small-scale fisheries in developing countries. Development Policy Review 28, 325358.
  • Bromley, D.W. (2009) Abdicating responsibility: the deceits of fisheries policy. Fisheries, 34, 280290.
  • Choo, P.S., Nowak, B.S., Kusakabe, K. and Williams, M.J. (2008) Guest editorial: gender and fisheries. Development 51, 176179.
  • Cochrane, K.L. (2000) Reconciling sustainability, economic efficiency and equity in fisheries: the one that got away? Fish and Fisheries 1, 321.
  • Cunningham, S., Neiland, A.E., Arbuckle, M. and Bostock, T. (2009) Wealth-based fisheries management: using fisheries wealth to orchestrate sound fisheries policy in practice. Marine Resource Economics 24, 271287.
  • Department of Fisheries Resources (2004) National Fisheries Policy. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Government of Uganda, Kampala.
  • Ellis, F. and Bahiigwa, G. (2003) Livelihoods and rural poverty reduction in Uganda. World Development 31, 9971013.
  • FAO (2010) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
  • Ford, V.C.R. (1955) The Trade of Lake Victoria: A Geographical Study, East African Studies No. 3. East African Institute of Social Research, Kampala.
  • Frame Survey National Working Group – Kenya (2010) Lake Victoria (Kenya) Biennial Fisheries Frame Survey 2010 National Report. Ministry of Fisheries Development, Nairobi.
  • Frame Survey National Working Group – Tanzania (2010) Report on Lake Victoria Fisheries Frame Survey Results 2010–Tanzania. Ministry of Livestock Development and Fisheries, Dar es Salaam.
  • Frame Survey National Working Group – Uganda (2010) National Report of the Frame Survey 2010 on the Uganda Side of Lake Victoria. Department of Fisheries Resources, Entebbe.
  • Freedom House (2012) http://www.freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world (accessed 23 October 2012).
  • Geheb, K. and Binns, T. (1997) ‘Fishing Farmers’ or ‘Farming Fishermen’? The quest for household income and nutritional security on the Kenyan Shores of Lake Victoria African Affairs 96, 7393.
  • Government of Kenya (2012) Fisheries Management and Development Bill 2012. Government of Kenya, Nairobi.
  • Government of Uganda (2004) The Fisheries Bill, Draft. Government of Uganda, Kampala.
  • Government of Uganda/MAAIF (2010) Agriculture Sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan: 2010/11–2014/15. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Kampala.
  • Hilborn, R. (2007) Defining success in fisheries and conflicts in objectives. Marine Policy 31, 153158.
  • Kayanda, R., Taabu, A.M., Tumwebaze, R. et al. (2009) Status of the major commercial fish stocks and proposed species-specific management plans for Lake Victoria. African Journal of Tropical Hydrobiology and Fisheries 12, 1521.
  • Kissling, E., Allison, E.H., Seeley, J.A. et al. (2005) Fisherfolk are among groups most at risk of HIV: cross-country analysis of prevalence and numbers infected. AIDS 19, 19391946.
  • Lawrence, T.J. (forthcoming) Taking the ‘co’ out of ‘co-management’: the deligitimization of fishing communities on Lake Victoria, E. Africa. In: Water Co-Management (eds G. Krantzberg and V.I. Grover). Science Publishers, Enfield, NH, pp. 168196.
  • Lawrence, T.J. (in progress) Defining concepts of fishery co-management on Lake Victoria, East Africa. Ph.D. – Resource Policy and Behavior. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
  • LVFO (1999) Strategic Vision for Lake Victoria (1999–2015). Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization, Jinja.
  • LVFO (2004) LVFO Regional Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing on Lake Victoria and its Basin. LVFO, Jinja.
  • LVFO (2007a) HIV/AIDS in Fishing Communities of Lake Victoria: A Strategy and Action Plan. LVFO, Jinja.
  • LVFO (2007b) Regional Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity in Lake Victoria (RPOA-Capacity). LVFO, Jinja.
  • LVFO (2007c) Regional Synthesis of the 2007 Socio-economic Monitoring Survey of the Fishing Communities of Lake Victoria. Implementation of a Fisheries Management Plan, Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization, Jinja.
  • LVFO (2007d) Guidelines for Fisheries Co-management on Lake Victoria. Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization, Jinja.
  • LVFO (2008a) Draft Regional Synthesis of the 2008 Socio-economic Monitoring Survey of the Fishing Communities of Lake Victoria. Implementation of a Fisheries Management Plan, Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization, Jinja.
  • LVFO (2008b) The Joint Communiqué of the Council of Ministers of the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization issued in Kampala, Uganda on 29th October 2008. Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization, Jinja.
  • LVFO (2009a) The Fisheries Management Plan for Lake Victoria 2009–2014. Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization, Jinja.
  • LVFO (2009b) The Joint Communiqué of the Council of Ministers of the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization issued in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on 27th February 2009. Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization, Jinja.
  • LVFO (2010) Report of the 5th Special Session of the LVFO Council of Ministers Speke Resort, Munyonyo, Kampala, Uganda 28th May 2010. LVFO, Jinja.
  • LVFO (2012) www.lvfo.org (accessed 23 October 2012).
  • LVFO (n.d.) People in Lake Victoria Fisheries: Livelihoods, Empowerment and Participation, Information Sheet 1. IFMP, LVFO, Jinja.
  • Macfadyen, G. (2008) Sustainable financing of LVFO institutions and development of a business plan for the organisation. IFMP Consultancy Report No. 41, MRAG Ltd, London.
  • Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG), PMTC, and Lamans (2008) Provision of Technical Services for the Implementation of a Fisheries Management Plan for Lake Victoria: Final Report. MRAG, London.
  • Nunan, F. (2010) Mobility and fisherfolk livelihoods on Lake Victoria: implications for vulnerability and risk. Geoforum 41, 776785.
  • Nunan, F. and Kirema-Mukasa, C.T. (2011) Property rights and regimes: implications of managing capacity through co-management on Lake Victoria, East Africa. Paper presented at 2011 Conference of the International Association for the Study of the Commons (IASC), Hyderabad, 10–14 January.
  • Nunan, F., Luomba, J., Lwenya, C.A., Ntambi, B., Odongkara, K. and Yongo, E.O. (2012) Finding space for participation: fisherfolk mobility and co-management of Lake Victoria fisheries. Environmental Management 50, 204216.
  • Pringle, R.M. (2005) The Nile perch in Lake Victoria: local responses and adaptations. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute 75, 510538.
  • Ratner, B.D. and Allison, E.A. (2012) Wealth, rights, and resilience: an agenda for governance reform in small-scale fisheries. Development Policy Review 30, 371398.
  • Ratner, B.D. and Baran, E. (2008) From sound economics to sound management: practical solutions to small-scale fisheries governance in the developing world. MAST: Maritime Studies 6, 2933.
  • Republic of Kenya (2007) Kenya Vision 2030. National Economic and Social Council of Kenya, Office of the President, Nairobi.
  • Republic of Kenya (2008) National Oceans and Fisheries Policy, 2008. Ministry of Fisheries Development, Nairobi.
  • Republic of Uganda (2010) National Development Plan 2010/11–2014/15. National Planning Authority, Kampala.
  • United Republic of Tanzania (1997) National Fisheries Sector Policy and Strategy Statement. Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism, Dar es Salaam.
  • United Republic of Tanzania (2010a) Fisheries Sector Development Programme. Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development, Dar es Salaam.
  • United Republic of Tanzania (2010b) National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty II. Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs, Dar es Salaam.
  • Welcomme, R.L., Cowx, I., Coates, D. et al. (2010) Fisheries, inland capture. Transactions, Philosophical of the Royal Society, B 365, 28812896.
  • World Bank (2004) Saving Fish and Fishers: Towards Sustainable and Equitable Governance of the Global Fishing Sector. World Bank, Washington, DC
  • World Bank and FAO (2009) The Sunken Billions: The Economic Justification for Fisheries Reform. World Bank, Washington, DC.