CASE STUDY REPORT
Legal Aspects of Achieving the Aichi
Biodiversity Targets
Kenya, Fisheries (Beach Management Units)
Regulations, 2007
Aichi Biodiversity Target No. 6
(Sustainable Aquatic Harvesting)
By Zipporah Nyambura Ngige and Aline Jaeckel
International Development
Law Organization (IDLO)
Viale Vaticano, 106
00165 Rome, Italy
Tel +39 06 40403200
Fax +39 06 40403232
www.idlo.int
This legal working paper is intended to provide guidance and inspiration to
countries striving to further implement the Convention on Biological Diversity
and achieve the Aichi Biodiversity Targets.
LEGAL WORKING PAPER
Legal Aspects of Achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets
Case Study Report: Kenya, Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations,
2007
Aichi Biodiversity Target No. 6 (Sustainable Aquatic Harvesting)
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.
The Legal Measure: Beach Management Units ............................................................................... 3
2.1
The Law: Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations .............................................. 4
2.2
Achieving the Aichi Target .................................................................................................. 5
2.3
Related International Law................................................................................................... 6
2.4
Related Domestic Law......................................................................................................... 8
3.
The Process of Legal Reform ............................................................................................................ 9
3.1
The Origins of Reform ......................................................................................................... 9
3.2
The Key Challenges and Players ........................................................................................ 10
3.3
Achieving Reform .............................................................................................................. 12
4.
Experience in Implementation....................................................................................................... 14
4.1
Implementation Successes ............................................................................................... 14
4.2
Administrative Mechanisms ............................................................................................. 15
4.3
Enforcement Challenges ................................................................................................... 16
4.4
Institutions ........................................................................................................................ 18
4.5
Awareness raising and knowledge sharing ....................................................................... 19
5.
Key Lessons Learned ...................................................................................................................... 20
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
2
LEGAL WORKING PAPER
Case Study Report: Kenya, Fisheries (Beach Management Units)
Regulations, 2007
Aichi Biodiversity Target No. 6 (Sustainable Aquatic Harvesting)
1. Introduction
Against the background of declining fish stocks and ineffective fisheries laws and
policies, Kenya has implemented a regional approach to fisheries management
through the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization and established an innovative
system of fisheries co-management with Beach Management Units as the
institutional basis. This allows co-management of local fisheries by communities
and the Kenyan government, and is accompanied by a legal recognition of
stakeholders as stewards of aquatic resources. The participation of local
communities is a vital factor in achieving the sustainable use and management of
aquatic resources.
This case study introduces the legal measures that Kenya has used to initiate the
shift towards fisheries co-management, namely the Fisheries (Beach Management
Units) Regulations, 2007. Section 2 of the case study provides an overview of the
legal measure, specifies the links to Aichi Target 6, highlights the relevant
international legal obligations that the measure helps to implement, as well as area
of domestic law that are relevant for such reform. Section 3 describes the process
of legal reform, highlighting the underlying social and political challenges, the
decision making process, and key actors in the reform process. Section 4 assesses
the implementation of the legal measure by describing successes and remaining
challenges, including administrative and institutional aspects. Lastly, Section 5
provides the key lessons learned from Kenya’s reforms for developing more
sustainable fisheries.
2. The Legal Measure: Beach Management Units
Responding to declines in fish stocks and decreasing aquatic biodiversity, Kenya has
established an innovative system to co-manage both freshwater and marine
fisheries through representative Beach Management Units. Beach Management
Units bring together everyone involved in fisheries on a local level (fishermen, boat
owners, boat crew, traders, processors, boat builders and repairers, net repairers
and others1) and constitute the link between local communities and the
government, thus facilitating co-management of fisheries. The aim is to integrate
local and national management to achieve sustainable management of aquatic
1
Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations, 2007 (Legal Notice No. 402 of 2007, 21 Dec 2007) of the
Fisheries Act, 1989 (Act No 5 of 1989), revised 1991 at Rule 10.
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
3
biodiversity, making use of both traditional knowledge and modern scientific
findings.2
2.1 The Law: Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations
The Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations have reformed Kenyan
fisheries law to facilitate co-management between government and local
communities over aquatic environments and harvests. Its objectives include3:
(a) strengthening the management of fish-landing stations, fishery resources
and the aquatic environment;
(b) supporting the sustainable development of the fisheries sector;
(c) helping to alleviate poverty and improve the health, welfare and livelihoods
of the members through improved planning and resource management, good
governance, democratic participation and self-reliance;
(d) recognising the various roles played by different sections of the community,
including women, in the fisheries sector; and
(f) building the capacity of members for the effective management of fisheries in
collaboration with other stakeholders.
Under the Regulations, Beach Management Units have exclusive management
rights over fish landing sites and consist of an assembly, an executive committee,
and may also include sub-committees.4 They are required to provide data on
catches5 and develop co-management plans to ensure sustainable fisheries in that
area.6 Such management plans must be approved by the Director of Fisheries and
include measures such as closing certain areas to fishing, closing areas during
breeding seasons, restricting fishing gear, and limiting the number of fishing
vessels.7 Beach Management Units are required to protect the aquatic environment
and cooperate with authorities to that effect.8 Beach Management Units must put
their management plans into effect through by-laws, which are developed by each
Beach Management Unit and approved by the Director of Fisheries.9 Such by-laws
must comply with existing legislation but may go beyond legislative requirements
on environmental and biodiversity protection.10
Beach Management Units also possess certain law-enforcement powers on gear
regulations, registration of vessels, and protection of fishing grounds. Beach
Management Units self-monitor performance,11 along with external, authorized
See for example the role of the Executive Committee for a Beach Management Unit, Vincent O Ogwang, Timothy
Odende and Roseline Okwach (Republic of Kenya, Department of Fisheries), Implementation of a Fisheries
Management Plan for Lake Victoria: National Beach Management Unit Guidelines (January 2006), at sections
6.5.1.j. and 6.5.1.k.
3
Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations, 2007, Rule 3(3).
4
Ibid, Rule 4.
5
Ibid, Rule 6(2).
6
Ibid, Rule 7(4).
7
Ibid, Rule 7(4).
8
Ibid, Rule 8(1).
9
Ibid, Rule 7(7).
10
Ibid, Rule 8(2).
11
Ibid, Rule 26(d).
2
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
4
fisheries officers in six months intervals.12 To defray the costs of their operations,
Beach Management Units can receive funding from the Ministry of Fisheries
Development. Moreover, Beach Management Units can generate their own income
through membership fees, taxing migrant fishers, or vessel registration fees, for
example.13
Unlike the previous top-down approach in Kenyan fisheries law, the 2007 Fisheries
(Beach Management Units) Regulations create institutional linkages both
horizontally and vertically. Nonetheless, the overall responsibility of monitoring and
supervising Beach Management Units is still vested with the Ministry of Fisheries
Development.14
2.2 Achieving the Aichi Target
The Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations address a range of actions
necessary to achieve Aichi Target 6, including:

prevention of overfishing through legal measures, such as co-management
plans and by-laws adopted by Beach Management Units15;

sustainable management of fisheries, including through alternative means of
income for local communities16;

regulation of destructive fishing techniques17;

implementation of recovery plans and temporary closures of certain areas to
fishing18;

involvement of local communities, expressly recognizing the role of women19;

integration of traditional knowledge20; and

increased coordination between various governance levels.
The crucial element of the Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations is comanagement, making the extent and success of measures dependent on the rigour
of local Beach Management Units.
A further dimension that helps to achieve the Aichi Target is the underlying
rationale of environmental stewardship. Through the concept of Beach Management
Units, stakeholders become the stewards of aquatic resources and are thus actively
involved in decision making, implementation, and monitoring processes.21 Such a
12
Ogwang, Odende and Okwach, supra at p 23.
Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations, 2007, Rule 28.
14
Joshua E Cinner et al, ‘Toward institutions for community-based management of inshore marine resources in the
Western Indian Ocean’ (2009) 33(3) Marine Policy 489-496, at p 491.
15
Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations, 2007, Sections 3(3)(b), 6(8)(b), and 7-8.
16
Ibid, Rules 6(5) and 6(8)(b).
17
Ibid, Rule 7(4); See also Ogwang, Odende and Okwach, supra at ss 3.3.iii, 6.5.1.b, 7.3.d
18
Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations, 2007, Rule 7(4).
19
Ibid, Rule 3(3)(d).
20
See for example the role of the Executive Committee for a Beach Management Unit in Ogwang, Odende and
Okwach, supra at s 6.5.1.k.
21
Ministry of Fisheries Development, available at
http://www.fisheries.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=76 (last accessed 4
October 2012).
13
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
5
system of legal empowerment and co-management is a shift of paradigm in
ownership and fisheries management in Kenya.22
The Government Guidelines explicitly recognise that:
The fisheries resources of Kenya and the waters within which they are found are
a common property shared in utilization by the people of Kenya. These resources
are held in trust by the government on behalf of the present and future
generation as is enshrined in the country’s constitution. The economic and
livelihood gain of the resource to the fishing community cannot be
overemphasized and as such their participation in the management, as owners of
the resource, is paramount.23
In recognition of such innovative features, the Regulations were amongst the 31
policies nominated for the Future Policy Award 2012 by the World Future Council.24
The Award focuses on policies marking a significant progress for sustainable
development in the interest of current and future generations.25
In sum, the Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations are innovative as they
combine the following elements:

address several measures necessary to achieve Target 6 on sustainable
aquatic harvesting, including the prevention of overfishing through restricting
fishing gear and establishing recovery plans;

create new horizontal and vertical linkages between various participants in
fisheries management;

institutionalize such linkages through Beach Management Units;

explicitly recognize the role of women in fisheries communities

legally empower local stakeholders; and

explicitly recognize environmental stewardship.
Although the implementation of the Fisheries (Beach Management Units)
Regulations has met some hurdles, this does not diminish its value as an innovative
legal measure.
2.3 Related International Law
The Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations help achieve Kenya’s
international legal obligations, first and foremost those under the Convention on
Biological Diversity.26 Article 8 of the Convention establishes several legal
obligations which the Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations aim to
address. These include the obligations to: Establish a system of protected areas or
areas where special measures need to be taken to conserve biological diversity;
Cosmas Milton Obote Ochieng, “Comparative capitalism and sustainable development: Stakeholder capitalism and
co-management in the Kenyan fisheries sub sector” (2008) 32(1) Natural Resources Forum 64-76, at p 73.
23
Ogwang, Odende and Okwach, supra at s 3.
24
World Future Council, Future Policy Award – List of Nominations, online at
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/fpa2012_nominatedpolicies.html (last accessed 4 October 2012).
25
See the World Future Council, Nominations, Review and Selection Process, online at
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/4569.html (last accessed 4 October 2012).
26
Convention on Biological Diversity, opened for signature 5 June 1992 (entered into force 29 December 1993),
1760 UNTS 79.
22
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
6
Regulate or manage biological resources important for the conservation of biological
diversity whether within or outside protected areas, with a view to ensuring their
conservation and sustainable use; Promote the protection of ecosystems, natural
habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural
surroundings; (f) Rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote the
recovery of threatened species, inter alia, through the development and
implementation of plans or other management strategies; and, respect, preserve
and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local
communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the
approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and
practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the
utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices.27
Article 10 of the Convention also requires member states to integrate consideration
of the conservation and sustainable use of biological resources into national
decision-making; adopt measures relating to the use of biological resources to
avoid or minimize adverse impacts on biological diversity; protect and encourage
customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural
practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements;
support local populations to develop and implement remedial action in degraded
areas where biological diversity has been reduced; and encourage cooperation
between its governmental authorities and its private sector in developing methods
for sustainable use of biological resources.28
Additionally, as the Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations affect both
freshwater and marine fisheries, it can also help Kenya achieve its general
obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment under Article 192 of the
Convention on the Law of the Sea.29 The Regulations also help to achieve the
objectives of the Convention for the Establishment of the Lake Victoria Fisheries
Organization, notably to “promote the proper management and optimum utilization
of the fisheries and other resources of the Lake.”30
Moreover, the Protocol Concerning Protected Areas and Wild Fauna and Flora in the
Eastern African Region to the Nairobi Convention31 requires Kenya to “develop
national conservation strategies and co-ordinate, if appropriate, such strategies
within the framework of regional conservation activities.”32 This includes the
establishment of protected areas33, which is facilitated by the 2007 Fisheries (Beach
Management Units) Regulations.34
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Ibid at Article 8.
Ibid at Article 10.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature 10 December 1982 (entered into force
16 November 1994), 1833 UNTS 3.
Convention for the Establishment of the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization, signed 30 June 1994 (entered into
force 24 May 1996), Article II(3)(a).
Protocol Concerning Protected Areas and Wild Fauna and Flora in the Eastern African Region, adopted 21 June
1985 (entered into force 30 May 1996).
Ibid at Article 2(2).
Ibid at Article 8(1).
Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations, 2007, Rule 7(4).
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
7
Additionally, Kenya’s efforts help implement the Memorandum of Understanding
between the Republic of Kenya, the United Republic of Tanzania, and the Republic
of Uganda for Cooperation on Environment Management.35 In the MoU, the three
countries agreed to “initiate, develop, implement and harmonize policies, laws and
programmes to strengthen regional coordination in the management of the
resources of the Lake Victoria ecosystem, including fisheries”36 and agreed to
cooperate on the environmental management of marine and coastal environments,
as well as scientific research, monitoring, and data exchange.37 Since Beach
Management Units are obliged to collect and provide data, including on catches38,
this can help implement the Memorandum of Understanding.
2.4 Related Domestic Law
Fisheries activities in Kenya are primarily governed by the 1989 Fisheries Act39 and
the 1976 Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act.40
The Fisheries Act applies to both marine and inland fisheries and aims to regulate
all fishing activities. The Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations, 2007
were adopted by the then Minister for Livestock and Fisheries Development under
the power conferred by Section 23(2)(f) of the 1989 Fisheries Act. Both the
Fisheries Act and the Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations are now
implemented by the Ministry of Fisheries Development.
The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act established the Kenya Wildlife
Service41, which manages national parks and reserves42 and prepares and
implements management plans for them.43 The Kenya Wildlife Service is relevant to
the implementation of the Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations, where
a management area of a Beach Management Unit overlaps with a designated
marine protected area.
Additionally, the 1999 Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA)
creates the legal and institutional framework to manage Kenya’s environment. It
allows the Environmental Minister to declare protected areas44 and coordinate
activities between the lead environmental institutions, including the National
Environmental Council and the National Environmental Management Authority. The
latter is tasked with preparing a national coastal zone management plan based on
coastal surveys and with reviewing these surveys regularly.45 Such surveys include
the state of Kenya’s coral reefs, mangroves and marshes, but also sources of
coastal pollution.46 The Authority is also expressly mandated to prescribe measures
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Memorandum of Understanding between the United Republic of Tanzania, the Republic of Kenya and the Republic
of Uganda for Cooperation in Environment Management, adopted on 22 October 1998.
Ibid, Article 8(a).
Ibid, Article 11.
Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations, 2007, Rule 6(2).
The Fisheries Act, 1989, Revised 1991, CAP 387 Laws of Kenya.
Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act, 1976, Amended 1989, CAP 376 Laws of Kenya.
Ibid, Section 3.
Ibid, Section 3A(c).
Ibid, Section 3A(d).
Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act, 1999, CAP 8 Laws of Kenya, Sections 54(1), 55(1).
Ibid, Sections 55(2)-(3).
Ibid, Section 55(4).
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
8
for biodiversity protection.47 Importantly, the Act provides that “every person in
Kenya is entitled to a clean and healthy environment and has the duty to safeguard
and enhance the environment.”48 As a result, the Act forms a part of the legislative
framework informing fisheries management under Beach Management Units.
Also relevant is the constitution of Kenya. Article 69 provides for the duty of the
state to ensure sustainable exploitation, utilisation, management and conservation
of the environment and natural resources.
3. The Process of Legal Reform
3.1 The Origins of Reform
Historically, fisheries in Kenya were managed locally using traditional knowledge.49
Following independence, the Kenyan government took over fisheries management
and implemented a top-down approach to natural resources management with little
input from local stakeholders.50 This contributed to a decline in fish stocks with
some local fisheries nearing collapse.51 Key problems included use of illegal and/or
destructive fishing gear, environmental degradation, and cross border fishing
conflicts.52
The Fisheries Act 1989 was marked by a lack of enforcement capacity as well as
overlapping administrative competencies between fisheries, wildlife protection, and
forestry authorities.53 Tensions also existed between different fisheries
management levels including the government, municipalities, and traditional
leaders. One of the underlying reasons was the perception that fisheries resources
belonged to the government, inevitably leading to the disengagement of local
communities.54
From Centralized Management to Co-Management: The Beach Management Units
In the 1990s, in an effort to part with ineffective top-down fisheries management,
the Kenyan Department of Fisheries (now known as the Ministry of Fisheries
Development) began developing a legal framework for co-management.55 This
change was accompanied by a shift in perception of ownership towards
understanding natural resources as common property held on trust for present and
future generations.
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Ibid, Section 50.
Ibid, Section 3(1).
Ogwang, Odende and Okwach supra at p 5.
Joshua E Cinner et al, “Toward institutions for community-based management of inshore marine resources in the
Western Indian Ocean” (2009) 33(3) Marine Policy 489-496, at p 490.
Ogwang, Odende and Okwach, supra at p 1.
Ministry of Fisheries Development, available at
http://www.fisheries.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=76 (last accessed 4
October 2012).
Evanson Chege Kamau, Andrew Wamukota and Nyawira Muthiga, “Promotion and Management of Marine
Fisheries in Kenya” in Gerd Winter (ed) Towards Sustainable Fisheries Law: A Comparative Analysis (IUCN,
2009) pp 83-138, at p 83.
Ministry of Fisheries Development, available at
http://www.fisheries.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=76(last accessed 4
October 2012).
Ogwang, Odende and Okwach, supra at p 5.
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
9
The move to co-management was largely influenced by the Lake Victoria Fisheries
Organization as outlined in Section 3.2 below. Following the advocacy of the Lake
Victoria Fisheries Organization, Kenya created a system of co-management which
aims to combine elements from all management levels in a common, participatory
approach.56 Its essence is to create a link and a partnership between the
government level and artisanal fishermen57 including traditional knowledge and
modern management techniques. Through the institutionalized re-inclusion of
traditional knowledge in fisheries management, Beach Management Units
essentially replace the traditional usage of elders at landing sites.58
Legal empowerment of local communities has been suggested as a solution to
overexploitation and aims to put in place an ecosystem approach to fisheries
management, which according to the Kenyan Ministry of Fisheries Development is
“a relatively new management concept that identifies and defines the ecosystem to
include humans and offers a viable option for achieving sustainable fisheries
utilization.”59
3.2 The Key Challenges and Players
The Development of Regional Guidelines for Lake Victoria
The inclusion of co-management in Kenyan fisheries regulations was driven by the
advocacy work of the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization in the mid-1990s.60 It
was this Organization that convinced its three East African member states, Kenya,
Uganda, and Tanzania, to agree on a regional approach to fisheries based on comanagement through Beach Management Units.61 Through the Implementation of a
Fisheries Management Plan Project, the Organization arranged for the drafting and
production of Harmonized Beach Management Unit Guidelines for the three states
sharing Lake Victoria.62
The drafting team, consisting of one co-management specialist from each country,
first assessed the existing level of community participation in fisheries
management. While they found some degree of participation in each state, the
understanding of Beach Management Units differed significantly on a regional and
local level.63 Based on this assessment, draft Harmonized Beach Management Unit
Guidelines were developed.
Within Kenya, these draft regional guidelines were then presented to national
stakeholders in a consultation process involving the Department of Fisheries
Development, all District Fisheries Officers from the riparian districts of Lake
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
Gerd Winter, ‘Towards a Legal Clinic for Fisheries Management’ in Gerd Winter (ed) Towards Sustainable
Fisheries Law: A Comparative Analysis (IUCN, 2009) pp 299-338, at p 305.
Kamau, Wamukota and Muthiga, supra at p 119.
Kamau, Wamukota and Muthiga, supra at p 119.
Kenyan Ministry of Fisheries Development, available at
http://www.fisheries.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=2 (last accessed 4
October 2012).
Cosmas Milton Obote Ochieng, “Comparative capitalism and sustainable development: Stakeholder capitalism
and co-management in the Kenyan fisheries sub sector” (2008) 32(1) Natural Resources Forum 64–76, at p 73.
See the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization, online at www.lvfo.org (last accessed 4 October 2012).
Timothy Odende (Principal Fisheries Officer, Busia District), A Report on the Beach Management Unit Reformation
Process in Kenya (Year 2005 to 2008), (Ministry of Fisheries Development, Kenya) (unpublished), p 4.
Ibid.
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
10
Victoria, Assistant Directors of Fisheries from Western Kenya, and Provincial
Fisheries Officers from the provinces of Nyanza and Western Kenya. The District
Officers, in turn, consulted district staff for further comments. During this
consultation stage, local fisheries communities were represented by their respective
district.64 The consultation also included fisheries based NGOs and the fish
processors and input suppliers representation from the Lake Victoria region.65 These
consultations informed the final Harmonized Beach Management Unit Guidelines
developed for the three East-African states.
The Development of National Guidelines and Regulations
The involvement of the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization continued beyond the
regional guidelines. The Organization tasked Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania with
translating the regional work into national Beach Management Unit Guidelines and
to adopt corresponding legislation to give them legal effect.66 Consequently, in
2006 the Kenyan Department of Fisheries developed National Beach Management
Unit Guidelines to harmonize and help govern the establishment and operations of
Beach Management Units,67 followed by the 2007 Fisheries (Beach Management
Units) Regulations.68
In developing these Guidelines and Regulations, the Kenyan government aimed to
include various stakeholders, such as NGOs and fisheries communities, including
representatives from marine fisheries.69 The process started with a task force
appointed by the Director of Fisheries mandated to develop draft Guidelines and
corresponding Regulations, revise them with input from stakeholder consultations,
subject the second draft to a national stakeholder review, and subsequently
produce the final Guidelines and Regulations.70
Based on this mandate, the task force produced the first draft based on reference
documents71 including the Fisheries Act72, the regional ‘Harmonized Beach
Management Unit Guidelines’, Uganda’s Beach Management Unit regulations, and
the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act.73
The stakeholder consultations took place at district and divisional level through two
day consultative meetings. Stakeholders involved included representatives from
public health, environment, social services, and lands departments. Other
stakeholders included local authorities, community based organizations, and
representatives of beach communities.74 During these consultations, the paradigm
shift in ownership and control over fisheries resources surfaced, leading to the
perception of some participants that the powerful roles proposed for Beach
Management Units would deprive the Fisheries Department of its management
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid at p 6.
Ogwang, Odende and Okwach, supra.
Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations, 2007.
Ogwang, Odende and Okwach, supra, at p 2.
Odende, supra at p 6.
Ibid.
The Fisheries Act, 1989, Revised 1991, CAP 387 Laws of Kenya.
Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act, 1999, CAP 8 Laws of Kenya.
Odende, supra at p 7.
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
11
authority over Lake Victoria.75 These and other concerns were taken into
consideration and classified into two groups: those concerns that were directly
included into the draft documents, and those requiring further awareness raising
and clarification in the sensitization meetings that would follow the adoption of the
final documents.76
Following amendments of the drafts, the second draft Guidelines and Regulations
were presented to a national fisheries stakeholder workshop for review and
validation. While no major amendments were proposed, a number of questions and
concerns were addressed. It was, for instance, clarified that the main mandate for
Beach Management Units was conservation.77 Similarly, it was noted that the role of
such Units in the protection of breeding grounds was to provide indigenous
knowledge on such grounds and to police them together with the Fisheries
Department in accordance with a co-management plan.78 Concerning the persistent
use of illegal fishing gear, the presented solution was ongoing awareness raising
and education of fishers.79 One obstacle persisted, namely the issue of ownership of
the land occupied by a Beach Management Unit. This issue was referred to later
consultations with the relevant authorities80 where it was decided that members of
Beach Management Units applying for registration must delineate land to be
gazetted as a fish landing station.81 However, this issue continues to hamper the
success of Beach Management Units, as further elaborated below.
Based on the outcomes of this second round of consultations, the final National
Beach Management Unit Guidelines were adopted in January 2006 with the aim of
increasing stakeholder understanding of the creation and operation of Beach
Management Units,82 which were given legal effect with the adoption of the 2007
Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations by the Minister for Fisheries
Development.
3.3 Achieving Reform
Because of the significant restructuring of Kenya’s fisheries management, the
reform process did not finish with the adoption of the Regulations. Instead, a series
of awareness raising workshops were held for numerous stakeholders from public
authorities, both of local and national level, mayors, chiefs, and fisheries
communities.83
This was followed by the training of personnel tasked with providing information to
fisheries communities on the reform process on the beaches84 and details on the
requirements and rules for Beach Management Units.85 Questions raised during this
process related to whether the authorities would help exchange or trade in illegal
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
Ibid at p 8.
Ibid at p 9.
Ibid.
Ibid at p 10.
Ibid at p 11.
Ibid.
Ibid at p 13.
Ogwang, Odende and Okwach, supra at p 4.
Odende, supra at p 2.
Ibid.
Ibid at p 15.
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
12
fishing gear so that fishers could acquire the right gear to be allowed to register as
a member of a Beach Management Unit.86 These awareness raising campaigns were
largely successful and fishers and other stakeholders who attended were eager to
learn more about Beach Management Units. Radio programs, leaflets, and
guidelines were important tools in raising interest amongst local communities.87 On
the other hand, the lack of sufficient funds to provide training to the personnel who
were sent out to local communities was found to be a constraint. As a result, some
of the training was not detailed enough, leaving personnel insufficiently prepared.88
Once the awareness raising campaign was completed, members of each Beach
Management Unit were registered over a period of two weeks.89 During this time,
radio programs informing the public about the new processes were broadcasted.90
After the two weeks, copies of the registers were displayed for at least seven days
to allow every stakeholder to scrutinize the register and raise any issues concerning
the register and the registration process prior to election.91
Once all units and its members were correctly registered, elections were held for
the executives of the 281 Beach Management Units initially registered. For the
voting procedure, ballot papers were prepared by the District Fisheries Officers
(DFO) and their staff. Most of the ballot papers were made of Manila paper cut into
small pieces and rubber stamped with the stamp of that particular District Fisheries
Officer. A secret mark was put on each of the papers by the DFO just minutes
before the election began.92 With the exception of one district, the ballot papers
were collected in transparent boxes to satisfy voters’ confidence.93 Moreover, the
votes were counted and the results announced in the presence of the voters.94
However, lack of funding meant that not all Beach Management Units adhered to
these procedures.95 A noteworthy issue was that women did not participate in the
voting in great numbers and were reluctant to volunteer for executive positions. For
some units, the mandatory requirement of three committee positions being
occupied by women96 could not be achieved.97
The elected members of the executive committees for each Beach Management Unit
were subsequently trained in the administration of the Units, financial and fisheries
management, and preparing by-laws.98 This was followed by the development and
registration of individual by-laws for each Beach Management Unit, based on
national templates.
Once the reform of local management structures was completed, the creation of
networks of Beach Management Units began.99 The aim was to interlink fisheries
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
Ibid at p 17.
Ibid at p 16.
Ibid at p 18.
Ibid at p 13.
Ibid.
Ibid at p 21.
Ibid at p 22.
Ibid at p 21.
Ibid at p 23.
Ibid at p 24.
Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations, 2007, Rule 14(2)(b).
Odende, supra at p 24.
Ibid at p 2.
Ibid at p 3.
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
13
and environmental management plans, to prevent conflicts between Beach
Management Units, and to increase representation of local stakeholders at higher
levels of governance.100
In an evaluation of the reform process, the significant achievements of the shift to
co-management were recognized.101 It was recommended that continued training
and sensitization sessions be undertaken regularly to educate new recruits in the
fishing communities to ensure they understand and appreciate the importance of
sustainable fisheries resource exploitation and management for posterity.102
4.
Experience in Implementation
4.1 Implementation Successes
The regional promotion of Beach Management Units has been successful with Lake
Victoria alone, taking into account all three bordering states, having 1,087
registered Beach Management Units.103
In Kenya, the integration of traditional and formal institutions for fisheries
management through Beach Management Units is seen as a lasting solution104 that
has had positive impacts on enforcement and compliance.105 The Kenyan
government has observed a reduction of destructive fishing gear, a 40% reduction
of harvesting of undersize fish, and an emerging sense of ownership of the
resources by the communities.106 It also reports that several Beach Management
Units have established compliance committees and are carrying out independent
patrols without government support.107 In Kuruwitu for instance, four members of
the Beach Management Unit are responsible for simultaneously patrolling a small
marine park established by the community.108
Reporting positively on the influence of increased stakeholder consultation, the
former Director of Kenya’s Fisheries Department, Nancy Gitonga, states:
Due to the involvement of stakeholders in policymaking process from the outset,
the compliance level with the closed season for fishing Ratrineobola argentea […]
has been high, between 60–85%, despite political interference with the ban at
times. This has been an encouraging development, considering that closed
seasons had not been imposed on the Lake Victoria fisheries for the last
decade…During the closed period, the fishers participated in the surveillance,
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
Vincent O Ogwang, Joyce Ikwaput Nyeko and Radhmina Mbilinyi, “Implementing Co-management of Lake
Victoria’s Fisheries: Achievements and Challenges” (2009) 12 African Journal of Tropical Hydrobiology and
Fisheries 52–58.
Ibid at p 57.
Ibid at p 57.
Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization, available at
http://www.lvfo.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=59 (last accessed 4 October
2012).
Evanson Chege Kamau, Andrew Wamukota and Nyawira Muthiga, ‘Promotion and Management of Marine
Fisheries in Kenya’ in Gerd Winter (ed) Towards Sustainable Fisheries Law: A Comparative Analysis (IUCN,
2009) pp 83-138, at p 84.
Ochieng, supra at at pp 73-74.
Ministry of Fisheries Development, available at
http://www.fisheries.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=51&Itemid=76(last accessed 4
October 2012).
Ibid.
Joshua E Cinner et al, ‘Toward institutions for community-based management of inshore marine resources in the
Western Indian Ocean’ (2009) 33(3) Marine Policy 489-496, at p 491.
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
14
especially by reporting those who violated the new regulation with respect to
closed season. The resource users’ sense of ownership was clearly demonstrable
during the closed season, as the fishing communities fully participated in the law
enforcement.109
Gitonga concludes that the co-management concept is a popular management
option because it is viewed as a more tenable method to achieve sustainable
fisheries. The popularity of ownership concept is evidenced by the widespread
formation of Beach Management Units.110
4.2 Administrative Mechanisms
Administrative Successes:
Beach Management Units create new communication channels between local
communities and the Kenyan government, institutionalize cooperation between all
fisheries stakeholders, and actively encourage public participation. This is further
supported by Kenya’s new Constitution of 2010. Article 174 provides for the
devolution of state powers in order to “give powers of self-governance to the people
and enhance the participation of the people in the exercise of the powers of the
State and in making decisions affecting them”111 and “to recognise the right of
communities to manage their own affairs and to further their development.”112
Moreover, it introduces a bill of rights113 including the universal right to a clean and
healthy environment.114
Remaining challenges:
The Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations apply to both freshwater and
marine fisheries, though with 90 percent of Kenyan fish harvest originating from
Lake Victoria,115 a strong focus has been placed on inland fisheries. In coastal
areas, land tenure poses significant constraint on the success of the Regulations as
the majority of fish landing sites are either on private land or access to them is
obstructed by private land.116 Therefore, rights over coastal land need to be
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
N K Gitonga, Management of Lake Victoria Fisheries Resources through Stakeholder Participation: Opinion Paper
(Fisheries Department, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development, Nairobi, Kenya, 2005), as cited in
Ochieng, supra at p 74.
Ibid.
The Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 174(c), available at
http://www.kenyalaw.org/klr/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/Constitution_of_Kenya__2010.pdf (last accessed 4
October 2012).
Ibid at Article 174(d)
Ibid at Chapter 4.
Ibid at Article 42
Ministry of Fisheries Development, available at
http://www.fisheries.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=98 (last accessed 4
October 2012).
See Fatuma Musa et al, Building Capacity for Coastal Communities to Manage Marine Resources in Kenya
(Outcome of Coastal Community Workshops organised by IUCN, the Coastal Oceans Research and
Development-Indian Ocean (CORDIO), and the East African Wild Life Society (EAWLS) in 2007/2008), available
at http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/bmus2.pdf (last accessed 4 October 2012); Stephen J Oluoch, D Obura
and A Hussein, ‘The Capacity of Fisherfolk to Implement Beach Management Units in Diani-Chale’, in Jan
Hoorweg and Nyawira Muthiga (eds), Advances in Coastal Ecology: People, Processes and Ecosystems in Kenya
(2009) 20 African Studies Collection (African Studies Centre Leiden), pp 99-108, at 107, available at
https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/14005/ASC-070744769-134-01.pdf?sequence=2 (last
accessed 4 October 2012).
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
15
addressed together with the management of marine resources.117 A new land policy
in Kenya may bring potentially positive changes and so is a welcome first step.118
A further challenge for the Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations
concerns resources for monitoring and surveillance, which is carried out by different
stakeholders, including scientists, conservations groups, marine park officials where
applicable, and often members of Beach Management Units themselves despite a
lack of training and equipment.119
Further challenges exist with infrastructure and communication systems. Most
fishing areas and their Beach Management Units do not have good transport and
communications networks. Those Beach Management Units remain unable to access
markets for their produce and hence their income remains small.120 Poor
infrastructure also means that the Fisheries Department is unable to properly
communicate with and serve existing Beach Management Units. This is further
exacerbated by lack of sufficient funding of the Fisheries Department. Inadequate
levels of funding and delays in funds disbursement results in the Fisheries
Department being unable to properly supervise, administer, and regulate Beach
Management Units.121
Legal challenges felt by the fishermen in the Beach Management Units include the
fact that the fisher groups are not technically qualified in fisheries law,
management and development. Therefore, Beach Management Units structures
provided under the the Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations, 2007
appear relatively complex. Further most local fishermen in the Beach Management
Units often do not have an understanding of the implications of national, regional,
continental and international agreements and laws on their livelihoods.122 They
most certainly would benefit from regular legal outreach programs to educate them
on the relevant and updated national, regional and international agreements and
laws that affect them.
4.3 Enforcement Challenges
Local communities have been found to fill some gaps in the regulatory design
outside the legal framework: “First offences are often dealt with by warnings or
within a community, even though there is no legal requirement to do so.”123
Sanctions can be imposed on members of Beach Management Units e.g. for non-
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
Kate Lee, Kenya: Community-based marine area holds some important lessons for policy makers (International
Institute for Environment and Development, 14 November 2011), available at http://www.iied.org/kenyacommunity-based-marine-area-holds-some-important-lessons-for-policy-makers (last accessed 4 October
2012).
Ibid.
Joshua E Cinner et al, ‘Toward institutions for community-based management of inshore marine resources in the
Western Indian Ocean’ (2009) 33(3) Marine Policy 489-496, at p 495.
Interviews with Nancy Gitonga (Currently Fisheries Consultant, Fish Africa, Kenya; Former Director of the
Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries Development) on 13 and 25 September 2012, Susan Imende
(Assistant Director, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries Development) on 13 September 2012, and
Timothy Odende (Principal District Fisheries Officer, Busia District) on 10 and 13 September 2012.
Ibid.
Institute for Law and Environmental and Environmental Law Institute, Governance Regional Workshop On Legal
And Operational Framework For Beach Management Units in East Africa, 24th -27th November 2005 Imperial
Hotel Kisumu
Cinner et al, supra at 494.
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
16
compliance of fisheries regulations.124 Actual enforcement capacity lies primarily
with the provincial administration, though there are cases of members
apprehending someone who is violating rules.125
In the coastal context, problems exist with access to beaches through the beach
buffer zone, between the high water mark and privately developed land. This zone
has often been “illegally possessed or encroached on by private developers”,
denying public access to the beach and its Beach Management Units.126 As Musa et
al highlight, “this conflict, coupled with corruption has compounded the problem of
non compliance and inadequate enforcement of the laws.”127
Problematically, enforcement requires skills and training, which can be lacking at
local level. For the co-management system to work successfully, capacity building is
required. Oluoch et al assessed eight coastal Beach Management Units and found a
significant gap between expectations and actual management capacity. They
concluded that most institutions had insufficient capacities, skills, and experience to
effectively manage marine resources.128 The lack of technical capacity means that a
stock assessment cannot be effectively carried out to supply information which
would advise and inform regulation and enforcement.
Identifying several challenges for sustainable fisheries management by Beach
Management Units at Lake Victoria, Ogwang et al highlight illegal fishing methods
and enforcement of the closure of nursery grounds.129 Moreover, they list pollution
and environmental degradation as major problems, ranging from deforestation,
siltation, low standards of hygiene and sanitation at the landing sites, to effluent
from factories and urban areas, and chemical run-off from agriculture.130 Having
made their assessment in 2008, Ogwang et al envisaged improvements in
compliance and awareness from co-management structures.131
Critically assessing the experience with fisheries co-management in Africa in
general, Hara and Nielsen highlight the influence of the macroeconomic situation of
African countries. They conclude that poverty often generates a focus on short-term
economic gain for local fisheries communities, which can impede the success of co-
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
Ibid at p 491.
Ibid.
Fatuma Musa et al, Building Capacity for Coastal Communities to Manage Marine Resources in Kenya (Outcome
of Coastal Community Workshops organised by IUCN, the Coastal Oceans Research and Development-Indian
Ocean (CORDIO), and the East African Wild Life Society (EAWLS) in 2007/2008), available at
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/bmus2.pdf (last accessed 4 October 2012).
Ibid.
Stephen J Oluoch, D Obura and A Hussein, “The Capacity of Fisherfolk to Implement Beach Management Units
in Diani-Chale”, in Jan Hoorweg and NyawiraMuthiga (eds), Advances in Coastal Ecology: People, Processes and
Ecosystems in Kenya (2009) 20 African Studies Collection (African Studies Centre Leiden), pp 99-108, at 106,
available at https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/14005/ASC-070744769-13401.pdf?sequence=2 (last accessed 4 October 2012).
Ogwang, Nyeko and Mbilinyi, supra at p 53.
Ibid at p 54.
Ibid at p 53.
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
17
management.132 Thus, fisheries management cannot be separated from economic
development issues.133
4.4 Institutions
The Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations, 2007 are centred on an
institutional reform to facilitate effective co-management of fisheries through Beach
Management Units. The large number of Beach Management Units created indicates
a success for this institutional redesign.134 Nevertheless, as mentioned above, most
of these units have insufficient capacities, skills, and experience to effectively
manage marine resources.135 Moreover, several problems remain with the
institutional restructuring of fisheries resources.
One such problem is access to Beach Management Units and fisheries resources for
small, household, and artisanal fishers. Many external, small-scale fishermen, who
believe they have historical fishing rights at landing site, even if only on a migratory
basis, feel that Beach Management Units and their exclusive rights over landing
sites restrict fishing rights for small-scale fishers. Similarly, conflicts have emerged
within Beach Management Units, as those small-scale and artisanal fishers who are
members of a unit struggle to compete against large scale operators for access to
fisheries resources.136 These conflicts are both internal and external to the Beach
Management Units and have not yet been resolved by the new institutional
structures.
Another remaining challenge for Beach Management Units is achieving greater
participation of women. Despite the Fisheries (Beach Management Units)
Regulations requiring that “in as far as possible” at least three members of the
executive committee should be women137, this aim has not been achieved. While
exact figures for female participation are lacking, their roles are often confined to
processing fish and transporting it to markets. In contrast, management posts
responsible for collecting revenues and attending government seminars are
primarily held by men.138
Mafaniso Hara, Jesper Raakjaer Nielsen, ‘Experience with Fisheries Co-management in Africa’, in Douglas Clyde
Wilson, Jesper Raakjaer Nielsen and Poul Degnbol (eds), The Fisheries Co-management Experience:
Accomplishments, Challenges, and Prospects (2010, Springer) pp 81-98, at pp 87-88.
133
Ibid at p 88.
134
See for example the number of Beach Management Units at Lake Victoria alone: Lake Victoria Fisheries
Organization, available at http://www.lvfo.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=59
(last accessed 4 October 2012).
135
Stephen J Oluoch, D Obura and A Hussein, “The Capacity of Fisherfolk to Implement Beach Management Units
in Diani-Chale”, in Jan Hoorweg and Nyawira Muthiga (eds), Advances in Coastal Ecology: People, Processes
and Ecosystems in Kenya (2009) 20 African Studies Collection (African Studies Centre Leiden), pp 99-108, at
106, available at https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/14005/ASC-070744769-13401.pdf?sequence=2 (last accessed 4 October 2012).
136
Interviews with Nancy Gitonga (Currently Fisheries Consultant, Fish Africa, Kenya; Former Director of the
Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries Development) on 13 and 25 September 2012, Susan Imende
(Assistant Director, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries Development) on 13 September 2012, and
Timothy Odende (Principal District Fisheries Officer, Busia District) on 10 and 13 September 2012.
137
Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations, 2007, Rule 14(2)(b).
138
Interviews with Nancy Gitonga (Currently Fisheries Consultant, Fish Africa, Kenya; Former Director of the
Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries Development) on 13 and 25 September 2012, Susan Imende
(Assistant Director, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries Development) on 13 September 2012, and
Timothy Odende (Principal District Fisheries Officer, Busia District) on 10 and 13 September 2012.
132
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
18
A further challenge is securing adequate funding for Beach Management Units. The
financial sector has been slow in offering loans to fisheries personnel and Beach
Management Units on the grounds of uncertainty of repayments and because Beach
Management Units do not possess the legal status necessary for group loans. This
leads to a lack of funds to purchase fishing gear, vessels etc.139
Lastly, the success of Beach Management Units is hampered by social and health
problems in the fisheries communities. In addition to a high prevalence of HIV/AIDS
amongst the fishing community,140 waterborne diseases, such as cholera and
dysentery, pose problems. These are compounded by a lack of adequate health
facilities for fisheries communities.141
4.5 Awareness raising and knowledge sharing
The Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization has conducted capacity building for Beach
Management Units on Lake Victoria. As an example, the ACP Fish II Project was
implemented in 2011 and aimed at training Beach Management Units to operate as
fish producers and profitably handle large volumes of fish in compliance with
sanitary rules and regulations.142 Prior to this project a training needs assessment
had been conducted, which found that “very few, if any, community level
stakeholders had been trained in improved handling, hygiene, sanitation, and
business skills.”143 In response to this, the project funded by the European
Development Fund enabled the creation of training manuals for trainers. It also
trained 24 representatives of Beach Management Units from key landing sites in
Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda as educators for business skills, good fish handling,
hygiene, sanitation and processing.144
A further Lake Victoria based campaign aims at improving access to real-time
information on fish pricing, catches, number of fish buyers etc to help develop
improved fish trading conditions.145 The object of the ‘Enhanced Fish Market
Information Service’ project is to increase transparency of fish pricing and reduce
post-harvest fish losses. Since Lake Victoria enjoys widespread mobile phone
reception, the project seeks to collect fishing data from about 150 fish landing sites
around the lake as well as markets and fish processing firms. The data is collected
and synthesized by the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute and made
accessible to beneficiaries mainly via SMS. This allows access to fishing information
of all stakeholders and is designed to improve fish trading. The project is
implemented by the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute in collaboration
with the Department of Fisheries Development, Beach Management Units, and
139
Ibid.
See also Ogwang, Nyeko and Mbilinyi, supra at p 53.
141
Interviews with Nancy Gitonga (Currently Fisheries Consultant, Fish Africa, Kenya; Former Director of the
Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries Development) on 13 and 25 September 2012, Susan Imende
(Assistant Director, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries Development) on 13 September 2012, and
Timothy Odende (Principal District Fisheries Officer, Busia District) on 10 and 13 September 2012.
142
Final Technical Report: Training of Beach Management Units on Lake Victoria, ACP FISH II Programme Activity
No. 4.1 (May 2011), online at http://acpfish2eu.org/uploads/projects/id32/FTR%20BMU%20training%20%20final%20June%2020.pdf (last accessed 4
October 2012).
143
Ibid at p 4.
144
Ibid at pp 4-5.
145
For more information, see the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, Enhanced Fish Market Information
Service, online at http://www.kmfri.co.ke/KMF/Portals/efmis.html (last accessed 4 October 2012).
140
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
19
other fisheries associations at Lake Victoria. It is largely funded by the International
Labour Organization.146
5. Key Lessons Learned
1) Co-management of fisheries by local communities and the government can
be institutionalised through local fisheries management committees, such as
Beach Management Units.
2) Co-management is based on the empowerment of local communities as
stewards of aquatic resources to manage fisheries on behalf of present and
future generations
3) Beach Management Units, through the adoption of co-management plans and
by-laws, address several matters relevant to Aichi Target 6, including legal
measures to prevent overfishing
4) Successes in Kenya include a decrease in the use of destructive fishing gear,
increased vertical and horizontal linkages of relevant institutions, significantly
expanded community participation, and higher levels of compliance
5) Further capacity-building is necessary to fully utilize the co-management
system, account for social and economic factors hampering success, and
achieve a significantly improved situation for aquatic biodiversity
6) With the main focus in Kenya being on inland fisheries, further adjustments
are necessary to adapt the co-management system to coastal fisheries
Relevance for Other Countries
The Fisheries (Beach Management Units) Regulations serve as a useful example of
fisheries co-management for other countries where a connection and effective
cooperation between local fishing communities and the government is lacking. The
Beach Management Units, organized by local fishing communities, can simplify the
linkages between local and state levels.
Moreover, a system of co-management can be an attractive option, especially for
developing countries, as it decentralizes parts of fisheries management and thus
potentially requires less administrative infrastructure than a top-down approach.
However, some infrastructure is still required to exercise supervision over Beach
Management Units.
Importantly, the system of Beach Management Units can be helpful where one of
the causes of overfishing is the lack of a sense of ownership by local fishing
communities. Co-management is an option for legal empowerment, which can help
reinstall a sense of responsibility among local communities to achieve
environmental stewardship. This aids in protecting aquatic biodiversity at the local
level.
146
Ibid.
CASE STUDY REPORT: KENYA FISHERIES (BEACH MANAGEMENT UNITS) REGULATIONS, 2007
20