SOUTH-WEST INDIAN OCEAN FISHERIES PROJECT COUNTRY WORKING RESOURCE DOCUMENT. Profile of Kenya Marine Fisheries. Prepared by:

Transcription

1 SOUTH-WEST INDIAN OCEAN FISHERIES PROJECT COUNTRY WORKING RESOURCE DOCUMENT Profile of Kenya Marine Fisheries Prepared by: R. K. Ruwa 1, G. Habib 2, M. Mukira 2, G. Okoth 2 and G. Mwatha 1 1. Kenya Marine & Fisheries 2. Fisheries Department Research Institute Coast Province P.O. Box P.O. Box Mombasa Mombasa KENYA KENYA July 2003

2 CITATION Ruwa, R.K., Habib, G., Mukira, M., Okoth, G., and G. Mwatha Profile of Kenya Marine and Fisheries Country Working Resource Document. GEF-South- West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project (SWIOFP) in Kenya Publication No. 1 (2003), 71p 1

3 CONTENTS Page Summary 3 1. Introduction Capture Status of Marine Fisheries in Kenya Survey status of marine fisheries resources in Kenya 22 (a) Early Surveys 22 (b) Focus on specific fisheries.. 30 (c) Summary of marine fisheries potential Marine ecosystem research relevant to fisheries 36 (a) Coastal and Marine Oceanic Circulation 37 (b) Hydrology of the Tana and Athi-Sabaki river drainage Basins.39 (c) Importance of key habitats to fisheries.. 41 (d) Coastal and marine productivity Institutional arrangements for research of marine fisheries in Kenya Institutional arrangements for management of marine fisheries in Kenya Role of marine protected areas in the management of marine fisheries of Kenya Research issues concerning marine fisheries of Kenya Management issues concerning Kenya Marine fisheries Development of marine fisheries of Kenya Fisheries Research Requirements in Kenya s offshore waters References

4 SUMMARY This overview on the profile of marine fisheries in Kenya was prepared with in mind not only to address the objectives of the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project (SWIOFP) but also possible future development scenarios. Thus this document which is also dubbed as SWIOFP Country Working Resource Document Profile of Kenya Marine Fisheries, focuses on the country s status of capture fisheries and status of survey of fisheries resources besides fisheries development. The SWIOFP project tackles fisheries issues from a large marine ecosystem based approach and from this perspective the review also includes aspects of marine ecosystem and oceanographic research. As regards the fisheries resource management aspect, this component has been addressed focusing on review of the country s institutional arrangement for management and development of the fisheries resources and socio-economic implications. The research components in terms of institutional management and what aspects Kenya would be interested in the SWIOFP project have been dealt on as well. 3

5 1. INTRODUCTION Kenya is a democratic Republic bordering with Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda and Tanzania with which she shares its culture, traditions and origins. Traditional Kenyan society is based on tribe as a unit with distinct culture that governs their lifestyle. However for purposes of governance, a democratic parliamentary system is in use. The Kenyan authority charged with the management, exploitation, utilization and conservation of fisheries is the Fisheries Department, while the body responsible for research is Kenya Marine Fisheries Research Institute but with over lapping mandates with other Kenyan Institutions as will be described later. The subject of this review is the Kenyan marine fisheries. In order to place the sector in context, information is presented on a number of related subjects. The coastal land area is about 32,447 km 2 and lies in a semi-arid zone. With a total national population of about 30 million people and a total area of 582,650 km 2 Kenya has a national population density of about 50 people km 2. The coastal area with 2.5 million people has a higher population density of 77 people per km 2. Most of that population is further concentrated in urban areas which are virtually all located along the coastline. The major urban district of Mombasa which covers 282 km 2 has a population density of 2,482 people km 2. At national level, the coastal area is food-deficient and is the second poorest of Kenya s eight provinces (GOK, 2000). Kenya has a coastline length of some 650 km which expands to around 880 km when all of the bays and inlets are measured (Coppola, 1982). The coastline forms part of the western border of the Indian Ocean. The country lies within the tropical zone, extending from Kiunga in the north at about 1 41' S to Vanga in the south at about 4 40' S, and is approximately inclined in a north-east/southwest direction (Fig. 1). 4

6 The most distinctive feature of the coastline is the almost continuous fringing coral reef that runs parallel to the coast but breaks adjacent to openings of creeks, bays and estuaries of large perennial rivers. The reef occupies the shallow inshore zone extending offshore to a depth of about 45 meters (m), and at a distance of 500 m to two km from the shore, except where river systems enter the sea creating conditions of low salinity and high turbidity which limit coral growth. Coastal features include Lamu Archipelago with its extensive mangrove 5

7 forests, Tana River the country s longest river which discharges through a complex wetland system into Ungwana Bay, Sabaki River which incorporates Athi and Galana Rivers and discharges into the sea just north of Malindi, Mombasa Island at the entrance to a very extensive embayment including Mombasa Harbour, Kilindini Harbour, Port Tudor and Port Reitz, and the southern complex of Gazi Bay, Chale Island, Funzi Bay, Funzi Island, Wasini Island, and some smaller coral islands. The estuaries and deltas contain extensive mangrove forests (Table 1). Table 1: Areas of mangroves on the Kenyan Coast (Doute et al 1981) Locality District Area (ha) Kiunga Lamu 3,025 Lamu Lamu 30,475 Kipini (Ungwana Bay) Tana River 1,595 Mto Tana (Ungwana Bay) Tana River 250 Mto Kilifi (Ungwana Bay) Kilifi and Tana River 2,335 Mto Fundisha (Ungwana Bay) Kilifi 330 Ngomeni (Ungwana Bay) Kilifi 1,815 Mida Creek Kilifi 1,600 Takaungu Kilifi 30 Kilifi Creek Kilifi 360 Mtwapa Creek Kilifi and Mombasa 525 Tudor Creek Mombasa 1,465 Port Reitz Mombasa and Kwale 1,575 Maftaha Bay (Gazi) Kwale 615 Ras Mwachema Kwale 5 Funzi Bay Kwale 2,715 Vanga Kwale 4,265 Total 52,980 The coast forms the baseline for a sea area or Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) measuring some 230,000 km² including a narrow continental shelf about 3 5 km in width with a total area of around 19,100 km ² (UNEP, 1998), some 11,000 km ² of which is said to be trawlable (UNEP, 1998; World Bank, 1991). South of Malindi, the shelf is only about five km wide whereas to the north of Malindi on the North Kenya Banks, the edge of the shelf is about 60 km offshore. Bottom topography is mainly rough coralline formations and the bathymetric characteristic nature of the coastal marine system is as delineated by the 200m depth continental contour (Fig.2). 6

8 Rich inshore marine fishing grounds are found in and around Lamu Archipelago, Ungwana Bay, North Kenya Bank, and Malindi Bank. This area is where the south flowing Somali Current meets the north flowing East African Current during the Northeast Monsoon season (November to March) causing upwelling and enrichment. The area is also where two major Kenyan rivers Tana and Sabaki empty into the sea bringing enrichment from the land. It is in these areas that prawn trawling is done, and where trawling surveys in the past have yielded reasonable catches of demersal fish. 7

9 However, the main inshore fishery is located inside the fringing coral reef and extends along the full length of the Kenyan coastline. Artisanal fishermen using simple boats and gear including gill nets, shark nets, hook-and-line, beach seines and traps take the bulk of marine fish landed. The most productive fishing areas are on the north coast in the Lamu area including Kiunga, Kizingitini and Faza, at Malindi and Tana River Delta, and on the south coast around Majoreini and Vanga. Outside the reef, little domestic fishing is done. Instead, Kenya licenses some foreign vessels from Europe, most of which are seeking tuna with purse-seine gear. In the past, when access to the region s coastal waters was open, a large fleet of tuna long liners from Asia visited the region and in the process spent considerable time fishing along the East African coast, especially in the vicinity of Kenya where catches and catch rates were reported to be high. With the declaration of EEZs by the countries, foreign fishing effort was forced offshore and since then, only a limited amount of long lining has been conducted in the country s offshore waters. There was some joint venture and domestic fishing in the EEZ in the 1980s but no foreign effort until 2003 when one vessel was licensed to carry out exploratory fishing. Further tuna long line licences are being sought, and even licences for other methods including offshore deepwater gillnetting and trapping are under application. The general environmental and socio-economic profile is summarized in Table 2. 8

10 Table 2: General country profile of Kenya on general environment, social and economic statistics (Sources: UNEP, 1984, 1998; Hatziolos et al, 1996; World Bank, 2001; FAO, 2000; World Resource Institute, 2002) Item & Issue Kenya 1. Area (km 2 ) 582, Coastal land area (km 2 ) 32, Length of coastline (km) Continental Shelf area (km 2 ) up to 200m depth 5. National population (million) (Projection for 1999) 14, Population growth rate (%) Coastal population (million) Life expectancy at birth in years (1999) 9. Infant mortality rate per 1000 live births (1999) 10. Infant malnutrition by % under-weight Poverty by % of population below national poverty line ( ) Prevalence of under-nourishment expressed by % of the proportion of the total population (a) (b) (c) Food availability dietary energy supply (kcal/person/day)

11 14. Depth of under-nourishment (a) Dietary energy supply of the undernourished (kcal/person/day) (b) Minimum energy requirement (kcal/person/day) (c) Food deficit of the under-nourished (kcal/person/day) CAPTURE STATUS OF MARINE FISHERIES IN KENYA The main inshore fishery is located in the waters inside the fringing coral reef all along the Kenyan coastline. Artisanal fishermen using simple boats and gear including gill nets, shark nets, hook and line, beach seines and traps take the bulk of marine fish landed. The most productive fishing areas are on the north coast in the Lamu area including Kiunga, Kizingitini and Faza, Tana River delta and Malindi, and on the south coast around Majoreni and Vanga. The trends in annual catches from the north to south direction of the Kenya s coastline at district administrative levels are as shown in Fig. 3 for northernmost Lamu District, Fig.4 for Tana River District, Fig.5 for Kilifi District which has currently been further split to create Malindi District, Fig 6a for Mombasa District and Fig 6b for Kwale District the Southernmost district. Catch records trends in Mombasa include landings from other parts along the Kenyan coast which are dictated by better market prices offered in the urban Mombasa District. However, in the last decade, there has been a general decline in the latter district, probably as a result of increased consumption within the neighbouring districts where the prices have improved generally due to growing scarcity Landing (tons) Year Figure 3. Trends in marine fisheries catch landings in Lamu District from

12 1500 Landing (tons) Figure 4. Trends in marine fisheries catch landings in Tana River District from Landing (tons) Figure 5. Trends in marine fisheries catch landings in Kilifi District from

13 Landing (tons) Figure 6a. Trends in marine fisheries catch landings in Mombasa District from Landing (tons) Figure 6b. Trends in marine fisheries catch landings in Kwale District from In the early 1990s, there were about 15,000 fishermen on the coast, operating some 4,800 boats, over 80 % of which were un-motorized. By the late 1990s, the number of fishermen had reduced to about 7,700, and the number of boats to 2,400. In a little less than a decade, the amount of effort that could be applied in the coastal fishery had reduced by half. This decline had been noted by others (Ruwa et al, 2002; McClanahan, 2000; Obura et al, 2002). It is not clear as to the cause of this decline in traditional or artisanal fisheries but one suggestion is that the tourism sector, which grew very rapidly through the 12

14 early 1990s, first overshadowed and later marginalized the traditional sectors such as fisheries (Coast Development Authority et al, 1996). With tourism came residential and commercial development, bringing hotels, restaurants, modern settlements besides increased urbanization growth and industrial sites to what were previously areas characterized by shore-side fishing villages and agricultural plots. Fishing villages have historically provided the nuclei of urbanization at the Kenyan coastline (Ruwa 1985). Their organization encouraged investments from early traders and some were chosen as administrative centers. With enhanced diversification of economic opportunities they lost their humble dominating symbolic function as fishing villages. For artisanal fishermen, living near the sea helps them to: 1. Efficiently time the tides so that they can fish maximally; 2. Conveniently guard their crafts and gear from theft and 3. Save spoilage of catch by avoiding traveling long distances without appropriate facilities of preservation. With the changes came displacement of fishing villages towards inland, which seriously disrupted the fishermen s lifestyle and culture. Today, few shore-side fishing villages remain and fishermen are forced to commute sometimes long distances to get to their boats. The changes brought large amounts of alternative employment in the new industrial developments, and in the service industries in the hotels, restaurants, shops, curio markets, safari businesses, and other places. The alternative economic opportunities attracted more and more people to the coast, but also pulled people away from the traditional sectors including fisheries. Finally, the occupation of fishing suffered a sharp loss of esteem. Money could be made faster and for much less effort from ferrying tourists out to the marine parks and reef compared with the hard graft of daily fishing with poor equipment and low technology. Youths came to consider fishing as a last-choice career and most preferred other occupations (Coast Development Authority et al, 1996). The annual inshore catch level in the sea is dictated mainly by the limited amount and quality of effort that is applied in the fishery. Effort is limited for many reasons including: Lack of information on fisheries potential. Little if any institutional support for any form of fisheries development. No capital to develop. Low level of interest in developing the sector because of poor returns for effort compared with alternatives such as taking tourists out on the reef. Poor markets for fish. 13

15 The traditional vessels are small, mostly un-motorized, wooden planked canoes that are poorly designed, being propelled by paddle or sail and therefore difficult to maneuver even in moderate seas. Fishermen employ very simple gear, and can only fish in near-shore waters, all of which limits their ability to catch fish. For a significant part of the year (May-September), fishing is difficult because of rough seas and high winds. The potential for further production is largely unknown because there have been few fish stock assessment surveys. The infrastructure for the marine fisheries sector is quite limited. In addition to these factors, it is believed that fishermen lack a sense of ownership in the fisheries resources. To address this concern, the Government has created Beach Management Units (BMUs) made up of people from the fishing communities to play a number of roles in fisheries management including ensuring registration of all boats operating in the fisheries, prevention of use of banned and destructive fishing gear, protection of fish breeding and recruitment grounds, construction of fish bandas and access roads, monitoring and control of illegal and migratory fishers, gear and methods, collection of fisheries data, and resolution of conflict among fishers. Offshore fishing is even less developed than inshore fishing, at least from a domestic perspective. Notwithstanding the lack of information on fish stocks, it is known that there are many fisheries resources living in the waters outside the reef. This includes a significant range of coastal pelagic fish such as trevallies, queenfish, scads, mackerels, barracudas, bonitos, dolphinfish, kingfish, wahoos, rainbow runners, sardines and anchovies, high-value coastal demersal snappers, jobfish, groupers, sea basses, rock cods, prawns and lobster, valuable offshore pelagic tunas, billfishes and large sharks, offshore demersal fish and gulper sharks in the deeper parts of the zone, and offshore mid-water stocks of lanternfishes, squids and swimming crabs. There is little information on any of these resources. However, the offshore parts of the Kenyan zone are well known to foreign fishermen who have been visiting the area since the 1950s in pursuit of the abundance of tunas, billfishes and pelagic sharks. That foreign interest continues but has changed in nature from fleets of vessels fishing with pelagic long line gear to also include fleets using the more efficient purse-seine method. The region hosts several hundred of these vessels, still almost all foreign owned. Many of those vessels operate in the Kenyan zone with licences issued by the Government. Information on foreign catches in the Kenyan zone is scant because of poor reporting by foreign vessels and lack of a system of monitoring the foreign fishing activities. In over 12 years of foreign fishing, catches were only reported in 1996 (3,831 mt of tunas), and 1997 (1,059 mt). It is likely that the level of reporting in these years was incomplete and that actual catches were much higher. 14

16 For over a decade, there has been a high level of interest on the part of foreign fishers in securing licences to fish in the Kenyan zone. For example in 2002, Kenya licensed 38 large foreign purse seiners, in the year such vessels, to fish for tunas in its offshore waters. All of these licences were issued for the second half of the year in response to requests from the foreign vessel owners, which could be taken as a sign that the country s offshore waters contain substantial tuna stocks that represent significant potential to the purse seining fishing method. The large purse seiners that have sought Kenyan licences can only really economically function where fish stocks are present in very good abundance and therefore the high level of interest in taking out these licences probably indicates the presence of substantial tuna stocks in the Kenyan zone, at least in the months of May/June to December. In the 1970s, the country had a joint venture with foreign interests to operate the pelagic long line method in offshore waters. That venture boasted catches of over 7,000 mt of tunas per year in the early years when foreign expertise was freely available but later, when the venture was converted into a total domestic operation, production fell away because of a lack of skills and the right level of application. In the period 1973 to 1979, the venture caught almost 24,000 mt of tunas at an average annual catch of 3,415 mt. Since then, there has been little domestic coastal or offshore fishing in Kenya. Constraints have been lack of information on offshore fish stocks, and lack of a developmental process for the offshore fisheries. In the early development of offshore fisheries where levels of investment are large, level of technology high, and where levels of expertise required are also high, potential investors need to be assisted and facilitated into the business. This support is usually provided by the fisheries development institution in the form of resource surveys, trial fishing, training of fishermen, provision of information on fisheries potential, responsive and innovative licensing, facilitation of financing through interventions in the banking sector, promotion of marketing through research into markets for fisheries products, provision of advice on fish quality standards, and facilitation of business growth through interventions in the institutions that control trade and industry, taxation, labour, etc. In Kenya it is the Fisheries Department which carries the responsibility for fisheries development. However for the most part, this institution is yet to come up with a clear developmental perspective for marine fisheries with focused developmental projects or programs. In particular, its efforts in the marine subsector are lower, but has concentrated most of its efforts on inland fisheries and aquaculture which account for about 95% of the total national fish catches. Even now, the institution has dedicated only limited financial and manpower resources to marine fisheries. In addition, staff in the marine sector offices are not well trained to obtain the right skills required to promote and manage the development of commercial fisheries based on the marine fisheries resources. 15

17 These institutional shortcomings need to be addressed for development of marine fisheries in Kenya. As a result of low levels of development, marine fisheries catches account for only 5% of the total annual national fisheries catches, the rest being derived from freshwater. Socio-economic data on the marine fisheries sector are given in Table 3. Table 3: Socio-economic profile of marine fisheries of Kenya (Source: Hatziolos et al, 1994; Ruwa, 1998; Sanders et al, 1991; SWIOP, 1985, 1989; UNEP, 1998; World Bank, 2001) Marine Fisheries Kenya 1. Artisanal annual catches (tonnes) 9, Industrial annual catches (tonnes) 2, Number of artisanal fishermen 6, Number of registered industrial fishing 4 vessels 5. Contribution of marine catches to 5 national fishery (%) 6. Inshore & offshore (within 12 nautical 34,000 * miles) potential yields (tonnes) 7. Contribution of national fisheries to GDP 0.04 (%) 8. National GDP (Billions US$) 10.4 * This figure is in fact mainly an estimation of inshore fisheries potential. It does not include for example estimates of the Kenyan potential take from the very large offshore/regional catch of pelagic tunas, billfishes and sharks, or from other offshore resources including deep bottom finfish and sharks, or even from the abundant coastal pelagic fish species, all of which could add 90,000 to 100,000 mt to the overall potential. Artisanal fishermen contribute about 60% of the annual marine fish catch landings, the rest being derived from commercial trawlers operating in the inshore prawn fishery. The total annual marine catches (Fig 7) showed a higher upward trend between 1984 to 1992, than after the significant general decline between 1993 and 2003 when the increase in catches was lower (Fisheries Department 2003). There has however been an argument that the actual catches are higher than the recorded ones because of the inaccessibility of fishing landing sites and inconvenient landing times (McClanahan 1996). 16

18 10000 Landing (tons) Year Figure 7. Trends in total marine fisheries catch landings along the Kenyan coastline from Analysis to detect the trends in annual catches of the major groups of marine fisheries i.e. crustaceans (prawns, Fig 8; lobsters, Fig 9 and crabs, Fig 10), pelagics (tuna, bonitos and billfishes, Fig 11, clupoeidei, Fig 12), elasmobranches (sharks, rays and skates, Fig 13) and mollusks (octopuses and squids, Fig 14) were undertaken based on FAO data records (see FAO 1990 and 2002). For most groups there has been a general decline or stagnation in catch levels in the last 5 years. Compared to her neighbouring countries Kenya s catch records are the lowest (Fig 15). 17

19 Fig 8: Annual Catches (mt) of shrimps or prawns in Kenya (Source: FAO 1990 and 2002) Tonnes Tonnes Fig 9: Year Annual catches (t) of lobsters, spiny rock lobsters panuilirusssp in Kenya (Source: FAO 1990 and 2002) Year 18

20 Fig 10: Annual catches (t) of marine crabs (Reptantia) in Kenya (Source: FAO 1990 and 2002 Tonnes Fig 11: Year Annual catches (t) of tuna, bonitos and bill fishes in Kenya for: (1) Scomberomorus commerson (Spanish mackerel), (2) Katsuwonus pelamis (Skipjack tuna) Tonnes Year 1 2 Total 19

21 Fig 12: Annual catches (t) of herrings, sardines and anchovies (Clupeoidei) Tonnes Year

22 Fig 13 : Annual catches (t) of sharks, rays and skates in Kenya (Source : FAO 1990 and 2002) Tonnes Year Fig 14 : Annual catches (t) of (1) octopuses (2) squids in Kenya ( Source: FAO 1990 and 2002) Tonnes Year Octopuses Squid 21

23 Fig 15: Annual marine fisheries catches (t) in Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania and Seychelles (Source FAO 1990 and 2002) Somalia Kenya Tanzania Seychelles Although Kenya has proclaimed its 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) according to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), fishery activities are almost exclusively undertaken in inshore waters. The inshore fisheries are heavily exploited by artisanal fishermen to the extent that there has been over-fishing and degradation of fishing habitats in some of the unprotected areas (McClanahan & Kaunda-Arrara, 1996). The only protected areas are the marine parks, where no fishing or any other human activity is permitted to allow undisturbed existence of natural populations of animals and plants and to preserve ecological biodiversity. 3. SURVEY STATUS OF MARINE FISHERIES RESOURCES IN KENYA a) Early Surveys Surveys of marine fisheries resources date back to 1950 when the East African Marine Fisheries Research Organization (EAMFRO) was formed and continued till 1977 (Nzioka 1985). Upon formation of this organization, it was decided that research emphasis should be placed on pelagic fish since they were considered to be the best bet on which to base fisheries development. The species studied were the scombroids, carangids and sharks (Nzioka, 1981). In the period 1951 to 1954, pelagic fish surveys showed that there were considerable stocks of unexploited fish aggregated in large surface schools in coastal waters (Williams, 22

24 1956, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965). Tuna schools had been seen inside the 200-m depth contour often in heavy concentrations (Williams & Newell, 1964). During these surveys it was also found that the Northern Kenya banks were major spawning and feeding grounds of three major groups of fish namely, Lutjanidae, Lethrinidae and Serranidae. Although artisanal fishing is a major mainstay activity for East African coastal fisherfolk, surveys for assessing stocks exploited by artisanal fishers were largely neglected by EAMFRO until 1968 when a programme was initiated to study the potential for expansion of the reef fishery into the deep reef slope and coral banks (Nzioka 1985). Otherwise, most subsequent surveys were done through FAO projects. Bottom trawl surveys in inshore waters were executed in the 1960s by the Kenyan research vessel Shakwe, and with commercial trawlers. An extensive bottom trawl survey of deeper waters (20-350m) was executed with FAO s vessel Ujuzi in 1979 to It was assisted by Dr Fridtjof Nansen in December Acoustic and trawl surveys were made in by Dr Fridtjof Nansen and in 1976/77 by Prof Mesyatsev. The North Kenya Bank was visited by R/V Manihine and also Ujuzi using hook and line gear. Huge beam trawls were introduced by the commercial trawler Kusi with assistance from a Dutch project. The creeks and inlets were surveyed by Shakwe around 1980 assisted by an Icelandic bilateral aid project (Venema, 1984). In the mid-1970s, in an arrangement between FAO and Sovrybflot of the USSR Ministry of Fisheries, with funding by UNDP, and coordination by FAO s Indian Ocean Programme, the fisheries research vessel F/V Professor Mesyatsev with Russian scientific staff undertook six cruises in the South-West Indian Ocean region that included the entire coastlines of Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique, and the oceanic banks of the Seychelles-Mauritius Ridge. The surveys were carried out in December 1975, January 1976, March 1976, June 1976, July 1977, and November The surveys, using acoustic instruments combined with exploratory fishing mainly with trawl gear, found that the richest waters were in the south between 15 º and 27 º South latitude over Saya de Mahla Bank, and in shallow waters off Seychelles and Amirantes Islands. For the most part, the surface waters were found to be poor in nutrients with low productivity, although there were local areas to the north of the richest areas which were thought to be influenced by upwellings that were much richer. The surveys showed an uneven distribution of fish aggregations that corresponded roughly with areas of higher productivity. For example, large numbers of schools of fish were detected in Ungwana Bay and adjacent waters off Kenya. The highest quantity was discovered in March 1977 when the biomass was estimated at 20,500 mt, 17,000 mt in waters less than 200 m deep and 3,500 mt in waters deeper than 200 m. Potential yields for these biomass estimates were 4,300 mt and 900 mt respectively. Potential productivity was calculated at 0.22 to 0.63 mt/sq km. 23

25 By comparison, Zanzibar Channel off Tanzania contained large stable concentrations of fish with a biomass estimate of 43,000 mt. Large and stable concentrations of fish were also found off Mozambique and Seychelles, with the biomass estimate for the Seychelles given as 115,000 mt. The surveys targeted fish that aggregated in the bottom few meters of the water column during the day. The main pelagic species found were carangids. Stocks of fish and invertebrates, particularly spiny lobsters, were discovered that would support new or expanded fisheries. Good concentrations of scads and snappers were found in several areas. Rough seabeds proved a problem in many areas but some good trawling grounds were found off Kenya, Tanzania and Seychelles (see Sanders, 1988; Sanders, Gichere & Nzioka, 1990; Sanders, Sparre & Venema, 1988). FV Professor Mesyatsev surveyed 20,500 km ² of ocean in the depth range from the reef out to 400 m and estimated the overall potential at 9,790 mt. More than half of the potential was in the area off Ungwana Bay, with smaller amounts in the Lamu, mid-coast and south coast areas. Its survey results were as follows: Table 4: Fisheries potential is some parts of the Kenyan coastal marine waters. Source: FAO/IOP (1979) as reported in Venema (1984) ZONE Lamu Ungwana Bay Mid-Coast South Coast Totals AREA (sq km) 3,531 10,942 3,618 2,420 20,511 POTENTIAL (mt) 1,700 5,200 1, ,790 Other trawl surveys by R/V Professor Mesyatsev found some 3,234 nautical sq miles of trawlable grounds (11,125 km ²) with estimated fish stocks of 33,000 mt. Up until that survey, the only trawling to be conducted in Kenyan waters was for prawns with fish by-catch, and also for fish in test trawl surveys by prawn trawlers. 24

26 In addition, FV Professor Mesyatsev using acoustic surveys produced provisional estimates of potential yield for small pelagic species at 10,000 mt, most of which would be scads and mackerels (Burczynski, 1976). Exploratory fishing with bottom set long lines was undertaken by EAMFRO during The North Kenya Bank was identified as a place that could provide catches at very high catch rates. The biomass was estimated at between 10,000 and 17,000 mt, giving potential yields of 1,000 to 1,700 mt. Kenyan waters were surveyed by R/V Dr Fridtjof Nansen in December 1980, August 1982, December 1982, and May 1983 (Iversen, 1984). The estimated abundance of demersal species was considered to be rather low due to fish being generally at low density, and also to the continental shelf being somewhat narrow. Fish were in greatest abundance in the depth range m. The potential yield for the area beyond the reef was estimated at about 5,000 7,500 mt.* the area investigated measured 23,500 sq km. Potential productivity ranged from 0.21 to 0.32 mt/sq km. De Sousa (1988) noted that the bulk of this potential was probably not being utilized by the artisanal fishery which is restricted between the shore and outer reef. He also referred to other reports on the results of demersal surveys (FAO/UNDP, 1982; FAO/UNDP, 1983) that gave potential yield in respect of all species at 8,933 mt, which reduced to 4,088 mt when swimming crabs and noncommercial fish were excluded. The shallow water lobster (Panulirus ornatus) is taken in fisheries all along the Kenyan coast. The main fishing grounds are in the north. A stock estimate of 271 mt (whole weight) was determined from experimental fishing with trammel nets conducted by Japanese experts over a 12-month period in 1967/68. In 1974, three vessels operating from Mombasa and fishing in the EEZ landed over 7,000 mt of tuna and tuna-like fish. In addition to those vessels, there were several Russian, Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese vessels fishing in the EEZ, which were unloading to mother ships for transport to overseas markets. Referring to the marine sub-sector, most observers have been less than optimistic about the fisheries prospects. A paper on the provision of assistance to Kenya in preparation of a fisheries sector development plan (FAO, 1990) noted that the annual marine catch from reef areas might be closer to 12,000 mt than 6,000 mt. It also noted that production from the coral reefs might be at its maximum with reported yields of around 5.5 mt/km². Another study noted that stony corals, in conjunction with calcareous red algae, provide the physical framework and energy source for reef communities. Reef frameworks afford oases of food and shelter for a wide variety of organisms including fish, in otherwise relatively barren tropical seas. It indicated that coral reefs and 25

27 adjacent communities could support sustainable fish yields of between 3 and 5 mt/km²/year (Marshall, 1979). Studies elsewhere have documented the importance of the reef to fish populations of tropical coastlines. The amount of coral reef and the amount of substrate covered by living coral tend to be positively correlated with the diversity and biomass of tropical fishes. See for example Nagelkerken (1977), Stevenson & Marshall (1974). The fact that artificial reefs also increase fish abundance provides additional evidence that the physical structure and topography that the reef provides is important for reef fish stocks (Sale, 1977). In fact, the influence of the reef extends far beyond the shallow region of the active coral reef. Reef detritus may enrich adjacent sand flats, supporting a macro-benthic invertebrate fauna upon which many fishes feed. A substantial fraction of the plankton that provides food for open water fish may be floating larval stages of benthic, reefassociated invertebrates. In East Africa, even typically open water species such as dolphinfish are known to feed of fishes derived from the coral reef. Even deep shelf demersal fish in the tropics derive much of their nutrition from reefs (see Parrish & Zimmerman, 1977; Smith, 1978; Williams & Newell, 1957). It is clear that many tropical marine fish species including those found considerable distances from the reef are in various ways dependent on the reef. FAO (1990a) noted that potential production on North Kenya Bank of snappers (Lutjanidae), groupers (Epinephelus sp.), emperors (Lethrinus sp.), and other similar species that are accessible to bottom hand lining could be as much as 1,251 mt per year. The demersal trawl fishery in shallow waters off Malindi and Ungwana Bay could yield an annual catch of 1,280 mt. The deep-water lobster fishery might yield around 140 mt per year. Similarly, a deep-water prawn fishery might yield some 108 mt per year. Shallow water lobster catches might average around 120 mt per year while shallow water prawns might produce annual yields of around 350 mt. The paper estimated that the average annual catch of deepsea tunas made in the Kenyan zone by distant water fishing vessels would probably be no more than 6,000 mt. In addition to this catch, a small catch of tunas and tuna-like species of about 140 mt is taken each year by sports fishing vessels catering to tourists. This all adds up to potential marine production of around 20,000 mt. Another observer put the potential annual commercial production from the marine waters that lie beyond the 150-m depth contour in the Kenyan EEZ at a mere 15,000 mt (Venema, 1984a). He indicated that even that potential might not be achievable because of perceived difficulties with capture due to strong currents and a lack of concentration of the resources. Venema (1984b: 69) noted that: The offshore resources have now been researched to a level that allows planners and investors to judge the situation. Unfortunately the picture is bleak and 26

28 the possibilities for development are very scanty indeed. Summarizing the results obtained from the above mentioned surveys, Venema (1984) gave the potential yields of commercial species from rough ground areas at 5,000 mt, for the trawlable area outside the reef at 5,000 mt, and for pelagic species at 4,000 5,000 mt. However, he thought that most of the pelagic species would be difficult to catch because of strong ocean currents and resources which are not concentrated. He also noted that the resources in deeper waters, although largely unexploited, are limited and also difficult to catch. He concluded that the abundance of offshore resources was bleak and the possibilities for development very scanty indeed. Venema s particularly gloomy conclusions were drawn on the basis of incomplete analyses, inadequate or complete lack of systematic surveys, analyses of results derived from use of inappropriate survey gear, etc. For example, the Prof Mesyatsev used trawl gear with a codend mesh size of 100 mm, which was too large to retain small fish species. Therefore, biomass estimates of the small pelagic species were almost certainly under-estimated. Venema conceded that the approach to surveys of the marine fisheries resources was very rough indeed and that the coastal areas and the North Kenya Bank in particular should have been treated differently (Venema, 1984). Another observer (Brochman, 1984) also referred to a potential of perhaps 15,000 mt. However, he did not think that such potential was economically viable because the fish in Kenyan waters are scattered and the main species are noncommercial. Yet another presenter (Oduor, 1984) put the potential at around 20,000 mt. Iversen (1984) estimated the potential yield in the area beyond the reef at about 5,000 8,000 mt. However, he noted that a large part of that potential consists of species of limited importance and that fish abundance generally was too low to support trawl and purse-seine fisheries. Somewhat going against the trend, Odero (1984) noted that: From various surveys it is estimated that the inshore waters of Kenya could yield as much as 20,000 tones of fish per year while the deep waters within the exclusive economic zone of 200 miles are capable of producing as much as 50,000 tones of fish per year. First, he (Odero 1984) presented a far more optimistic projection for potential inshore fish catches. Secondly, he characterized the potential with respect to the offshore tuna resources although surveys beyond 12 nautical miles have yet to be undertaken. 27

29 Nzioka (1984) noted that yellowfin tunas are present in Kenyan waters throughout the year, with marked increase during the Southwest Monsoon, being capable of being found as close as 4 km from the shore. He also noted the presence of a number of other tuna species including albacore, skipjack, frigate tuna, dogtooth tuna, bonito and little tuna, as well as the big game fish species striped marlin, black marlin, blue marlin and sailfish. Another presenter (Ardill, 1984) referred to the presence of bigeye tuna in the region, and Oduor (1984) added bluefin tuna, red marlin, white marlin, and swordfish to the list of highly migratory species capable of being taken in Kenyan waters. However, neither Ardill (1984) nor any other researcher even at present has given figures of the tuna potential for Kenya. The existence of a longstanding big game fishery in Kenyan waters that regularly records catches of trophy sized tunas through a season lasting some eight or nine months is a clear indication that the highly migratory tunas are present in Kenyan waters over a fairly long season. Also in recent times, foreign purse seiners from Europe have sought licences to fish for tunas in the Kenyan offshore zone. Yellowfin was found to be the most important of the tunas. Catches by foreign licensed longline vessels in the years before Kenya declared its 200-mile EEZ, were reported as being made as close of 4.5 km from the coastline where the thermocline (the point where the water temperature changed rapidly from warm to cold water) was at a depth of m. Fishing was conducted in the waters just above the thermocline. The foreign fishing records indicated that yellowfin tuna of large size were particularly abundant in the vicinity of Kenya during the SE Monsoon. It was thought that during that season, the fish were migrating into the area to spawn. Catch rates were found to increase as fishing moved closer to the coast. During the NE Monsoon, the fishery moved away from the coast to the area between 150 and 300 km offshore (see Suda, 1973a, 1973b; Williams & Newell, 1966, 1967). Other tunas in the coastal area were skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) found schooling in great abundance on the continental shelf, and thought to be spawning in coastal waters during January to July while migrating southward; albacore (Thunnus alalunga), catches of this species being made in the south of the area at depths exceeding 120 m in the cooler waters below the thermocline; dogtooth tuna (Gymnosarda unicolor) also reported from the southern parts of the area particularly during the NE Monsoon; frigate tuna (Auxis thazard) abundant in inshore waters during the NE Monsoon; and bonito (Euthynnus affinis) present year-round but found in abundance during August/September and January/February (Williams & Newell, 1964). Other pelagic fish recorded in the early surveys were the billfishes including striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax), a species of wide distribution in the Indian Ocean that was recorded in heavy concentrations from Pemba Island and around Malindi, and registered high catch rates in East African waters during the NE 28

30 Monsoon when the fish were on post-spawning feeding migrations (Williams & Newell, 1959b, 1959c, 1960; Williams, 1967; Uenagi & Wares, 1975); black marlin (Makaira indica) widespread in the west Indian Ocean and reported as occasionally caught close to shore near Malindi; blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) also widespread in the west Indian Ocean and reported from time to time in sports fishery in Kenya; sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) abundant in coastal waters on the Kenyan coast with the main seasons being December to February and April to September; and swordfish (Xiphias gladius) relatively rare in inshore surface waters but common in offshore longline catches (Nzioka, 1981). Pelagic species found in considerable abundance in nearshore coastal waters included the kingfish (Scomberomorus spp.), occurring in large offshore schools from about October through March, and large inshore schools from April through August/September; wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), occurring in small schools close inshore, and Indian or little mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta), occurring sometimes in very large schools particularly during the NE Monsoon (Nzioka, 1981; Williams, 1956; Williams & Newell, 1957, 1958, 1959a, 1965). Another report noted the occurrence in Kenyan waters of a sardine fishery (Wakwabi, 1981). The main species recorded were goldstripe sardinella (Sardinella gibbosa) and bluestripe herring (Herklotsichthys quadrimaculatus). Both species occur throughout the year in varying abundance but predominate in catches during the NE Monsoon, a time of relatively calm seas when fishing could be safely conducted, and also when primary productivity and plankton abundance are at their peaks in the sea. The research offered nothing on abundance. Otherwise, most surveys conducted between 1964 and 1975 claimed that Kenyan marine waters were not as rich as previously thought, but other evidence from the presence of Japanese, Korean and other foreign vessels fishing in the deeper parts of the Kenyan zone suggested that marine fisheries resources were to be found in some considerable abundance (Venema, 1984a, 1984b; VNIRO, 1978, 1979). Clearly, if the potential catches of tunas are taken into account, the paltry marine fisheries potential discussed by the seminar back in 1984 would need to be raised considerably although by what amount is unknown. The early fish surveys were by no means comprehensive, falling short in terms of the range of fishing and other survey methods applied, areas covered, seasons fished, and even the range of species surveyed. For the most part, those surveys ignored the potential contained in the offshore highly migratory species, which resulted in the overall impression that Kenyan marine waters are not very productive. In fact, it is well known that large concentrations of highly migratory tunas and billfishes and large pelagic sharks 29

31 pass through the Kenyan zone each year although the size of those concentrations has not been determined. These species form the basis for a longstanding and sizeable big game fishery. Several dozen sports fishing boats, operating from a dozen or more shore bases along the coast including Shimoni, Diani, Mombasa, Mtwapa, Kilifi, Watamu, Malindi and Lamu, fish in the sea area from the outer reef out to about 20 km from the shore, seeking tunas and other big game fishes as part of a service provided to tourists who visit the country specifically for such fishing. The fishing season is a long one, lasting eight or nine months, and the fishery is very productive. There is also a long history of interest by foreign fishing nations in the highly migratory fishery resources of the region. Dating back to the 1950s, pelagic longline vessels from Asia used to visit the East African coast to catch the tunas and billfishes. Vessels from those countries including Japan, Korea, and Taiwan still visit the region. It is known that large fleets from those countries are licensed to fish in the offshore EEZs of Seychelles and Mauritius. However, the extent to which they fish on the East African coast is unknown. In internal correspondence in 1993, a senior manager in the Fisheries Department referred to a tuna catch of over 300,000 mt being taken by foreign fishing vessels in or close to the Kenyan zone although the source of his information was not specified. However, he was almost certainly referring to catches being made in the whole region by foreign purse-seine fishing vessels. For about a decade, Kenya has licensed up to 35 European-flag purse seiners to fish for tuna in the Kenyan EEZ. At least some of those vessels subsequently landed their catches to a factory in Mombasa. However, because the vessels were not required to submit information on size and source of catches, it is uncertain as to whether that fish was taken in the Kenyan zone or elsewhere. The purse-seine tuna fishery in the Southwest Indian Ocean operates over a large area that includes the EEZs of Seychelles, Mauritius, Madagascar, Tanzania, Kenya, Comoros, and the French territories of Mayotte and Reunion, and the high seas areas in between. Catches on a particular vessel might be taken in a number of countries waters as well as from the high seas where no country has jurisdiction. A project is underway to research the extent to which foreign vessels have been targeting the highly migratory species in or close to the Kenyan EEZ in an endeavor to determine the potential production that might be taken by Kenyan interests. More recent analyses base on desktop reviews put the potential in the marine fisheries at between 100,000 and 140,000 mt (Habib, 2002). Much of that potential is contained within the highly migratory resources. A summary of the findings of that study follows. b) Focus on Specific Fisheries 30