i

MONITORING THE STATUS OF DEMARCATED FISH BREEDING

GROUNDS IN LAKE TURKANA

TECHNICAL REPORT KMF/RS/2018/C.2.7.i

MARCH 31st 2018

KMFRI Research team and BMU officials monitoring the status of

demarcated fish breeding ground in Lake Turkana (Photo: Courtesy of

KMFRI Communications and Public Relations Team)

KENYA MARINE AND FISHERIES RESEARCH

INSTITUTE

FRESH WATER SYSTEMS RESEARCH

ii

This report is prepared by scientists under the Department of Fisheries Research, the

Directorate of Freshwater Systems of the Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research

Institute (KMFRI).

Copyright © 2018 Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder.

Cover Image: KMFRI Research Team, Lake Turkana 2018 (photo: Courtesy of

Communications and Public Relations Team, Lake Turkana)

Citation:

Olilo CO., Malala JO., Obiero MO., Bironga, C., Keyombe JL., Aura CM., Wakwabi

E., Njiru JM., (2018). Monitoring the status of demarcated fish breeding grounds in Lake

Turkana. KMFRI Fresh water Systems Fisheries Research. Technical Report

KMF/RS/2018/C.2.7.i. pp 30.

Copies are available from:

The Director

Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute

P.O. Box 81651– 80100

Mombasa, KENYA

Telephone: +254 41 475151/2/3/4/5

FAX: 254 41 475157

E-mail: director@kmfri.co.ke

Internet: http://www.kmfri.co.ke

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We are very grateful to the Board of Management of The Kenya Marine and Fisheries

Research Institute for allocating the funds used to undertake this activity. Constant

encouragement by the Director of KMFRI enabled timely completion of this project.

The enthusiasm of Ekoyo beach management unit (BMU) that enabled the smooth

implementation of this activity is appreciated. Participation of members of staff of the

Department of Fisheries in the Ministry of Agriculture, Pastoral Economy and

Fisheries of the Turkana County Government is appreciated. We thank all KMFRI staff

for their willingness to work even under difficult conditions. We are also grateful to

all the fishers, BMU members and the fish traders who assisted and cooperated with

us during data collection in the field. This work was fully funded by KMFRI/GoK.

iv

DOCUMENT CERTIFICATION

Certification by Assistant Director (Fresh Water Systems):

I hereby certify that this report has been done under my supervision and

submitted to the Director.

Name: Dr. Christopher Mulanda Aura (PhD)

Signature: Date: 14th March, 2018.

Certification by Director:

I hereby acknowledge receipt of this Report

Name: Prof. James M. Njiru (PhD)

Signature: Date: 18th June 2018

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The overfishing in Lake Turkana has resulted into decreased fish catches with the

consequent decline in fishers’ income and low employment rate in the fishing

industry, thus threatening the food security, increasing poverty levels and depressing

the economy of the lakeside residents of the Turkana County, which is an exclusively

pastoral and fishery dependent economy. There is need to protect fish breeding

ground to enhance the survival and abundance of fish eggs, larvae, juvenile, spawners

and biodiversity at Ekoyo nursery in the lake. The objective of the study was to

monitor the status of demarcated fish breeding ground in Lake Turkana. Based on the

demand by key stakeholders, Beach Management Units (BMUs) at the Ekoyo –

Nariemet complex at Lake Turkana, the technical processes were involved in

monitoring the status of fish breeding ground. Following the successful protection of

the Napasinyang River Mouth in 2016 and Ekoyo in 2017, during baseline surveys in

the months of August 2017 and March 2018, arid climatic conditions of high

temperatures (25 – 40 °C) and low rainfall per annum (200-500 mm) continued to

characterize the lake environment. Alestes baremose, Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus),

Sarotherodon galileus, Nile perch (Lates niloticus), Labeo horie spp, Distichodus

niloticus, Citharinus citharinus, Schilbe uranoscopus, Clarias gariepinus, Synodontis

schall, Brycinus spp., Bagrus bayad, tiger fish (Hydrocynus forskalii) and Barbus sp.

were the dominant species. Ekoyo BMU members cited protection of the site;

frequent patrols and stopping use of small sized gill nets as best practice in protecting

and improving conservation areas. Thus, whereas the use of illegal fishing gear

comprising undersized gillnets, beach seine, and purse seine were major challenges

at the start of the project, these have since been removed for sustainable exploitation,

management and conservation of fish breeding areas. This study recommends

improved patrols and sharing of information with BMUs.

Key words: Lake Turkana – Demarcation - Fish breeding areas – Conservation –

Management – BMUs - Impacts monitoring – Information sharing

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. III

DOCUMENT CERTIFICATION ..................................................................................... IV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... V

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. VI

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 RESEARCH PROBLEM ........................................................................................................................................ 2

1.2.1 Broad objective ............................................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.2 Specific objectives........................................................................................................................................ 2

1. 3 STUDY JUSTIFICATION .......................................................................................... 2

2 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 3 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 SAMPLING ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION AND MAPPING OF FISH BREEDING AREAS .............................................. 5 2.4 DEMARCATION TOOLS ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.5 TRAINING OF BMUS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS ...................................................................................... 7 2.6 MAPPING OF THE FISH BREEDING AREA ........................................................................................................ 8 2.7 DEMARCATION OF THE FISH BREEDING AREA .............................................................................................. 8

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 9 3.1 TRAINING OF BMU MEMBERS ........................................................................................................................ 9 3.2 DEMARCATION AND MONITORING .............................................................................................................. 11 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS .......................................................................................................................... 12 3.4 FISH CATCHES AND SPECIES COMPOSITION ............................................................................................... 13

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................ 17 4.1 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE SHARED TO STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................................ 18

4.2.1 Knowledge based management .......................................................................................................... 18 4.2.2 Participatory based management ....................................................................................................... 18

REFERENCE .................................................................................................................... 19

APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 22

APPENDIX I. FORWARDING LETTER. MONITORING STATUS OF

DEMARCATED FISH BREEDING AREAS IN LAKE TURKANA C2.7 .................... 22

APPENDIX II: WORK PLAN AND MINUTES ............................................................. 23

APPENDIX III: APPROVED FIELD EXPENSES ......................................................... 24

APPENDIX IV: APPROVED FIELD REQUISITION .................................................... 25

APPENDIX V: POLICY BRIEF ON MONITORING THE STATUS OF

DEMARCATED FISH BREEDING GROUNDS IN LAKE TURKANA ...................... 26

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. LAKE TURKANA SHOWING THE POSITION OF THE MAJOR FISH

BREEDING AREAS INCLUDING THE FERGUSON’S GULF AND EKOYO-

NARIEMET -NAPASINYANG RIVER MOUTH COMPLEX ........................................ 5

FIGURE 2. RIVER NAPASINYANG DELTA, SHALLOW SHELTERED SHORES,

AND MACROPHYTES INCLUDING HIPPO GRASS, TYPHA SPP AND PROSOPIS

JULIFLORA, AT DEMARCATED FISH BREEDING HABITAT, CONSERVATION

AREA OF EKOYO, LAKE TURKANA ........................................................................... 7

FIGURE 3. TRAINING SESSION IN PROGRESS BY KMFRI RESEARCH TEAM

FOR THE BMU OFFICIALS ON OPTIMUM GILLNET SIZES ON THE

PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF FISH BREEDING

AREAS AT EKOYO BEACH FISHING VILLAGE, LAKE TURKANA IN MARCH

2018..................................................................................................................................... 8

FIGURE 4. TRAINING SESSION WITH BMU MEMBERS AT EKOYO, LAKE

TURKANA IN MARCH 2018 ......................................................................................... 10

FIGURE 5. TRAINING AND PLENARY SESSION IN PROGRESS FOR THE BMU

AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS ON PROCESSES OF CRITICAL FISH BREEDING

AREAS PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT AT EKOYO

BEACH, LAKE TURKANA IN FEBRUARY 2018 ....................................................... 10

FIGURE 6. TRAINING SESSION GROUP PHOTOGRAPH AFTER BMU AFTER

INTERACTIVE SHARING OF INFORMATION ON PROCESSES OF CRITICAL

FISH BREEDING AREAS PROTECTION, CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

AT EKOYO LAKE TURKANA IN MARCH 2018 ........................................................ 11

FIGURE 7. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AT THE SAMPLING SITES OF THE

DEMARCATED FISH BREEDING GROUND IN LAKE TURKANA FROM AUGUST

2017 TO MARCH 2018.................................................................................................... 12

FIGURE 8. SCAVENGING BIRDS STANDING ON A ROCKY OUTGROWTH AND

A FISHER’S STATIONERY BOAT AT THE CRITICAL FISH-BREEDING HABITAT

AT EKOYO, LAKE TURKANA IN MARCH 2018. ...................................................... 13

FIGURE 9. RETRIEVAL OF FISHING GEAR FROM WATER DURING THE

MONITORING OF PROTECTED FISH BREEDING GROUND AT EKOYO, LAKE

TURKANA AFTER EXPERIMENTAL FISHING DURING MARCH 2018. ............... 14

FIGURE 10. SYNODONTIS SCHALL CAUGHT DURING EXPERIMENTAL FISHING

AT EKOYO CONSERVATION AREA IN LAKE TURKANA IN MARCH 2018 ....... 14

FIGURE 11. ALESTES BAREMOSE CAUGHT DURING EXPERIMENTAL FISHING

AT EKOYO CONSERVATION AREA IN LAKE TURKANA IN MARCH 2018 ....... 15

FIGURE 12. THE NILE TILAPIA OREOCHROMIS NILOTICUS AND TILAPIA ZILLII

CAUGH DURING THE EXPERIMENTAL FISH IN AT EKOYO CONSERVATION

AREA IN LAKE TURKANA IN MARCH 2018 ............................................................ 15

viii

FIGURE 13. FISH SPECIES ABUNDANCE (%) AT EKOYO CONSERVATION

AREA IN LAKE TURKANA IN 2017; KEY TO FIG 7: LIT-LITTORAL ZONE, NSH-

NEAR SHORELINE, OSZ-OFFSHORE ZONE ............................................................. 16

FIGURE 14. FISH SPECIES ABUNDANCE (%) AT EKOYO CONSERVATION

AREA IN LAKE TURKANA IN MARCH 2018 ............................................................ 16

FIGURE 15. FISH CATCHES AS AN OUTCOME OF PROTECTING FISH

BREEDING GROUND AT EKOYO CONSERVATION AREA, LAKE TURKANA IN

MARCH 2018 ................................................................................................................... 27

ix

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 GPS COORDINATES OF DEMARCATED FISH BREEDING AREA

UNDER EKOYO BMU 12TH MARCH 2018 .................................................................... 3

1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background information

In intensely fished waters in many of the countries where fishery supports

livelihood, overfishing in lakes has resulted into decrease in fish catches and diversity

with consequent decline on fishers’ income and reduced employment (Sumaila et al.,

2014). As a result, the number of people being newly employed in the fishing industry

has declined thereby increasing poverty levels and decreasing food security. Many

people have turned into fishery as an alternative livelihood to a predominantly pastoral

economy with increased human population in Turkana County. However, these people

use illegal and unregulated fishing gears in shallow inshore fish breeding areas which

catch both juvenile and breeding forms before they can complete their breeding cycle.

Five key effects of the poor fishing methods are: overfishing of fish stock, destruction

of fish habitat, fishing down of the food webs, ecological food web disruption and

increased discard of by- catch (Kolding 1989; 1982; 1993a, b; 1995; Sainsbury et al.,

1987; 1997; 1998; 2000; Auster et al., 1996; Kolding and van Zwieten 2006; Kolding

et al., 2016). The result is increase in both ecosystem and recruitment overfishing. At

the market level, the demand of fish and fish products at high scales and intensity with

current fishing practices, driven by high market demand (internal and external) due to

increasing tastes of different market stratification, has combined with the above

challenges to contribute to unsustainability of the fishery. Along the mid-western side

of Lake Turkana occupied by Nariemet, Ekoyo and Kalimapus beach management units

(BMUs), the presence of river delta, shallow sheltered shores, macrophytes dominated

bay has created conducive habitats that stimulate the breeding of various fish species.

Protection from violent waves has also created calm waters which has made many

fishers to use the area for beach seining, setting of inshore based gill nets and purse

seining using very small mesh fishing nets. Surveys by Kenya Marine and Fisheries

Research Institute (KMFRI) over the years have shown that the area is rich in fish

diversity, but the size and amount of fish landed has decreased. Owing to the declining

water level in he Ferguson’s Gulf, many fishers have immigrated into the area causing

overcapacity of the fishery thereby creating management challenges to the nascent

BMU. At the request of Ekoyo BMU, KMFRI and the BMU identified several

challenges to the sustainability of the fisheries and prioritized a number of actions to be

2

undertaken to alleviate the problems. Top of the list were capacity building of the BMU

membership on sustainable fishing practices, protection of the fish breeding areas and

monitoring of impacts on fishery and post-harvest fish handling. Thus, this report

therefore outlines the joint effort undertaken by KMFRI, Ekoyo BMU and other

stakeholders at minimizing destructive fishing practices in the fish breeding area by

capacity building the BMU membership and initiating the breeding area protection

process.

1.2 Research Problem

The processes and factors that limit fish population size are increased fishing

effort and use of undersize fishing gillnets in fish breeding areas in the littoral and

mid-shore zones that lead to reduction in the spawners and recruitment of fish

stocks in Lake Turkana.

1.2.1 Broad objective

To monitor the status of demarcated fish breeding ground in Lake Turkana to enhance

and sustain fish production through the provision of critical data and information

on the factors that limit the local fish population size to share with stakeholders

for the development and implementation of Lake Turkana fishery management

plan.

1.2.2 Specific objectives

i. To sensitize the BMUs on the importance of protecting fish breeding areas.

ii. To jointly with the BMUs and other stakeholders replace the materials lost after

demarcation of fish breeding areas at Ekoyo.

iii. To collect data and information on fish stocks within the fish breeding areas.

iv. To assess and monitor the impacts of protection and demarcation of fish breeding

areas at Ekoyo fish breeding ground at Lake Turkana.

1. 3 Study justification

Over the years, KMFRI has engaged the fishers of Lake Turkana on the need for

sustainable exploitation of the fishes of the lake. It has also noticed an increase in

the use of illegal fishing gear and increased fishing effort in the inshore waters

specifically in the above-mentioned shallow bays and river channels. Together,

they have identified a number of areas that are now regarded as critical habitats.

3

These areas have been mapped and continuously studied to characterize them in

the process. Demarcation and community based management of these habitats

supported by research findings from such studies were key to the sustainable fish

production as the fishers would be able to take care of the resources within each

locality given that they live there and the utilization of the resources directly affect

their livelihoods.

There are many fishery management challenges facing the area such as

increase in the fishing effort, open access, close proximity to high population

centres such as Kalokol market centre and demand for daily fresh fish supply to

Lodwar Town and Kitale. In addition, smoked and fried fish serving Kitale market

and beyond are also sourced from the lake. Additional challenges include a ready

market for undersized fish that stimulate rampant seining and use of illegal fishing

nets, which are destructive to both the environment and the fishery.

Therefore, in order to reduce destructive fishing practices, community

participation in management of the resource was key as it would assist address

issues of immediate application in conflict reduction in fish resource use, informed

management decisions on the values of the vegetated and grassy areas of Ekoyo

to the broader lake fishery. Therefore, this specific activity was aimed at

addressing the overall objective of research, of enhancing and sustaining fish

production through the provision of critical information to be used in the

development and implementation of Lake Turkana fishery management plan.

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Description of the study area

The geographical location of the shoreline is from the southern border of

Kalimapus BMU (N 03º 35´ 33.4´´ - E 035º 51´ 39.6´´) to the western end of

Nariemet beach (N 03º 34´ 31.0´´ - E035º 52´ 23.0´´) (Table 1).

Table 1 GPS Coordinates of demarcated fish breeding area under

Ekoyo BMU 12th March 2018

Station

sampled Latitude Longitude Altitude (m) Depth (m)

4

1. 3°52' 947" 35 °51' 957" 365 0

2. 3° 35' 608" 35 °319' 55" 365 1.3

3. 3° 35' 661" 35 °52' 31" 366 2.6

4. 3° 35' 716" 35 ° 52' 92" 365 3.6

5. 3° 36' 809" 35 ° 51' 636" 366 0

6. 3° 35' 990" 35 °52' 281" 365 10

7. 3° 36' 225" 35 ° 51' 829" 368 0

8. 3° 36' 35" 35 ° 52' 190" 365 10.4

9. 3° 36' 59" 35 ° 52' 95" 365 9.6

10. 3° 35' 938" 35 ° 52' 238" 364 0

11. 3° 36' 145" 35 ° 52' 361" 365 9.2

12. 3° 35' 844" 35 ° 52' 174" 365 0

13. 3° 36' 195" 35 ° 51' 887" 367 9.3

14. 3° 36' 259" 35 ° 51' 767" 366 10.5

15. 3° 36' 289" 35 ° 51' 694" 365 9.9

16. 3° 36' 321" 35 ° 51' 889" 365 8.6

17. 3° 36' 263" 35 ° 51' 565" 362 8.5

18. 3° 36' 145" 35 ° 51' 549" 365 4

19. 3° 36' 82" 35 °51' 519" 367 2

20. 3° 35' 945" 35 ° 51' 545" 365 0.8

It also lies at the first bend, which separates the northern, and the central

sectors of the lake, the latter characterized by the Ferguson’s Gulf and Central

Island. The area geared for monitoring and protection covers the main entrance

of Napasinyang’ River and the western distributaries (Figure 1). The presence of

river delta, shallow sheltered shores, and macrophytes such as Hippo grass, Typha

spp and Prosopis juliflora (Figure 2) has created conducive habitats that stimulate

the breeding of various fish species. Protection from violent waves has also

created calm waters.

5

Figure 1. Lake Turkana showing the position of the major fish breeding areas

including the Ferguson’s Gulf and Ekoyo-Nariemet -Napasinyang river mouth

complex

2.2 Sampling

Prior to monitoring of the demarcated and protected areas, baseline water

quality conditions were measured along transverse transect running from the

littoral areas of the demarcated bay to the offshore zone. Physico-chemical water

quality characteristics such as turbidity, temperature, and electrical conductivity

(EC) were profiled in situ at depth intervals from 20 cm sub surface using a

portable water quality meter (Model YSI Professional Plus A605596, Yellow

Springs OH USA). Fish within the area were sampled using 3 fleets of

monofilament and a fleet of multifilament gill nets. The monofilament nets ranged

in size from 2 - 60 mm while the multifilament nets ranged from 73-264 mm. Size,

weight, sex, maturity, diet and habitat preference were recorded using standard

methods (Hopson, 1982).

2.3 Criteria for identification and mapping of fish breeding areas

The following criteria were generally used to identify and map the fish breeding area:

i. Public participation and consultation with all the BMUs and other stakeholders

would ensure project ownership.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Moite

Mugur

Kerio

Lotar

F. Gulf

Selicho

Sibiloi

Nachukui

Omo Delta

Lowarengak

Koobi Fora

El Molo Bay

Napasinyang'

Loiyangalani

Eliye Springs

7 Kerio

Turkwel

2

1

10

9

6

7

3

5

4

8

Om

o

37°20'0"E

37°20'0"E

36°40'0"E

36°40'0"E

36°0'0"E

36°0'0"E

35°20'0"E

35°20'0"E

4°4

0'0

"N

4°4

0'0

"N

4°0

'0"N

4°0

'0"N

3°2

0'0

"N

3°2

0'0

"N

2°4

0'0

"N

2°4

0'0

"N

Legend

! Area name

River

Island

Swamp

Breeding site

Lake 0 20 40 60 8010

Kilometers®

6

ii. Indigenous knowledge on these fisheries needs to be documented during

identification and mapping of new fish breeding grounds in the lake.

iii. Collect baseline data based on scientific protocol to identify new breeding areas

suitable for conservation.

iv. Assessing the distribution and abundance of larvae, juvenile and adults that are

ready for recruitment at each stage in the life history of fishes in the lake.

v. Establishing the life cycles of fish diversity in the lake.

vi. Documenting fish biodiversity in the conservation areas and the entire lake

ecosystem.

vii. Establishing the abundance and distribution of nesting, mature gravid male and

female spawners.

viii. Using instrumentations such as Geographic Positions System (GPS) to

identifying and demarcating the boundaries and location of the fish breeding

areas

2.4 Demarcation tools

i. A stakeholders’ meeting was convened to establish, map and validate the

boundaries of fish breeding areas.

ii. Conservation was a process that involved the participation of stakeholders and

BMUs (fishers, fish processors and markers), fisheries managers, and scientists

and funders (KMFRI staff) and youth in the mapping, validation and

demarcation of the fish breeding areas.

iii. The tools used in the process were; heavy sinkers, thick marine type nylon

manila ropes (size 13), buoys of any colour (yellow and red), but large enough

to be visible approximately 200 meters away from the shore line (Figure 2).

7

Figure 2. River Napasinyang Delta, shallow sheltered shores, and macrophytes

including Hippo grass, Typha spp and Prosopis juliflora, at demarcated fish

breeding habitat, conservation area of Ekoyo, Lake Turkana

2.5 Training of BMUs and other stakeholders

Prior to training, KMFRI and Ekoyo BMU executive committee held several

consultative meetings dating back to 2017 to identify challenges and prioritize

BMU needs, which were based on earlier written request to KMFRI to provide

support to address several challenges. After accepting, KMFRI committed to

undertake community capacity building on protection of fish breeding areas

including monitoring the impacts amongst others. In total, four meetings were

held during the months of August 2017, December 2017, February and March

2018, and, which were mainly, focused group discussions. Representation

comprised youth, women and men who were drawn from the various arms of the

BMU (e.g. boat owners, net menders, fishers, processors, transporters, traders,

etc) (Figure 3).

8

Figure 3. Training session in progress by KMFRI research team for the BMU

officials on optimum gillnet sizes on the protection, conservation and management

of fish breeding areas at Ekoyo Beach fishing village, Lake Turkana in March

2018

2.6 Mapping of the fish breeding area

Identification of the fish breeding areas in Lake Turkana was done in 2012

and 2016 using a combination of information generated from indigenous

knowledge of the fisher communities and the empirical data collected during

KMFRI expeditions and other historical data from literature. The study entailed

preliminary interpretation of existing information on the critical habitats and geo-

referencing where necessary. Map of the previously identified areas was produced

using GIS technology. After validation during community meetings, the area

covered by Ekoyo BMU was identified and prioritized for demarcation.

2.7 Demarcation of the fish breeding area

After sensitization meetings involving BMU executive and general

membership, demarcation process was initiated and completed in 2016. It

involved the use of traditional sinkers, modern cemented sinkers, thick twined

9

manila ropes, traditional floaters and modern styrofoam buoys. Each buoy was

given an ID number, which was to be used for monitoring and if stolen, for

traceability. During the demarcation representatives form KMFRI, Ekoyo BMU and

Turkana County Department of Fisheries participated. Each position where

sinkers were placed were geo-referenced using Garmin GPS model and depth

taken using geo-referenced Eagle Fish Finder model. The fish stocks were sampled

using monofilament gillnets, fish retrieved and samples caught were sorted

according to the species (Figure 4).

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Training of BMU members

Six executive members of the BMU comprising of 2 women and 4 men were

trained in order to go and sensitize the BMU members on the planned activities

and get their consensus. A follow-up meeting was held for 11 representative

members, which comprised of 4 women and 7 men to identify the BMU members

to work with KMFRI during the demarcation process. A final meeting comprising

of 24 members drawn from all segments of the BMU was held on 2nd March 2018

to sensitize the members on the importance of sustainable fishing, protecting fish

breeding areas, the value of conservation and management of fish breeding areas

and the roles of the various part of the BMU membership, and monitoring of fish

protected areas (Figures 4, 5, and 6). Some of the challenges identified by Ekoyo

BMU members were lack of adequate resources to protect the breeding area,

invasion of the fish breeding site by none members of Ekoyo BMU, lack of patrol

and rescue boats and increased use of illegal fishing gear such as undersize nets,

beach seine and boat seining by immigrant fishers.

10

Figure 4. Training session with BMU members at Ekoyo, Lake Turkana in March

2018

Figure 5. Training and plenary session in progress for the BMU and community

members on processes of critical fish breeding areas protection, conservation and

management at Ekoyo Beach, Lake Turkana in February 2018

11

Figure 6. Training session group photograph after BMU after interactive sharing

of information on processes of critical fish breeding areas protection, conservation

and management at Ekoyo Lake Turkana in March 2018

3.2 Demarcation and monitoring

An area estimated at 10.5 km2 was demarcated using buoys. It extended

from the western boundary of Nariemet BMU and the central part of Ekoyo BMU.

It stretched from the shoreline to a depth of 10.5 m. The boundary references and

depths are indicated in Table 1. It was agreed that no fishing should take place

from the buoys to the macrophytes and the selected channels. The responsibility

for monitoring was to be shared by KMFRI, Ekoyo BMU and County Department

of Fisheries. KMFRI was given the responsibility of undertaking research to

monitor changes in fish populations and communities, water quality, plankton and

benthic organisms and macrophytes. Ekoyo BMU was given the responsibility of

monitoring on compliance of non-entry of fishers in the demarcated area and

report offenders to the fisheries department. The fisheries department was given

the responsibility of enhancing their normal monitoring, control and surveillance

(MCS) and where possible take action against non-compliance by fishers. All

actors were requested to report the results of their activities during community

consultative meetings called by the BMU, KMFRI or Fisheries Department

monitoring changes during the process was initiated to be undertaken by The

identified team comprising of KMFRI/Ekoyo BMU and County officials members

of the community. Two meetings were held for two consecutive days educating

12

and training the local community on critical fish breeding habitats protection,

conservation and management. At the two meetings each beach was tasked to

identify 3 individual youth champions who would join the research team on the

demarcation process. The joint participation in the meeting is important as it

enables representatives from each community to be part of the demarcation

process then go back and sensitize the rest of the members. At each site the

anchors would be placed at an interval of 50 metres.

3.3 Environmental factors

The environmental factors did not show significant (p<0.05) differences between

2017 sampling period and 201 8 (Figure 7). Turbidity ranged from 100 to 180

NTU, conductivity ranged from 3850 to 3982 μScm-1, temperature ranged from 26

to 33 °C, pH ranged from 8 to 9.2, dissolved oxygen ranged from 2.9 to 7.6 mgL-1,

oxidation reduction potential ranged from to 104 to 109 mV. These values

indicate the salinity nature of Lake Turkana, despite it supporting freshwater

fisheries.

Figure 7. Environmental factors at the sampling sites of the demarcated fish

breeding ground in Lake Turkana from August 2017 to March 2018.

13

3.4 Fish catches and species composition

The fish breeding ground and fishing area were also marked by the presence of

several fish eating birds’ population residing in that area (Figure 8). Experimental

fishing in the area showed varied fish species reside in the area (Figures 9, 10, 11,

and 12). Figures 13 and 14 show the percentage abundance of the fish species

caught in various habitats during baseline survey in August 2017, and February

and March 2018. Alestes baremose was the most abundant species in the littoral,

nearshore and offshore zones while, Lates niloticus in March 2017, while

Citharinus citharus was the least abundant in August 2017. A total of 14 species

were caught, 11 of which were of commercial importance while the rest support

local consumption.

Those supporting commercial fishery were: Alestes baremose, Nile Tilapia

(Oreochromis niloticus), Sarotherodon galileus, Nile perch (Lates niloticus), Labeo

horie, spp, Clarias gariepinus, Distichodus niloticus, Citharinus citharinus, Bagrus

bayad and tiger fish (Hydrocynus forskalii) and Barbus sp. Those caught for local

consumption were Schilbe uranoscopus, Synodontis schall and Brycinus spp. The

improved conservation efforts by the stakeholders are evidenced by the improved

catches of fish in the area (Figure 15).

Figure 8. Scavenging birds standing on a rocky outgrowth and a fisher’s stationery

boat at the critical fish-breeding habitat at Ekoyo, Lake Turkana in March 2018.

14

Figure 9. Retrieval of fishing gear from water during the monitoring of protected

fish breeding ground at Ekoyo, Lake Turkana after experimental fishing during

March 2018.

Figure 10. Synodontis schall caught during experimental fishing at Ekoyo

conservation area in Lake Turkana in March 2018

15

Figure 11. Alestes baremose caught during experimental fishing at Ekoyo

conservation area in Lake Turkana in March 2018.

Figure 12. The Nile Tilapia Oreochromis niloticus and Tilapia zillii caugh during the

experimental fish in at Ekoyo conservation area in Lake Turkana in March 2018

16

Figure 13. Fish species abundance (%) at Ekoyo conservation area in Lake Turkana

in 2017; key to Fig 7: LIT-Littoral zone, NSH-Near shoreline, OSZ-Offshore zone.

Figure 14. Fish species abundance (%) at Ekoyo conservation area in Lake Turkana in March 2018

17

Figure 15. Fish catches as an outcome of protecting fish breeding ground at

Ekoyo conservation area, Lake Turkana in March 2018

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusions

KMFRI and Ekoyo BMU successfully addressed two important challenges that

had earlier been identified by the BMU as limiting their capacity to manage the

fishery resources within the BMU. These were: capacity building of the BMU

through training on sustainable fisheries and protection of the fish breeding areas

and under their jurisdiction. Secondly, joint demarcation of the fish breeding area,

initiation of monitoring and sharing of responsibilities on monitoring and

reporting. The experiences gained by implementing this activity and the results of

the monitoring will be applied in managing similar areas within Lake Turkana and

develop a management plan for the lake. Thus, whereas the use of illegal fishing

gear including undersize gillnets, beach seine and purse or boat seine were major

challenges at the start of the project, these have since been improved for

conservation, management, development and sustainable use of fish breeding

areas.

18

4.2 Recommendations to be shared to stakeholders

4.2.1 Knowledge based management

It is recommended that Ekoyo BMU being new since its constitution, still needs

a lot of support to enable its members uplift their living standards and understand

the essentials of managing fish breeding areas. The support may be in the areas of

further capacity building, provision of suitable nets and vessels, which can be used

to fish in deeper waters, beach infrastructure such as development of fish cold

chain and fish bandas. Alternative livelihoods, which may draw some members

away from fishing would reduce fishing pressure and ensure fewer people fishing

within the BMU area. It is also recommended that KMFRI should work with Ekoyo

BMU to consolidate the findings of this study by providing technical support at

every level of the fish value chain to reduce wastage and losses for the benefit of

the poorer members of the community (Documentations are in appendices I and

II).

Knowledge to be generated and shared by the BMUs membership and other

stakeholders should include:

i. Information on trends in water quality and productivity within the breeding

areas;

ii. Monitoring of changes in the distribution and abundance of various fish

species both from fishery dependent and fishery independent sampling

established effort;

iii. Continued capacity building on the importance of the protected areas as

fish nursery grounds and refugia;

iv. Improved surveillance by BMUs;

v. Data and information on fishing efforts.

4.2.2 Participatory based management

i. Continued monitoring of fish breeding ground to ensure compliance with

fisheries management and regulations Act of 2016 laws of Kenya;

ii. Fishing crafts can be allowed safe passage through the protected zone

iii. KMFRI scientists should continue with monitoring exercise to to undertake

assess impact of the demarcation on the habitat and fish population and the

19

research should be non-intrusive and compatible with the conservation

principles.

iv. During the monitoring of fish breeding ground, the BMUs members should

participate in the joint research to appreciate the benefits of conservation.

v. For optimal conservation, limited access to fishing should be allowed in the

conservation area after six months of continuous protection of fish breeding

grounds based on understanding between scientific findings, fishers patrol and

surveillances, fishery mangers and other stakeholders.

vi. There is need to control, regulate and monitor the number of gillnets, boats and

fishers allowed legally in the lake.

vii. There is need to use size 4 inches of the gill net mesh sizes for optimal

conservation after protection.

viii. There is need for closed seasons to ensure larvae enter juvenile stage and

juvenile to enter adult fish ready for entry into fishery.

ix. The size of gillnets used should be 4 inches to enable catching of fish with the

allowable length at first maturity.

x. Environmental protection of the beaches should be improved to minimize

dumping, littering and pollution of designated conservation Ecotones.

xi. A participatory approach is important to ensure inclusivity in conservation of

fish breeding areas.

REFERENCE

Auster, P.J., Malatesta, R.J., Langton, R.W., Watling, L., Valentine, P.C., Donaldson,

C.L.S., Langton, E.W., Shepard, A.N., Babb, I.G. (1996). The impacts of

mobile fishing gear on seafloor habitats in the Gulf of Maine (Northwest

Atlantic): implications for conservation of fish populations. Reviews in

Fisheries Science, 4, 185 202.

Hopson, A. J. (1982). Lake Turkana: A report on the findings of the Lake Turkana

Project, 1972–1975. Vols 1‐6. Stirling, Overseas Development Administration

and University of Stirling, Institute of Aquaculture. 1614 p.

Kolding, J. (1989). The fish resources of Lake Turkana and their environment. Bergen:

University of Bergen. Department of Fisheries Biology. Kolding, J. (1992). A

summary of Lake Turkana: An ever‐changing mixed environment.

Verhandlungen des Internationalen Verein Limnologie, 23, 25–35.

20

Kolding, J. (1993a). Population dynamics and life‐history styles of Nile tilapia,

Oreochromis niloticus, in Ferguson's Gulf, Lake Turkana, Kenya.

Environmental Biology of Fishes, 37, 25–46. DOI: 10.1007/BF00000710

Kolding, J. (1993b). Trophic interrelationships and community structure at two

different periods of Lake Turkana, Kenya: A comparison using the Ecopath II

box model. In V. Christensen, & D. Pauly (Eds.), Trophic models of aquatic

ecosystems. ICLARM conference proceedings.(pp. 116–123). Makati:

International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.

Kolding, J. (1995). Changes in species composition and abundance of fish populations

in Lake Turkana, Kenya. In P. Hart & T. J. Pitcher (Eds.), The impact of species

changes in African lakes (pp. 335–363). New York: Springer.

Kolding, J., and van Zwieten, P. A. M. (2006). Improving productivity in tropical lakes

and reservoirs. Challenge Program on Water and Food–Aquatic Ecosystems

and Fisheries Review Series). Cairo: WorldFish Center.

Kolding, J., and van Zwieten, P. A. M. (2012). Relative lake level fluctuations and their

influence on productivity and resilience in tropical lakes and reservoirs.

Fisheries Research, 115, 99–109. DOI: 10.1016/j. fishres.2011.11.008.

Kolding, J., van Zwieten, P. A. M., Marttin, F., and Puolain F. (2016). Fisheries in the

drylands of Sub‐saharan Africa: Building resilience for fisheries‐dependent

livelihoods to enhance food security and nutrition in the drylands. FAO

Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular, fipi/firf/m c1118. Rome: Food and

Agriculture Organization.

Sainsbury, K.J. (1987). Assessment and management of the demersal fishery on the

continental shelf of northwestern Australia. Tropical Snappers and Groupers:

Biology and Fisheries Management (eds J. J. Polovina & S. Ralston), pp. 465

503. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Sainsbury, K.J., Campbell, R.A., Lindholm, R., Whitelaw, A.W. (1997).

Experimental management of an Australian multispecies fishery: examining

the possibility of trawl-induced habitat modification. Global Trends: Fisheries

Management (eds K. Pikitch, D. D. Huppert and M. P. Sissenwine), pp. 107

112. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Sainsbury, K. J. 1998. Living marine resource assessment for the 21st Century: What

21

will be needed and how will it be provided? In Fishery Stock Assessment

Models, pp. 1–40. Ed. by F. Funk, T. J. Quinn II, J. Heifetz, J. N. Ianelli, J. E.

Powers, J. F. Schweigert, P. J. Sullivan, and C.-I. Zhang. Alaska Sea Grant

College Progra Report No. AK-SG-98-01. University of Alaska, Fairbanks,

Alaska, USA.

Sainsbury, K. J., Punt, A. E., and Smith, A. D. M. (2000). Design of operational

management strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. – ICES

Journal of Marine Science, 57: 731–741.

Sumaila, U. Rashid, Christophe Bellmann, and Alice Tipping (2014). Fishing for the

Future: Trends and Issues in Global Fisheries Trade. E15 Initiative. Geneva:

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and

World Economic Forum, 2014. www.e15initiative.or.

22

APPENDICES

Appendix I. FORWARDING LETTER. MONITORING STATUS OF

DEMARCATED FISH BREEDING AREAS IN LAKE TURKANA C2.7

23

Appendix II: WORK PLAN AND MINUTES

1. The target: Demarcation and protection of critical fish habitats and

monitor the impacts of this process on the fisheries at Ekoyo BMU.

2. Reason: To Meet the PC targets by 31st March 2018

3. Objective: To undertake assessment and monitoring the impacts of

demarcation of fish breeding areas and share this process and reports

with the BMU at Ekoyo Lake Turkana.

4. Planned Activities:

a. Communities meetings for sensitization and education of critical fish breeding

areas

b. Community monitoring exercise

c. Fish and water quality baseline data

5. Expected output:

a. Minutes of meetings for sensitization and education of critical fish breeding

areas

b. Community assessment and monitoring and GPS positions

c. Fish, water quality and community baseline data

24

Appendix III: Approved field expenses

25

Appendix IV: Approved field requisition

26

Appendix V: Policy brief on monitoring the status of demarcated fish

breeding grounds in Lake Turkana for dissemination to stakeholders

Policy advice no: KMF/RS/2018/c.2.7.i

Title: Monitoring the status of demarcated fish breeding grounds in Lake Turkana

Preparation

This brief trusts on the latest available scientific information to give both strategic and planned

advice to fisheries managers for timely interventions for sustainable management of Lake Turkana.

Strategic tools proposed herein are geared towards arresting the declining trend of fisheries

27

production in the lake (an economic mainstay in the region), through demarcation of fish breeding

ground.

Executive Summary

The objective of the study was to monitor the status of fish breeding ground in Lake Turkana

to enhance food and nutrition and sustain fish production through the provision of critical

data and information on the factors that limit the local fish population size.

There was need to protect fish breeding ground to enhance the survival and abundance of

fish eggs, larvae, juvenile, spawners and biodiversity at Ekoyo nursery in the lake.

Ekoyo BMU members cited protection of the site; frequent patrols and stopping use of small

sized gill nets as best practice in protecting and improving conservation areas.

Thus, whereas the use of illegal fishing gear comprising undersized gillnets, beach seine,

and purse seine were major challenges at the start of the project, these have since been

removed for sustainable exploitation, management and conservation of fish breeding areas.

This study recommends improved patrols and sharing of information with BMUs.

Introduction

Lake Turkana is an important desert lake that provides ecosystem services to the human population

residing along the lake (e.g. fisheries and transport). It is an important ecosystem whose

sustainability depends largely on the ownership of the processes by the indigenous people. Capacity

development for the stakeholders is one of the needs by the local BMUs required for sustainable

management of the fishery resources. Therefore, this report outlines the joint effort undertaken by

KMFRI, Ekoyo BMU and other stakeholders at minimizing destructive fishing practices in the fish

breeding area by capacity building the BMU membership and initiating the breeding area protection

process.

Approaches and Results

Lake Turkana lies at the first bend, which separates the northern, and the central sectors of the

lake, the latter characterized by the Ferguson’s Gulf and Central Island. The area geared for

monitoring and protection covers the main entrance of Napasinyang’ River and the western

distributaries (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Lake Turkana showing the position of the major fish breeding areas including the

Ferguson’s Gulf and Ekoyo-Nariemet -Napasinyang river mouth complex

Criteria for identification and mapping of fish breeding areas

ix. Public participation and consultation with all the BMUs and other stakeholders.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Moite

Mugur

Kerio

Lotar

F. Gulf

Selicho

Sibiloi

Nachukui

Omo Delta

Lowarengak

Koobi Fora

El Molo Bay

Napasinyang'

Loiyangalani

Eliye Springs

7 Kerio

Turkwel

2

1

10

9

6

7

3

5

4

8

Omo

37°20'0"E

37°20'0"E

36°40'0"E

36°40'0"E

36°0'0"E

36°0'0"E

35°20'0"E

35°20'0"E

4°40

'0"N

4°40

'0"N

4°0'0

"N

4°0'0

"N

3°20

'0"N

3°20

'0"N

2°40

'0"N

2°40

'0"N

Legend

! Area name

River

Island

Swamp

Breeding site

Lake 0 20 40 60 8010

Kilometers®

28

x. Indigenous knowledge, documentation, identification and mapping of new fish breeding

grounds in the lake.

xi. Collection of baseline data based on scientific protocol.

xii. Assessing the distribution and abundance of larvae, juvenile and adults that are ready for

recruitment at each stage in the life history of fishes in the lake.

xiii. Establishing the life cycles of fish diversity in the lake.

xiv. Documenting fish biodiversity in the conservation areas and the entire lake

ecosystem.

xv. Establishing the abundance and distribution of nesting, mature gravid male and female

spawners.

xvi. Geographic Positions System (GPS) to delineate, identify and demarcate the

boundaries and location of the fish breeding areas

Demarcation tools

iv. A stakeholders’ meeting to establish, map and validate the boundaries of fish breeding

areas.

v. Involvement of stakeholders and BMUs (fishers, fish processors and markers), fisheries

managers, and scientists and funders (KMFRI staff) and youth in the mapping, validation

and demarcation of the fish breeding areas.

vi. Heavy sinkers, thick marine type nylon manila ropes (size 13), buoys of any colour (yellow

and red), but large enough to be visible approximately 200 meters away from the shore line

.

Training of BMUs and other stakeholders

Six executive members of the BMU comprising of 2 women and 4 men were trained in

order to go and sensitize the BMU members on the planned activities and get their consensus. A

follow-up meeting was held for 11 representative members, which comprised of 4 women and 7

men to identify the BMU members to work with KMFRI during the demarcation process. A final

meeting comprising of 24 members drawn from all segments of the BMU was held on 2nd March

2018 to sensitize the members on the importance of sustainable fishing, protecting fish breeding

areas, the value of conservation and management of fish breeding areas and the roles of the various

part of the BMU membership, and monitoring of fish protected areas. Some of the challenges

identified by Ekoyo BMU members were lack of adequate resources to protect the breeding area,

invasion of the fish breeding site by none members of Ekoyo BMU, lack of patrol and rescue boats

and increased use of illegal fishing gear such as undersize nets, beach seine and boat seining by

immigrant fishers.

Demarcation and monitoring

Responsibility for monitoring were shared as follows:

KMFRI: Monitoring changes in fish populations and communities, water quality, plankton

and benthic organisms and macrophytes.

Ekoyo BMU: Monitoring on compliance of non-entry of fishers in the demarcated area and

report offenders to the fisheries department.

The fisheries Department: Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) and where possible

take action against non-compliance by fishers.

Fish catches and species composition

The fish breeding ground and fishing area were also marked by the presence of several fish eating

birds’ population residing in that area. Experimental fishing in the area showed varied fish species

reside in the area. Figures 3 and 4 show the percentage abundance of the fish species caught in

various habitats during baseline survey in August 2017, and February and March 2018. Alestes

baremose was the most abundant species in the littoral, nearshore and offshore zones while, Lates

niloticus in March 2017, while Citharinus citharus was the least abundant in August 2017. A total

29

of 14 species were caught, 11 of which were of commercial importance while the rest support local

consumption.

Those supporting commercial fishery were: Alestes baremose, Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis

niloticus), Sarotherodon galileus, Nile perch (Lates niloticus), Labeo horie, spp, Clarias

gariepinus, Distichodus niloticus, Citharinus citharinus, Bagrus bayad and tiger fish (Hydrocynus

forskalii) and Barbus sp. Those caught for local consumption were Schilbe uranoscopus,

Synodontis schall and Brycinus spp. The improved conservation efforts by the stakeholders are

evidenced by the improved catches of fish in the area .

Figure 2. Fish species abundance (%) at Ekoyo conservation area in Lake Turkana in 2017; key

to Fig 2: LIT-Littoral zone, NSH-Near shoreline, OSZ-Offshore zone.

Figure 3. Fish species abundance (%) at Ekoyo conservation area in Lake Turkana in March

2018

30

Conclusion

KMFRI and Ekoyo BMU successfully addressed two important challenges that had earlier been

identified by the BMU as limiting their capacity to manage the fishery resources within the BMU.

These were: capacity building of the BMU through training on sustainable fisheries and protection

of the fish breeding areas and under their jurisdiction. Secondly, joint demarcation of the fish

breeding area, initiation of monitoring and sharing of responsibilities on monitoring and reporting.

The experiences gained by implementing this activity and the results of the monitoring will be

applied in managing similar areas within Lake Turkana and develop a management plan for the

lake. Thus, whereas the use of illegal fishing gear including undersize gillnets, beach seine and

purse or boat seine were major challenges at the start of the project, these have since been improved

for conservation, management, development and sustainable use of fish breeding areas.

Implications

The constitution of Ekoyo BMU is new, it needs a lot of support to enable its members uplift

their living standards and understand the essentials of managing fish breeding areas. The support

may be in the areas of further capacity building, provision of suitable nets and vessels, which can

be used to fish in deeper waters, beach infrastructure such as development of fish cold chain and

fish bandas. This implies that alternative livelihoods, which may draw some members away from

fishing, would reduce fishing pressure and ensure fewer people fishing within the BMU area. This

also implies that KMFRI should work with Ekoyo BMU to consolidate the findings of this study

by providing technical support at every level of the fish value chain to reduce wastage and losses

for the benefit of the poorer members of the community.

Recommendations

vi. Monitoring of changes in the distribution and abundance of various fish species both from

fishery dependent and fishery independent sampling established effort;

vii. Continued capacity building on the importance of the protected areas as fish nursery

grounds and refugia;

viii. Continued monitoring of fish breeding ground to ensure compliance with fisheries

management and regulations Act of 2016 laws of Kenya;

ix. KMFRI scientists should continue with monitoring exercise to undertake assess impact of

the demarcation on the habitat and fish population and the research should be non-intrusive

and compatible with the conservation principles.

x. During the monitoring of fish breeding ground, the BMUs members should participate in

the joint research to appreciate the benefits of conservation.

xi. For optimal conservation, limited access to fishing should be allowed in the conservation

area after six months of continuous protection of fish breeding grounds based on

understanding between scientific findings, fishers patrol and surveillances, fishery mangers

and other stakeholders.

xii. There is need to control, regulate and monitor the number of gillnets, boats and fishers

allowed legally in the lake.

31

Appendix VI: Further dissemination

32

33