19 the formation of the CBFMCs but these were not in documented form. It became clear that
the CBFMCs operations were haphazard and not geared toward any laid down regulations. 3.11.4 Community sensitization and perception
Members of fishing communities have not been made aware of the CBFMCs through their inauguration. This makes it difficult to solicit their cooperation for effective governance of
the industry.
3.11.5 Lack of institutional support and political will The study has identified the fact that state agencies such as the Fisheries Commission and the
DistrictMunicipal Assemblies have not done much in terms of offering support to the CBFMCs. In addition, the state itself set up parallel committees such as the Landing Beach
Committees LBCs to manage the fishing industry at the landing sites. This committee deals with channeling of fishing equipment and gear and pre-mix fuel to fishermen, and is expected
to use profit from the sale of premix fuel to undertake development activities in the communities. As it stands the LBCs are duplicating the development roles of the CBFMCs. It
may be prudent to bring the activities of the LBCs under the ambit of the CBFMC. Management committees indicated that these added functions would motivate them to work.
They also suggested that the state should provide offices for use by committee members as well as offer some incentives.
3.11.6 High turnover of District Assembly Staff There has been a high turnover of Assembly staff such as community representatives and
Chief Executives to the extent that it has been difficult sustaining the momentum gained with the CBFMCs Fisheries Commission Official, 2010. New sets of Assemblymen and Chief
Executives have to be briefed on the CBFMC concept time and again. The Chief Executives have to find out the state of CBFMC bye-laws, which keep on changing, and follow up to the
Attorney General’s office for gazetting. Such process has been unduly delayed because of the frequent change in local government personnel.
4.0 CONCLUSION AND LESSONS LEARNED
The general consensus among active and non- active members of the CBFMCs is that the concept is novel and likely to bring about the much needed improvement in the livelihood of
fishers. When properly implemented, CBFMCs with logistics and support from state agencies will seek the welfare of fishers, maintain social order in fishing communities and ensure that
fishers abide by fishing regulations. In spite of these expectations, the concept has not been properly understood and therefore badly implemented. Members expect the management
committees to be clearing houses for fishing gear, fuel and loans and they expect to receive some honorarium for the work that they do. The CBFMCs will function as expected if fishing
bye-laws would be gazetted and this will need the active cooperation of state institutions such as the DistrictMetropolitan Assemblies.
This case study has unearthed some lessons that should guide any future co-management project in the fisheries subsector of the economy.
4.1 Institutional Sustainability
• There should be periodic re-orientation of members on the CBFMC concept. In
addition, there should also be capacity building efforts geared towards training of committee members in the areas of group dynamics, enforcement of bye-laws,
development planning, conflict resolution, accountability and skills training to
20 effectively communicate and take minutes. These periodic workshops would
adequately prepare members to perform their roles effectively. They would also inculcate in members awareness and ownership of the project.
• Members who sit on the CBFMCs should be ordinarily resident in the fishing
communities and also should be willing to find time to serve their communities. Co- management is a serious activity that cannot thrive on absentee members. The
background of committee members is also very important. These should be leaders of fishers associations or other stakeholder groups and thus are already in positions of
authority. Where the social standing of individuals is contested within communities, they become ineffective as members of the committee.
• Generally, there should be community involvement and endorsement of the CBFMCs.
• CBFMC members should also meet regularly and keep records of all their activities.
They should not operate in isolation but link up with all committees along the coast for effective implementation of regulations. For example, the use of oath swearing to
check illegal fishing will yield the expected results when this is done in every landing site along the coast. Linking with other CBFMCs along the coast will also enable
exchange of best practices and ideas.
• There is need to have functional offices to operate from. CBFMC members should
have identity tags. •
The activities of all CBFMCs should be guided by a constitution. It should be the responsibility of the Fisheries Commission to provide hard copies of such
constitutions and explain these guidelines for use by members.
4.2 Financial Sustainability
• Co-management initiatives should be self financing. Braimah’s 2009 report on
evaluation of co-management initiatives in Ghana suggested that such initiatives could be financed from levying fish landings, itinerant fishers and net owners. In
addition, management committees could get some money from the sale of fishing gear and fuel. However, fishing bye-laws should spell out the percentage shares of the
revenue generated from any given activity to the committees.
• Traditionally, all canoes landing fish at the beach are expected to give fish to the chief
fisherman as representative of the fishing community. This is mostly sold and the proceeds used as state expenditure on community development and fishers welfare.
This source of raising revenue should be activated and enforced. In addition, canoe owners could be asked to make monthly payments towards the coffers of the
CBFMCs.
• CBFMCs should open and operate community bank accounts into which all levies
raised would be placed. They would need to invest part of monies raised to raise added resources for community development. In this direction there will be the need
to promote strict accountability of all monies raised.
• Resources raised could be used to rent and operate offices, offer refreshment during
meetings, pay monthly stipends to committee members as well as execute community development projects.
4.3 Community Participation and Cooperation
