14 or their revival in 2008 by the FoN. The 33 of respondents who indicated they had heard
about the committees however claimed either that the committees activities were not visible or that they existed some time back but had collapsed. The next table presents responses
according to communities visited.
Table 4-0-D: Knowledge of CBFMCs by Community Individual Respondents
Community Yes
NO Abuesi
Fishers 1
2 Fish Traders
- 2
Asanda Fishers
- 2
Fish Traders 1
- Axim Apewosika
Fishers 1
2 Fish Traders
- 3
Sekondi Fishers
2 1
Fish Traders 1
1 New Takoradi
Fishers -
2 Fish Traders
2 1
Total 8
16
Source: Field interviews, 2010 The four respondents in Aboadze indicated that they had never heard of any such committee
even in neighbouring fishing communities. The non visibility of the CBFMCs in the communities visited was confirmed when 89 of interviewees claimed that they saw the
chief fisherman and council handling all issues relating to the fishing industry. This position of respondents is not surprising since they are not aware of the existence of the CBFMCs and
therefore do not know that the chief fisherman and council members are all members of the management committee. Again, this portrays that of all the members of the CBFMCs it is
only the chief fisherman and council who are either active or have decided to carry out their traditional functions.
3.7 Roles and Legal Backing of CBFMCs and Chief fisherman
The CBFMCs were set up in communities that already had chief fishermen working to promote the fishing industry in their various communities. There was general consensus
among respondents on what they perceived the work of a chief fisherman to be. This included the following:
• Liaising with institutions to ensure that fishers could access outboard motors, nets,
fuel, and other equipmentgear for their fishing businesses; •
Setting up arbitration courts to deal with disputes and conflicts among fishers both at sea and on shore;
• Seeking the welfare of fishers, disciplining them and ensuring that fishers obey
fishing regulations; •
Mobilizing community members to engage in beach cleaning activities to promote good sanitation.
• Liaising with the priests of the Sea god and other gods to perform rituals that ensure
good fishing.
15 Chief fishermen could perform these roles because they had traditional authority to do so. In
the past, their activities were supported by the traditional military Asafo companies who had powers of arrest. Currently, chief fishermen are recognized by the regional ‘House of
Chiefs’ – the traditional chieftaincy institution, various fishers associations such as the Ghana Inshore fishers and Ghana Line Hook Canoes fishers associations. They are also recognized
by the various communities they represent as well as colleague chief fishermen from other fishing communities.
The CBFMCs on the other hand draw their authority from the state through the District Assemblies and the Fisheries Commission. Some committee members indicated that they
were recognized by the traditional rulers of their respective fishing communities. CBFMC members in Axim claimed that the chief did not support their activities while those in
Sekondi indicated that they had not appealed to their chief for the legal backing for their activities. In communities where CBFMC activities are visible, the committees have the
support of community members. Fishing regulations used by the committees have been adapted from a proto-type issued to the District Assemblies by the Fisheries Commission; the
proto-type having been put together at a workshop with stakeholders. The District Assemblies are expected to ensure the gazetting of the fisheries bye-laws so adapted from the
proto-type for use by communities. An investigation into the kinds of regulations instituted by the chief fishermen and the committees showed that they worked with the same set of
rules.
In the organization of the various CBFMCs, a number of sub committees had been set up to facilitate work. At the stakeholder workshop, three main sub committees had been
recommended MOFA 2003. These are:
• Enforcement of bye-laws sub-committee;
• Conflict management sub-committee; and
• Development sub-committee
Within the case CBFMCs two main sub committees had been formed to assist with work. First was the ‘arbitration sub-committee’ whose membership was made up of the chief
fisherman and council of elders. Their roles were in line with conflict management, welfare of fishers and ensuring law and order at the beaches. Second was the ‘sanitation sub-
committee’ charged with overseeing beach cleaning but whose work has been taken over by ZOIL a waste management company. It came up during discussions that the committee
could not enforce its bye-laws because these had not been gazetted and as such the police and courts could not prosecute offenders. Discussants raised issues relating to lack of support on
the part of the Fisheries Commission and the District and Metropolitan Assemblies. The presence of the Assembly member for instance, was pointed out to be strategic by all
respondents. Heshe was expected to be a conduit, liaising between the CBFMC and the District or Municipal Assembly and ensuring that issues of concern were brought to and
discussed at the Assembly while sending feedback to the committee. However, most CBFMC members claimed that the Assembly member on their committees was non-functional and did
not even attend meetings when invited. An officer of the Fisheries Commission explained that the Assembly representative on the committee should be a member of the Social Services
sub-committee of the Assembly. This is the only way that CBFMC issues could be brought to the attention of the Assemblies for discussion.
3.8 Contribution of CBFMCs to National Regulatory Framework
