8 She also conducted two interviews with officials from the Sekondi-Takoradi Metropolitan
Assembly STMA 1, Fisheries Commission 1 and interacted with another officer of the Fisheries Commission and 2 officers from Friends of the Nation. Table 2 presents the number
of interactions with each category of respondent in each community as discussed above.
Table 2-0-B: Number of Focus Discussions and Interviews held in each community
Community Chief
fisherman council
Konkohene Council
CBFMC Interview
Fishermen Interview Fish
Traders Total
Abuesi 1
1 1
3 2
8 Aboadze
1 1
- 2
2 6
Sekondi 1
- 1
3 2
7 New Takoradi
1 1
1 2
3 8
Axim Apewosika
1 1
1 3
3 9
Asanta 1
- 1
2 1
5 Total
6 4
5 15
13 43
Themes and issues for questioning and discussions were guided by the terms of reference given to the consultant. All interviews and focus discussions were recorded with permission,
transcribed and analyzed qualitatively with the help of descriptive statistics. In the analysis, trends and patterns were drawn; the strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities of the
CBFMCs were highlighted, while the voices of respondents were used to convey their hopes, aspirations, concerns and fears. The findings of the case study are presented below.
3.0 FINDINGS
3.1 Moral order of fishing communities
Fishing communities like all other traditional communities in Ghana have a moral code – values, norms and mores- that form the collective conscience of the societies. The moral code
emphasizes communal values of interdependence, shared interests, feelings and aspirations as well as reciprocal obligations and social harmony. These values guide and strengthen the type
of social relations that ought to exist between community members. When individuals in fishing communities deviate from the community’s moral code, the generality of members
unite in their response. Hence opposition to anything that offends the moral code or collective conscience of traditional societies creates opportunities for cooperation that become essential
for group survival. Group members then would apply sanctions to regulate the offender’s behavior.
All categories of respondents in the fishing communities indicated that fishing was the basis of their livelihood and hence were prepared to sanction any member whose fishing activities
did not promote interdependence, were not in their interest or promote social harmony. They condemned beach fouling and illegal fishing methods use of DDT, carbide, dynamite, light
and small fish net mesh sizes engaged in by some members of their communities. This was because respondents realized the harm such activities was causing their livelihoods in terms
of insanitary environments, the destruction of spawning areas, low catch and poor fish values. Communities had given to themselves laws to guide their fishing activities and protect their
livelihoods. Such laws ensured sanitary conditions at the beach, regulated overexploitation of
9 the marine resource, illegal methods of fishing and ensured the safety of fishers at sea. This
position was buttressed by fisheries officials interviewed who cited the interventions the Mumford fishing community put in place when they realized that their ailing chief fisherman
was unable to perform his role. The officials intimated that the inability of the ailing chief fisherman to perform his role led to a deterioration of insanitary conditions at the Mumford
beach as well as a general breakdown of social order at the beach. The community, confronted with such problems hurriedly came together to draw up for themselves laws to
regulate their activities and fines for those who engaged in deviant activities.
3.2 Evolution of CBFMCs
