Basic HTML Version
International Journal of Marine Science 2015, Vol.5, No.6, 1-7
http://ijms.biopublisher.ca
6
intention of this paper to conclude which of the
fisheries stakeholders group have more or less
accurate response to specific activities. But, to present
the views of fishers in relation to these specific
activities. Thus their views should not be ignored but
seen as reflection of how they think about the BMUs.
Fishbein and Ajzen (1974) revealed that attitude
expression is important and highly predictive in
describing situation or action. In this regard this study
should be considered as a preliminary description of
the attitudes of fishers towards the BMU performance
in carrying out their activities, and the result can be
used to understand areas of weaknesses with a view to
strengthening them for better performance.
Results from hypothesis 1 revealed that there were
differences in perception of fishers in the activities
that the BMU are mandated to do. It was observed that
there was statistical difference with the way fishers
viewed BMUs performance in carrying out activities
such as formulating by laws, prosecuting offenders,
confiscating bad gears, data collection, arresting
offenders; solving conflict, collecting revenues and
conducting meetings compared with patrolling fishing
grounds. This observation imply that the level of the
performance in an activity may differ within a BMU,
and this could be the reason why some studies, Hara
and Nielsen (2003) argued that BMUs have not been
effective in fisheries management, (Onyango and
Jentoft, 2007) BMU institutions have not performed to
expectations and Nunan (2010) that BMUs have failed
to control migration of fishers. Hypothesis 2 result
shows that the perception of fishers towards BMUs
performance differs between the two BMUs in
conducting meetings, collecting revenues and iniating
development projects and this was also supported by
the findings from the Key informant interview that
only Kayenze BMU had a better performance in
conducting these activities. The observed differences
in performance between the two sampled BMUs
imply that there are specific areas of strength and
weaknesses, hence BMU specific area of
improvement. In order to have a holistic
understanding of the BMUs performance, therefore, it
is crucial to assess their performance in all activities.
This results concur with findings of Ogwang' et al
(2009) and Baratt et al (2014) on the achievement of
the BMUs. The observed differences could likely be
attributted to the level of commitment of the BMU
leadership to carry out their mandate and support
received from other stakeholders. This was evident
from Kayenze BMU informants who revealed to have
a close working relationship with village leadership.
This was different from Igombe BMU where these
lacked, though no antagonism existed between the
BMU and village leadership. It was also observed that
social statuses (level of education gender, period in the
fishery, and occupation in the fishery influences how a
fisher perceive the BMUs. This is useful and
instrumental in understanding awareness needs of
specific groups in the fishery. Overall, the study
revealed positive attitudes towards activities directed
at regulating fishery, but weak perception on activities
targeting poverty reduction. They cited inadequate
skills and expertise as the reason for slow
implementation of pro-poverty measures. However,
this should not been blamed much on the BMUs given
that the country’s poverty alleviation strategies have
achieved minimal impact in the rural areas where
fisheries is carried. Despite, the lack of poverty
reduction strategies initiated by the BMUs, fishers
have come up with some initiative such as revolving
funds where fishers lend money to one another. This
is however, common among the female than male
fishers (Onyango, 2004). The formal savings and
credit schemes operated in some landings are
extension of Micro Finance Institution (MFIs) and
Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs) with no
BMUs initiative. The members to these schemes are
mainly boat owners, mainly women dealing in dagaa
trading and processing and some other business found
around the fishing communities. Based on the findings
of this study, it is therefore evident that there are some
achievements on-going within BMUs in carrying out
their mandate in co management arrangement as
required by the national guideline. However, it should
be noted that co- management arrangement in most
small scale fishery is still consultative where setting
management objectives is still the prerogative of the
government with little or no consideration for local
knowledge (Njaya, 2007). This is true for Lake
Victoria where the government still hold more powers
in decision making and implementation of fisheries
management measures (Onyango and Jentoft, 2007).
Challenges of inadequate funding and support to
BMUs is an area that needs to be critically examined
and strengthened to improve the performance of the