Management on Small-Scale Fisheries in Robertsport, Liberia

The effectiveness of co- management on small-scale fisheries in Robertsport, Liberia

Tonia Johnson Boah Final Thesis for MS-Degree in Environment and Natural Resources

Supervisor:

Sveinn Agnarsson

The effectiveness of co-management on small-scale fisheries in

Robertsport, Liberia:

Tonia Johnson Boah

30-credit thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of a

Magister Scientiarum degree in Environment and Natural Resources

Supervisor:

Sveinn Agnarsson

Business Administration

Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Iceland

School of Environment and Natural Resources

University of Iceland. Reykjavik, June 2019

The effectiveness of Co-management on small-scale fisheries in Robertsport, Liberia:

This is a 30-credit thesis to obtain a MS degree in Environment and Natural Resources linked with the Faculty of Business Administration, from the School of Social Sciences, at the University of Iceland.

Printed by: Prentsmiðja Reykjavik, 2019

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My appreciation to God is unbinding, for it is thru his divine guidance that this dream of mine became a reality. To my husband Mr. Stanley K. Boah and kids Stanley II and Pearl I am forever indebted to you guys for the love and moral support that was shown throughout my academic endeavour. My warmest gratitude goes to the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Authority, Republic of Liberia for sponsoring this Master study. I will forever remain grateful. To my supervisor Mr. Sveinn Agnarsson, I extend my profound thanks and appreciation for the excellent supervision, assistance, confidence and advice. I will forever remain in your debt.

I will also like to extend my thanks to the members of the Robertsport co-management, particularly Mr. Johns Adams secretary general for his assistance with conducting the survey on my behalf. My appreciation to the wonderful staff of the University of Iceland, my classmates and by extension the people of Iceland of the many opportunities presented during my stay. It was such an experience and I am grateful. Takk.

ABSTRACT

Co-management involves the participation of all users in its management process. In small-scale fisheries it should serve as a surest way of maximizing long term communities’ benefit to deal with the dangers of fisheries mismanagement and poverty. Most of the fish consumed in the developing world are through the efforts of small-scale fisheries, yet they remain food insecure, lack access to the resources and opportunities needed to uplift them from the clutches of poverty It is obvious given the above that the need for effective co-management in small-scale fisheries and the shifting of management responsibilities to users is necessary as it minimize the impact of uncontrolled fishing practices which results in decline of the stock. This thesis explores the Cooperative Management Association (CMA) established in Robertsport, Liberia it examines the effects of such practice and propose to justify why its establishment in all other coastal counties in Liberia will alleviate the problem of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. In determining the effectiveness of co-management this study employed a survey using open ended questions. Findings from this study analysis depicts the extent to which the locals are empowered through the establishment of the CMA and establish how much impact in terms of proper governance has it had on the management of the resources. The significance of the results provides insight information about the effectiveness of co-management and how it could improve the resilience and stability of fishing communities. The Government of Liberia quest to safeguard marine and coastal resources, due to the number of families that rely on this sector for livelihood, the recommendation from this study will serve as an informative tool needed to advance other CMA projects in the eight remaining coastal counties of Liberia.

Key words: Co-management, small- scale fisheries, effectiveness

Table of Contents List of Figure ...... 8

List Tables ...... 9

List of Abbreviation ...... 10

1 Chapter ...... 1

1.1 Introduction ...... 1

1.2 Significance of the Study ...... 3

1.3 Research Question ...... 3

1.4 Organization of the study: ...... 4

2 Chapter ...... 5

2.1 Background information ...... 5

2.2 The country ...... 5

2.3 The people ...... 6

2.4 The economy ...... 6

2.5 Fisheries sector overview ...... 7

2.6 Main species in Liberia: ...... 8

3 Chapter ...... 9

3.1 Theory of fisheries management ...... 9

3.2 The fundamental fisheries problem...... 11

3.3 Theoretical considerations of fisheries management regimes ...... 13

3.4 Fisheries management systems ...... 13

3.4.1 Economic fisheries management ...... 14

3.4.2 Biological Fisheries management ...... 15

3.5 Monitoring, control and durveillance (MCS) ...... 16

4 Chapter ...... 17

4.1 Concept of co-management in small- scales fisheries ...... 17

5 Chapter ...... 20

5.1 Result -Based Management in Fisheries ...... 20

6 Chapter ...... 21

6.1 Study Area ...... 21

7 Chapter ...... 23

7.1 Territorial Users Right and Community Management ...... 23

7.2 Definition of TURFs ...... 24

7.3 Dimension of TURFs ...... 24

7.4 Potentials Benefits of TURFs ...... 25

7.5 The Effectiveness of TURFs ...... 26

8 Chapter ...... 27

8.1 Fisheries Management in Liberia ...... 27

8.2 Co-management in Robertsport ...... 29

9 Chapter ...... 32

9.1 Methodology ...... 32

9.1.1 Data Collection ...... 32

9.1.2 Survey ...... 32

10 Results ...... 34

10.1.1 Analysis of demography profile of resource user ...... 34

10.1.2 Assessment of CMA effectiveness...... 38

10.1.3 Responses of Resource users to Question ...... 41

10.1.4 Relationship between the perception of users on the co-management effectiveness ...... 42

11 Chapter ...... 44

11.1 Discussion ...... 44

11.2 Limitation ...... 46

12 Conclusion ...... 48

13 Recommendations ...... 49

References ...... 50

List of figures

Figure 1 : Map of Liberia showing Atlantic coastline, inland water bodies and neighbouring countries. source (FAO 2001)...... 6 Figure 2. Level of social interaction Source:( Ostrom, 2007, p.53) ...... 10 Figure 3 The sustainable and dynamic fisheries models showing revenue and cost functions, and the adjustment path of biomass towards equilibrium (Adopted from Arnason 2008)...... 12 Figure 4 Fisheries Management Systems: Classification (adopted from Arnason ,2009) ...... 13 Figure 5. Co-management institutional flow chart ...... 18 Figure 6. Level of involvement of stakeholders ...... 19 Figure 7. Map of Grand Cape Mount showing Robertsport...... 22 Figure 8. Management Structure of NaFAA ...... 28 Figure 9. The area of the Robertsport Co-Management Association Turf...... 30 Figure 10. Sex distribution of resource users...... 34 Figure 11. Marital status of resource users...... 35 Figure 12. Educational status of resource users...... 35 Figure 13. Fishing Experience of CMA members...... 36 Figure 14. Occupation of resource users...... 37 Figure 15 Household composition by occupation...... 38 Figure 16. Resource users that are aware of the existence of CMA...... 38 Figure 17.Resource users’ perception on CMA effectiveness...... 39 Figure 18.Resource users that are aware of the inclusive and equitable use of resources...... 39 Figure 19.Status of conflict since CMA...... 40 Figure 20.Resource user that responded to the minimization of IUU...... 40

List of tables

Table 1.Small- scales fisheries contribution to Liberia ...... 7 Table 2. Fish species, Gear, Time and Area of fishing ...... 8 Table 3. Ostrom’s Design principles for common pool resource management ...... 11 Table 4. Users responses to questions on various issues related to co-management effectiveness ...... 41 Table 5. Comparison of the views of all respondents and those that believed CMA had been effective. .. 42

List of abbreviation

BNF Bureau of National Fisheries CMA Co-management Association CPR Common Pool Resources FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FMS Fisheries Management Systems GDP Gross Domestic Product IEZ Inshore Exclusive zones IQ Individual Quota ITQ Individual Transferable Quota IUU illegal Unreported Unregulated MCS Monitoring Control and Surveillance NaFAA National Fisheries and Aquaculture RBM Right-Based Management TURF Territorial User Rights in Fisheries WARFP West African Regional Fisheries Project.

1 Chapter

1.1 Introduction

According to FAO (2012) small- scale fisheries globally, account for more than half of the inland and marine fish catch. In the developing world it is estimated as a fulltime and part time means of employment to more than 25-27 million people and another 70 million which comprise of those in post-harvest activities. Thru the means of small-scale fisheries, a vast majority of the humankind are provided with food and protein daily. They play an important role in poverty reduction, as such its importance should not be ignored (Allision, 2001). Fish is very important to human, according to FAO (2010) 80 million tons of fisheries product which account for both food and industrial is link to marine wild capture fisheries. In spite of its numerous contribution, fishing has been documented as attracting one of the most prevalent human effects in the world oceans (Halpern, Lester, & Kellner, 2009) The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has projected that 85% of the global fish stocks are overexploited (FAO,2010). Regardless of where small-scale fisheries are practiced, it is susceptible to condition such as overfishing, conflict over resources, habitat degradation, overcapacity and climate change. The fisheries sector of Liberia has over the years shown potential that are capable of making contribution that are significant to the economic revitalization, and the socioeconomic development of the country that would in turn reduce poverty in the short and long term period (Subah, 2010) As such, for this potential in the fisheries sector of Liberia to be measure as effective, the physical and human assets, coupled with institutional and conducive political environment that will see the sustainable management of the resources is required. The Fisheries sector is a very important industry in Liberia due to the amount of people who rely on it for livelihood and cheaper means for animal protein. More than half of the population resides on the coast and as such, the waters and its environment have become part of their culture. However, this importance is met with series of challenges including the improper and inadequate management of these scarce resources which has provided avenue for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) to succeed.

Progress in the management of Liberia’s fisheries stalled during the civil war which lasted from 1990 -2003. This era set off the avenue for illicit poachers to wreck the waters of Liberia (Sherif, 2014), thus interrupting the ecosystem of species, depleting the stocks and destroying habitat as well as hindering data collection. This period also saw the break down in fisheries policy and institutions responsible were constrained in terms of budgetary support from government and provided with limited man power so that they were unable to ensure effective conservation and resources management in the sector. Most West African coastal nations have shared resources (Donda, 2017) and due to the ill-defined fishing zones along the coast of neighbouring countries, foreign vessels tend to stray intentionally or unintentionally into waters of other countries that have shown weaknesses in their ability to manage and monitor their resources. The weak and inefficient fisheries management systems of these West African states further aggravated the situation to an alarming rate. However, this situation somehow was corrected with the establishment of the West African Regional Fisheries Project in the region (WARFP) of which Liberia is a beneficiary. Thru the aid of the World Bank, Global Environment Facility and African Catalytic Growth, the West African Regional Fisheries Program (WARFP) was established in 2010 with the aim to sustainably manage the exploitation of the marine fish resources in the Liberian fisheries. This would in turn ensure increase wealth creation and its translation in the local economy (NaFAA,2010) There had been some improvement since its inception, before then there were no focus given to the artisanal sector of Liberia until 2013 when a data collection system was established to support the then Bureau of National Fisheries (BNF, 2013) This period also saw the ushering in of a pilot program of co-management practice instituted in 2011 in Robertsport, which is the capital city of Grand Cape Mount County in Liberia. The focus of this paper is to therefore assess how effective the Robertsport Cooperative Management Association (CMA) has been ensuring resources sustainability since its establishment and assess how the CMA has improved the livelihood of the resource users and the overall benefits of the country. A secondary objective is to evaluate the possible replication of CMA establishments in all other coastal counties in Liberia which should substantially reduce the impacts of IUU fishing.

1.2 Significance of the Study

The small-scale fisheries of Liberia can boost of some unique characteristic that recommend an approach that is participatory for all end users, which in term can ensure an effective management of the resource. Fishing coastal communities in Liberia are located along mangroves and estuaries which serves as excellent ecosystem for fish recruitment, however, over the years these ecosystems have seen their fair share of abuse. This abuse can be attributed to harmful and illegal fishing methods by the fisher folks which in term destroys the fishing ground, thus the reduction in catches. The ever-growing conflicts between industrial vessels and the locals over the designated exclusive zone allocated for fishing is also an issue. A recent study (Pita, Pierce, & Theodossiou, 2010) has suggested that the introduction of a co- management approach using fishing rights has been a crucial factor for the effective implementation of innovative management that has improved the artisanal fisheries the world over. This fisheries management regime allows fisher folks to part take in fisheries governance and have local stewardship and participate in decision-making of their fishery.

1.3 Research Question

To ascertain the effective participation of the fishing communities in the management of the resources in Robertsport thru the Co-management over the years the following research questions will be considered. How do the existing management practices under the Co-Management Association (CMA) incorporate locals? What are the noticeable impacts these practices have had on the coastal communities?

1.4 Organization of the study:

This study will be organized in several chapters; Chapter 1 provides the general information of the about the study. Chapter 2 discuss the general information and background about Liberia and its fisheries sectors. Chapter 3 discusses the general fisheries management regimes. Chapter 4 discusses co-management concept in small-scale fisheries. Chapter 5 highlight result-based management. In chapter 6 the study area is discussed. Chapter 7 will discuss the theory of TURF, its importance in the management of common pool resources, including empirical experiences and lessons learned. Chapter 8, the main section of the study the management of fisheries in Liberia, the history, status and impact that Cooperative Management Association has had on the reduction of IUU fishing as well adequate implementation of the regulatory policies established by the government. Chapter 9 detail the methodological aspect of the study, which considers data collection methods and the statistical tools used to determine the fisher perceptions on the effectiveness of the Co- management scheme in Robertsport and presents findings and analysis. Results are presented in Chapter 10 and discussed further in Chapter 11, while conclusions are presented in Chapter 12 and recommendations in Chapter 13.

2 Chapter

2.1 Background information

This chapter provide background information on the climate, geography, economy and the people of Liberia and its fisheries sector.

2.2 The country

Liberia is located on the Eastern Central Atlantic region of the Gulf of Guinea, borders Ivory Coast to the east, Sierra Leone to the west, Guinea to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the south. Liberia’s total area measures 111,370 km2 of which 96,320 km2 land and 15,050 km2 is water. Liberia coastlines measures about 570 kilometres. This coastline stretches from Grand Cape Country in the north to Maryland County in the south. The continental shelf average 34 kilometres in width. Due to its location within the so called’ Guinea Surface Waters’ the Liberian marine waters are characterized by a low salinity (32%) and low nutrient levels. The exclusive zone measures about 200natucial miles. There are 9(nine) coastal counties. The population of Liberia is 4.732 million.

The climate of Liberia is tropical. It has one major rainy season which runs between April and November, with the heaviest rain falling in the months of June and July. The dry season last from November to April which is usually characterised by a dusty and dry West African trade wind which blows in from the south Saharan desert. The average temperature is about 30°C due to the very little variation in temperature.

Figure 1 : Map of Liberia showing Atlantic coastline, inland water bodies and neighbouring countries. source (FAO 2001).

2.3 The people

The name Liberia originated from an English word which means” Liberty”. The country origin can be linked to the resettlement of freed black slaves repatriated from America to Africa in the early nineteenth century. For the first fifty year of the country existence the descendants of the freed slave also known as Americo-Liberians dominated the government and economy. They now constitute 5% of the population. The rest (95%) accounts for the natives which is made of the sixteen broadly defined ethno-linguistic groups. (Advameg Inc. 2009). English is the official Language.

2.4 The economy

The Liberian economy is highly dependent on the fisheries sector, because it provides employment opportunities, serves as a low-cost source of protein, creates foreign earnings into the national economy and boosts food security for local and rural communities. Most Liberians can easily afford fish as it is moderately cheaper than other sources of protein. High unemployment rate which accounted for 85% in 2005 ushered in many rural dwellers especially youths who ventured in fishing as a source of livelihood. About 13,000 fishermen and 18,000 fish processors are engaged in fishing activities. According to Belhabib et al (2015) small-

6 scales fisheries sector in Liberia contributed about 10 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP). Revenue to the government from this sector is mostly from license fees, vessel registration fees, inspection fees, observer fees, import and export charges, and fines that are charged to violators (NaFAA ,2014).

Table 1.Small- scale fisheries’ contribution to Liberia (Belhabib,2015)

Revenue (million USD Economic GDP (billion total value Contribution to per year) multiplier USD per year) GDP

42.3 3.14 1.3 132.7 10%

2.5 Fisheries sector overview

The Liberian fisheries sector is made up aquaculture and marine fisheries. The marine sector is further divided into the artisanal and the industrial sector. The artisanal sector is composed of traditional fishers they carried-out subsistence fishing which falls with the 6 -10 nautical miles off- shore. The main ethnic groups that make up the artisanal fisheries are indigenous Kru fishermen and the Fanti who migrated from the neighbouring countries of Benin, Ivory Coast and Ghana (BNF, 2013). Small-scale fisheries are practiced along the coastline of Liberia’s 15 political sub- division. The Fanti is the dominant group as they have larger canoes which uses about 15-14 horsepower and measures about 12m in length. It takes about 12 person or more. Varying on the fishing season these canoes uses both passive and active gears. Gill nets set gill nets and trap line are amongst the gears mostly used by the Fanti. The canoes used by the Kru fishermen is made of wood and is moved by using paddles and sail. It measures less than 6m long and has a depth of about 60cm. It houses about 3 persons at the time. Gear types used by the Kru fishers to target different fish species include gill net, set net and hook and line (Government of Liberia, 2014). This sector is a significant contributor to Liberia national economy in several ways which include a source of employment for urban and rural coastal communities, food security, socioeconomic and livelihood sustainability. The sector provides employment for approximately 80% of Liberians of which women account for 60%. Most of the women have a role in the post-harvest sector (NaFAA, 2014).

An estimation of around 3000 tonnes per year of catches in this sub sector is processed locally. This is done by smoking and drying. Almost all of the fishery products and fish caught in this sector are consumed locally (Subah, 2010) small amounts by the fishers’ families and the bulk sold in the local markets, while some is transported for sale inland or in neighbouring countries. It is not uncommon for higher value fish to be sold fresh and transported immediately to restaurants or directly to the market or to individual homes. The marine industry is composed of commercial vessels owned by European and Asian companies that fish beyond the stipulated 6 nautical miles (nm) This sector is characterized by two trawl fisheries, namely the demersal finfish and the shrimp fisheries. (Sheck, 2014). They target both pelagic and demersal fish species. Aquaculture development in Liberia can be dated as far back to the 1970s. It is a largely subsistence activity. The Africa catfish (Clarias gariepinus) and Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) are the two main culture species. They are mostly imported from Ivory Coast. The Nile tilapia is the dominant species. (FAO, 2011). This sector is mainly driven by donor support. Fish farming practices in Liberia is mainly by built in pond, and swamps. Irrigation systems are gravity powered.

2.6 Main species in Liberia:

The Barracuda spp, Sardinella spp, Pseudotolithus spp, C. chrysurus and the Cheliopogon melanurus are the main fish species in the capture fishery sub sector. Table 2 illustrates the type of gear, area and the time they are in abundance.

Table 2. Fish species, Gear, Time and Area of fishing

Species Fishing Gear Area of Time of Capture by. fishing Fishing Sphyraena barracuda Hook and 1-3 miles All year Small-scale and S. Sphyraena Line from shore round Fanti Sardinella spp Purse seine Inshore Dry season Small-scale (Bonny/Herring water Fanti Pseudotolithus spp beach seine One fathom Dry season Small-scale (cassava fish) and bottom for the shore Fanti/ kru gill nets Chloroscombrus Drift/floating 4-mile from All year industrial pelagic trawl chrysurus (poorjoe net shore round fishery/small-scale Cheilopogon Purse seine Inshore All year Small-scale melanurus (African waters round Fanti/kru flying fish)

3 Chapter

3.1 Theory of fisheries management

Experts in fisheries management have ascribed the degradation of coastal environment as well as the overly exploitation of the resource to either the common property management regime which is the central reason for the overexploitation for fish stock (Pomeroy, 1995) or to misguided management regimes heavily dependent on central government or agencies that doesn’t take into effect capability of end users that would adequately contribute to the effective management of the resources (Pomeroy, 1995) Fisheries administration and management regimes the world over are hugely centralised, as a result their capacity to enforce and monitor somewhat proves ineffective. This have resulted in the overexploited of many fisheries. Therefore, it become inherent that to achieve an effective and sustainable management of the resources alternative approaches are necessary (Arnason, 2007). Ostrom (2007) described common pool resources (CPR) as” natural and man-made resource system that is sufficiently large as to make it costly (but not impossible) to exclude potential beneficiaries from obtaining benefits from its use”. These systems also called resource system are available to all users which makes it impossible for the exclusion of other users as such resources users take undue advantage not considering if they contribute to its improvement or not. In a common pool resource situation, the overexploitation of the resource becomes a governance failure as all actors have different interests there are many uncertainties as decisions that are made by actors depends on their cost and benefits (Gordon, 1954) Therefore, to ensure sustainability and improvement of CPR proactive measures are very necessary. The creation of a framework of institutional social rule that guarantee sustainable use of the resources as stated by Grafton (2000) is a possibility. However, transforming a system in which individuals act independently to one that is coordinated is a Herculean task especially in the case of CPR. Notwithstanding, the institution which is the core- concept of Ostrom’s work, is viewed as” sets of working rules that are used to determine who is suitable to make decisions in some areas, what actions are permissible or controlled, the collection of rules that will be used, what measures must be follow or allow, the necessary information that must or must not be provided, and depending on individuals’ actions what payoff are assigned. Rules in the common pool resource context as stated by Ostrom (2007) is different from regulations that are official and from laws. Rules within a CPR related problem is expected to provide stability and efforts to change such reduces the stability within the

9 governance of the CPR. There are three level of rules as describes by Ostrom (2007) and illustrated in figure 2: a) Operational rules highlight the importance of the regulation as it relates to the daily work and decisions within the CPR b) Collective -choice rule is utilized by all stakeholders as it relates to policy making. It is normally in compliance with the constitutional rule c) Constitutional -choice rule is used in the determination of those that are eligible as well as specific rules that are used to develop the set of collective rules that in turn affect the set of operational rules.

Figure 2. Level of social interaction Source:( Ostrom, 2007, p.53)

In situations of self-organization or self-governance the structure of the problems within lies squarely with the individuals as such, the best way to address the issue is to adapt strategies within the boundaries that are available. At this rate the different level of rules is being utilize as each self-organized individual is working at a different level. Some will work well as evidenced by Ostrom examples of a design principle (as illustrated in Table 2) this explains that institutions that are self -organized works well. Using an example of the Los Angeles water pump and The

Philippines irrigation system Ostrom (2007) pointed out the effectiveness of rule within an institution. The ability to forbid, permit and require actions toward governance is key in the management of CPR. Yet others may work badly due to institutional failures or the default in its design principles (Ostrom, 2007).

Table 3. Ostrom’s design principles for common pool resource management (Ostrom, 1990)

1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties)

2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources are adapted to local conditions

3. Collective-choice arrangements allow resource users to participate in decision-making

4. Effective monitoring by those who are part of or accountable to the resource users

5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules

6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access

7. Self-determination of the community is recognized by higher-level authorities 8. In the case of larger common-pool resources, organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprise with small local CPRs at the base level

Ostrom’s model of an institution regarding the governance of a common pool resource considers three factors. She noted that the sustainability of a natural resource system for a productive and a long-term use does not rest squarely on an individual or a state, secondly when all actors acts collectively there is an increase in the returns from the collective effort as such all actors tend to reap the benefits. Thirdly, Ostrom lists 8 criteria which she refer to as design principles for common pool resource management (Table 3) which shows not only how institutions are to be set up for collective actions, but also how common pools resources can be managed collectively which would ensure economic and environmental sustainability for a long term

3.2 The fundamental fisheries problem

Fisheries resources, although renewable, are very vulnerable. The open access nature of these resources has often been exploited by the users whose welfare are highly depended on it, a phenomenon referred to as tragedy of the commons (Hardin, 1968). According to Gordon (1954) this situation which would lead to the fundamental economic problem of overexploitation of the

11 resource is inherent in the fact that there is no proper management now as the demand for fish from all actors is increased thereby creating economic waste (Arnason,2009) According to Gordon (1954) in an unregulated fishery, the fishing efforts is increased as the average fishing revenue becomes equal to the average fishing cost. Under this regime more fishers become attracted as expected revenue become greater than the cost faced by average fishing unit (Figure 1). As the fishing effort continued to increase, the stock biomass consequently reduces far below the maximum sustainable yield, at this point there’s a noticeable decline in the catch per unit effort. At this point economic benefits gain from the fishery by the fishers is significantly reduced (Arnason,1993).

Figure 3 The sustainable and dynamic fisheries models showing revenue and cost functions, and the adjustment path of biomass towards equilibrium (Adopted from Arnason 2008).

The fishermen get a positive rate of return from the fishery due to the increase in fishing capacity. As a result,the biomass of stock decreses far below the maximum sustainable yield (from point A toward point B in Figure 3a and from point E toward F in Figure 3b). At any point of biomass along the adjustment path (Figure 3b), fishers will have incentive to increase fishing efforts if revenues exceed cost of fishing until an equilibrium point is reached at point F or, equivalently, point B in the sustainable diagram (3a) (Arnason 1993). At these points, revenue is equal to fishing cost which sees a stop in the expansion of the fishery. When this point is reached there is no further incentive that would attract investment in the fishery.

3.3 Theoretical considerations of fisheries management regimes

Fisheries management becomes evident due to the fundamental fisheries problem stated above. As it aims is to preserves the economic and biological value of any fishery (Arnason,1993) The management is usually implemented by sets of regulations that leads to an economical and sustainable fishery. Ideally a fisheries management regime is defined as a framework that is institutionalized and set by law, traditions and social custom. This framework is comprised of three components that are key to its functions: (i) the Fisheries Management System (FMS) (ii) Fisheries Judicial Systems (FJS) and (iii) Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) (Arnason, 2007). The Fisheries Management Systems (FMS) is essentially a set of rules that those involves in fishing activity must adhere to. The MCS is the enforcement component of these rules. The fisheries Judicial Systems serves as an author of justice to violators. These three-key components of the fisheries management regime are necessary as each one complement the other, if one is disabling the whole regime fails (Arnason, 2009)

3.4 Fisheries management systems

There are large varieties of systems that can be put in place to manage fisheries issues, however, according to Arnason (2007) it becomes convenient to place these in a broad group of either an economic management system or a biological management system (Figure 4). This economic management system can also be subdivided into 2 smaller groups namely: indirect economic management and direct restrictions systems

Figure 4 Fisheries Management Systems: Classification (adopted from Arnason ,2009)

3.4.1 Economic fisheries management Direct management

The objective of this management system is to ensure that fishing efforts are always kept at the optimal level. To implement this kind of management systems there are restriction posed on the number of vessels, size, capacity, fishing time and the kinds of gear that are used in the fishery. However, apart from been a costly venture, the ineffectiveness of these restriction stemmed from the fact that it doesn’t eliminate the common access problem (Arnason,2007) as fishers will tend to invest in effort variable that are not fully controlled. they will tend to use better equipment, bigger and faster vessels and the likes. This practice by the fishers will continue until potential economic gains from the fishery is diminished.

Indirect management

Taxes, access rights and individual quota which aligned with property rights-based management system are all methods of Indirect economic fisheries management. This type of management system works by altering the incentives of fishers thus providing the opportunity for a sustainable fishery (Arnason,2003)

Taxes

This approach in fisheries management is often used to regulate the economic conditions of the fishers which in turn induce an optimal behaviour among the fishers (Arnason, 2001) When taxes are placed on volume and value of catches, reduction in fishing effort becomes evident thereby leading to level that are viewed as been sustainable for the fishery.

Property rights-based fisheries management systems

An effective way by which the issue of common property can be eliminated in Fisheries management systems is grounded on property rights. In this regime, private property rights in harvest are established which creates an indirect right to the stocks (Charles, 2006). This management system minimises the issues with resources conflict and is helpful in obtaining economic gains in the fishery. The sustainability and socio-economic benefits in many fisheries

14 around the world can be attributed to the development of property rights-based management systems. (Arnason, 2003). According to Arnason et al. (2007) several forms of property rights have been used to solve the issue of common property fisheries problem. However, individual transferable quotas (ITQ) Territorial users’ rights (TURF), group or community fishing rights, individual quotas (IQ) and access licenses are notably among the most common ones used.

a) Territorial User Rights in Fisheries (TURFs) is the exclusive rights held by a community of end users over resources that are found in a specific part of their marine environment. This right creates the motivation for the users to conserve and control the stocks. This system is mostly applicable to non- migratory species and has proven over the time to be an effective management tool in species preservation. and conflict reduction (Grafton & Squires, 1996) b) Individual transferable quotas (ITQ). This management approach confers property rights to fishers, thereby eliminating the problem of common property. A known faction of the total resource is owned by individuals which dispel the common property issues. In instances where a fisher wants more quota he must buy from the others. This type of arrangement instils rationally to the fishery and serves as a means for resources rent generation. c) Individual Quota (IQ). This system is deemed to be economically efficient (Kristofersson & Rickertsen, 2009) This system like the ITQ also alleviate the common property issue and is effective for making profit from fishery. d) Licenses. This approach does not adequately handle the issue of common property wholly (Arnason,2001) however, it is quite efficient in situations related to legal and regulatory mechanism that are put in place by governments to curb excessive fishing.

3.4.2 Biological Fisheries management

Gear restrictions, closed areas, total allowable catches and closed seasons are measures used in the biological fisheries management system. This kind of management system aims at the conservation and the enhancement of the stocks. However, research shows that reproduction output of the population practiced with these measures does not increase and have only marginal effect on yields (Arnason,2001, 2003) It is a costly venture and is ineffective in tackling the common property problem.

3.5 Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS)

Fisheries management regimes identify the regulatory structure needed for all fisheries activities, these include rules such as the kind of gear, quotas, as well as areas restrictions. It consists of many components. However, the presence of an efficient and effective enforcement and monitoring program (MCS) and a robust judicial system that ensure actors within the fisheries follow the regulation and laws that govern it is a characteristic of a successful FMS. Developed by the Food and Agriculture of the United nations in 1982 in accordance with Article 73 of the LOSC ,the MCS can be defined as an internationally legal instrument which gives sovereign coastal nations the rights to govern, explore and manage their natural resources including fisheries that falls within their Exclusive Economic Zones(EEZ) which measures 200 nautical miles from their shorelines to beyond the territorial seas. FAO from a fisheries prospective further define MCS as “Monitoring is the continuous requirement to measure fishing effort and resource yield, Control is the regulatory condition under which the exploitation of the resource may be conducted and Surveillance is the degree and types of observation required to maintain compliance with regulatory controls imposed on fishing activities. This component of the fisheries management system key function is enforcement (C.C.Schmidt, 2005) It collect data that can be used for the improvement of the overall management system. Activities link to this component involves patrols and recording violations all geared toward efficiency within the system.

4 Chapter

4.1 Concept of co-management in small- scales fisheries

The apparent failure in the overall control of the fisheries activities under a single authority in minimizing the environmental, social and economic impact of unsustainable fishing practices which has seen the drastic decline of the stocks indicates that the concept of co-management may seems a preferable option(Carlsson,2005)Co-management is a participatory kind of management system that devolve ownership and the responsibility of enforcement to local fishers thus creating a linkage between communities, public and the private sectors. Additionally, centralized management of small -scales fisheries especially in developing countries is often faced with budgetary constraints, lack of manpower and limited infrastructures to enforce significant management measures within local fishing communities. Small- scales fisheries account for approximately half of the global catches that provide the source of protein for humans and their livelihood (FAO, 2014). However, the increase in human population, decline in the fish stock due to illegal and unreported fishing as well as the inefficient management from Centralized government are among reasons for economic and biological losses in the fishery (FAO, 2014). Countries around the world have devised different management practices to counter the menace of IUU fishing activities. Depending on the nature of their fisheries some of these nations have adopted what works best to obtain long, short- and medium-term goals that would benefit their fisheries ecologically and sustainably. This study is focuses on a particular management system called the co-management in regard to small- scale fisheries. This partnership between government and the locals is adopted to enable a single agency with multiple resources and complex structures to govern on its own (Berks, 2009). This allows for greater participation of relevant stakeholders like the public and local communities The practice of co-management is also efficient in that it eases operational cost for management (Donda, 2017) In the case of the involvement of the local, the exclusion of a fringe stakeholders who are underprivileged and politically feeble may have undesirable effects on equity and community welfare, as seen in many fisheries in the world (Wilson, 2006). Co-management allows power-sharing, decision making, conflict management and dialogue among all stakeholders and the government (Donda, 2017). Co-management connects with research institutions, non-governmental institutions and other relevant authorities. It is not a

17 regulatory type of management scheme, rather a flexible management tool that allows the participation of all stakeholders involved. The co-management institutional flow chart and the different levels of participations by parties involved is illustrated by Nielsen (1996) in Figures 5 and 6.

Figure 5. Co-management institutional flow chart

Figure 6. Level of involvement of stakeholders

This classification defined by Nielsen et al. (1996) further distinguished the five types of co- management. This include:

1. Instructive: Information exchange between end users and government is minimal. This type of co-management regime centralised management is the principal instructor as it relates to policies and laws. Government transmit information to users towards the end of the planning process.

2. Consultative: Consultations are done among stakeholders thru mechanism such as public hearing and advisory boards, but final decisions are taken by government.

3. Cooperative: Users and government cooperate as equal partners in decision-making.

4. Advisory: In this type of co-management, end users decide and advice government on the most appropriate. when feasible government endorses decisions

5. Informative. All decisions making are done by end users. Once it is decided government is informed.

5 Chapter

5.1 Result -Based Management in Fisheries

The provision for a coherent framework aimed at strategic planning and management that are based on accountability and learning in a decentralized environment is the primary objective of any result-based management system.( Walker, Harremoes, & Rotmans, 2003) This approach of management proffers improvement in accountability and effectiveness by means of integrating lessons learned in decisions making, considering realistic expected results, monitoring achievable process of expected results and reports on performance. A result-based management is goal- oriented. its management strategy is focus on using evaluations of clear and measurable standards that are enforceable and auditable as a way to improve performances Sustainable harvest, secure tenure, enforcement and robust monitoring are key components by which a well- managed fishery is noted. A result-based management system in fisheries works in ways whereby a secure tenure is created for a resource that has been treated as a public good with open access. This secure tenure is done thru the assignment of assets rights and benefits from associated privileges. It works in ways wherein a formal agreement between management authorities and other users(operators) serves as the binding force. This arrangement sets standards determined by authorities by which the users are to operate thus highlighting the balance between rights and obligations or rules. (Nielsen & Holm, 2015) The users in turn seek workable and efficient solutions to determine ways by which those standards may be achieve. This becomes effective as long as operators are documenting results that shows those standards are achieved and by what means. All requirements are required to be satisfactory for those involved. When this is done authorities will not intervene in the ways that operators will choose to work the users in turn seek workable and efficient solutions to determine ways by which those standards may be achieve. The application of result-based management in fisheries management sort of produces ways wherein a balance is strike between a top-down direction and a bottom-up flexibility in a decentralized environment. Unlike other forms of management that are viewed as “micromanagement” the RBM paradigm is linked to the burden of proof. The onus of the management of the resources is squarely upon the users. Information’s and data that shows results of fishing activities are at acceptable limits and that outcomes are met is to be provided by resources users (Degnobol, 2009).

6 Chapter

6.1 Study Area

Grand Cape Mount county is found in the north western part of Liberia. The name Cape mount comes from a French word” Cape du Mont” which means Cape of the mount and was named by a Portuguese explorer called Pedro de Sintra in 1461. Robertsport is its capital city. Robertsport was named after Liberia’s first president Joseph Jenkins Roberts. It has (five) districts. As per the 2008 national census conducted by the Liberia Institute of Statistic and Geo-Information services (LISGIS) Grand Cape mount county was named as the (eight) most populous county in Liberia with 129,817 inhabitants (LISGIS,2008). Robertsport geographically lies on the coordinates at Latitude 6⁰75″00′ and longitude -11⁰35″00′ (LISGIS, 2008) and measures about 10 miles from the Sierra Leone border. It lies on the Cape Mount peninsula and is separated from the mainland by Lake Piso which is an oblong tidal lagoon, measures about 103km and is the largest lake in Liberia (LISGIS, 2008). This fishing town also lies within the biggest district in the Cape Mount county, its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean couple with the presence of the lake is an ideal and accessible location and as such a large portion of its population is engaged in intensive fishing activities. The waters serve as a means of livelihood for bulk of the population, landed catches are easily made for purchase or daily consumption. However, overfishing, bad fishing methods and pollution depleted stocks in most of the habitats. According to Jentoft (1998) a recent analysis of coastal fishing communities suggests that a comprehensive improvement in the social and human capital of fisher as well as their institutional and political environment can be ensured through effective representation of these fishing communities. Fishers participation in the preparation and implementation of policies and decisions that affect their livelihood would reduce their vulnerability to poverty.

The selection of the research area is based on the decentralization of power in the management of the fishery as well as the interactions among actors working together for mutual benefits to ensure the sustainability for the resource in that part of the country. Robertsport been the first county in

21 which the co-management scheme was introduced as such portrayed an ideal site for the conduct of this research. The map below shows the study area of Robertsport in Grand Cape Mount county.

Figure 7. Map of Grand Cape Mount showing Robertsport.

7 Chapter

7.1 Territorial Users Right and Community Management

Apart from the key role small -scales fisheries play in food security and poverty alleviation for the many actors that are involved in it around the world , it is also very central to local economies (Bene, 2006 & FAO, 2005)However, the menace of overfishing, harmful fishing practices (C.Costello, Hilborn, & Gaines, 2012)that have resulted in chronic environmental degradation as well as conflict with industrial and commercial fisheries has negatively impacted the livelihood of local communities and the health of the marine ecosystem (Cinner, 2009). The increase of these threats on the marine environment is coupled with the increase in local coastal communities’ demand for the marine resources. These developments have created a need for a robust management tool into the fishery more precisely an integrated approach that could quell the problem arising from the combined pressure. To alleviate this problem in small-scale fisheries an approach to ensure sustainability and at the same time protect the marine environment and benefit all resource users is key in a right based management (Cinner, 2009) This right based approach when use as a management tool in small- scale fisheries addresses the negative outcomes of the open access issue. Ownership of the marine resource is handed to the fishers thereby providing incentives which in turn allow the fishers to sustainably manage resource for a that long term. The past decades have recorded significant developments in rights-based management in fisheries. Both area-based and species management which are forms of rights-based management have been viewed as important development in the management of fisheries around the world. This has gained a lot of relevance because conventional methods such as gear and vessel restriction has proven to be unsuccessful in handling the problem of overexploitation. (Quynh & Schillizzi, 2017) However, right based management tools such as the use of territorial users’ rights have by contrast proven to be effective in eliminating the problem of overexploitation and unsustainable fishing especially in small- scales fisheries. The use of TURFs by communities as a way of excluding others of the marine resource is believed to have existed for centuries. Papua New Guinea (Johannes, 1982) and Brazil (Cordell, 1980) are among some examples wherein traditional

TURFs are still found today. Their usage over the past centuries have contributed to a halt in the expansion of fishing effort in small- scale fisheries (Johannes, 1982).

TURFs are specially designed to address issues related to lack of property rights (Quynh & Schillizzi, 2017). The evolution of TURFs in other parts of the world like i.e of the maul fishery in South Korea (K.N.Lee & J.Gates, 2006) and coastal ﬁsheries in Vietnam (Ho & H.Ross, 2015)had all aided in the elimination of illegal and unreported fishing. Right- based management are effective in controlling fishing efforts as these measures promote economic efficiency within the fisheries(J.Aburto & G.Gallardo, 2013).

7.2 Definition of TURFs

Territorial User Rights for fisheries can be defined as designated areas that a group of fishers or individuals are granted access to for the purpose of exploiting fisheries resources that are found within predetermined boundaries. TURFs are generally more site specific and effectively work best for no-mobile species (C.Afflerbach, 2014) Unlike other management systems like ITQ which is mostly concern with harvesting rights turf provides rights to exclude and is specific to who owns it and how it is manage.(Ho & H.Ross, 2015) Depending on the resources users interaction and resources characteristcs among other things researches has shown that right based fisheries management strategies can work in combination with other management approaches.

7.3 Dimension of TURFs

Four major dimensions characterizes the existence of a TURF, as such it can be viewed as a multidimensional social concept (Ho & Ross, 2015). Those dimensions are: The spatial dimension, indicate the physical boundaries which include the length and areas to which the turf applies. The temporal dimension refers to the timeframe of the TURF. The demographic dimension refers to individuals or groups that are exempted from a specific set of obligation or rights depending on the status of either been included or excluded. The formal or informal conditions by which transfer, distribution and the exercise of rights within a specific TURF is refer to as the cultural dimension.

7.4 Potentials Benefits of TURFs

Due to the common property nature of the fisheries over the past decades, common fishing traditions such as TURF were considered impediment to the welfare improvement of the fisher folks as well as the overall development of the fisheries (Hardin, 1968). This was evident as during this time there were unconstrained rise in the fishing effort. However, the literature shows that as the fish resource started to deteriorate, government and fishing societies in the quest to sustain their livelihoods adapted to establish institutions that would limit entry to the fisheries. This action ushered in fishing associations and tenures that would exclude outsiders. Most recently, their potential contribution in the management of fisheries has merited a surge of interest (Gelcich, 2015). Benefits of TURFs to fisheries management are numerous. It is claimed by many researches that the common property issue and the many problems that are associated with it in fisheries is reduce by the introduction of turf (Chi Nguyen Thi Quynh, 2017). By establishing well-defined property rights, TURFs allow fisheries managers to tackle the problem of overexploitation of the resource. Turf incorporates individuals into autonomous communities, thus creating moral and social incentive for them. TURF promotes administrative efficiency, holders in this arrangement can adapt their management objectives, as such adjustment in the economic and social change can be made supple by introducing flexibility in the control of the fishing effort. According to Gelcich (2015) the physical productivity of the exploited fish resources is increased due to the use of TURFs in fisheries management. This is possible as the holders are given incentive to invest in the stock for increased future returns. TURF promotes social equity, the bottom to top approach which is the hallmark of a TURF system reduces the complex bureaucracies that are aligned with the centralized fisheries management (Ho & H.Ross, 2015) that doesn’t consider the poor and disadvantaged fishermen. The joint rights to access the resources allow equitable distribution amongst users than as a system of private rights (J.Aburto & G.Gallardo, 2013)

7.5 The Effectiveness of TURFs

The issue of property rights, overexploitation of the stock and the sustainability of the fisheries resulting from TURF impact were supposed to be corrected by using area-based management like TURF, however literature show that the topic is still one that is hotly contested. Research has also shown that the theoretical effectiveness of turf in controlling fishing effort is not practical (J.Aburto & W.Stotz, 2013). This system is mostly concern with space allocation, rather than the resources (J.Aburto & W.Stotz, 2013) and is mostly involved with the rules of the fisheries than with conservation of the stock. Given the conﬂicting evidence on the eﬀectiveness of TURFs over the last decades, most recent evaluation of its effectiveness to sustainable fishing practices has been observed from three dimensions: economic, biological and social (J.E.Wilen & J.Cancino, 2012) the level of fishing efforts and the income generation of fishers from the use of the TURF are among the criteria that indicates economic impacts. The build-up trust that exist between the government and the fishers, the level of cooperation among all users’ groups accounts for the social impact.

8 Chapter

8.1 Fisheries Management in Liberia

The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) through the act of legislation under the Natural Resources Law of 1956 (revised 1973), established the Bureau of National Fisheries (BNF) in 1957 as a Department within the Technical Services Division to regulate and manage all fisheries and fishing related activities confine within the jurisdiction of Liberia’s territorial waters. It remained the regulating bodies until the outbreak of the civil war.

The civil crisis which lasted for more than a decade (1990-2003) impeded years of progress in its fishery sector, its infrastructure and human development were greatly affected, which resulted in the fisheries regulation becoming outdated (Subah, 2010) following this era the menace of overfishing became the order of the day as such the management of its fishery became an obsolete thing.

Due to no or poor information’s on statuses of stocks and the ecosystems that support the fisheries its sizes and scale of catches of both artisanal and industrial fisheries presented an eminent danger for the fishery sector These activities presented danger for the fish species and the marine ecosystems. It destroys conservation and management initiatives. During this period (1990-2003) enforcement in the inshore zones (IEZ), degradation to coastal ecosystems, spawning grounds for the fishes and limited institution capacity for the entity that were responsible for proper management were among key issues that were face by Liberia. This was an era of free access.

Consistent with these numerous burdens the World Bank thru the West African Regional Fisheries Project in 2010 decided to support Liberia to better manage her resources. This step represented several milestones in its fisheries management structure. To improve governance in its fisheries a co-management and Territorial users right of fisheries (TURF) was established in Robertsport. To curb illegal unreported and unregulated fisheries in all parts of the country the introduction of the six nautical mile EEZ to be exclusively used by artisanal fishers, and beyond the 6 nm for industrial or commercial vessels was established (NaFAA, 2010).

The management of fisheries is centralized in Liberia. The government thru the National fisheries and Aquaculture Authority (NaFAA)which is arranged into four divisions (marine, aquaculture and inland, research and statistics and administration) is the sole institution responsible to manage and administered all aspects of the fisheries in terms of sustainability, conservation as well as the overall development of the fisheries. The task of the NaFAA includes formulation of national fisheries policies, regulation and rule enforcement, research and data collection. The Authority is headed by a Director General and two deputies that are appointed by the President. It is governed by a board of Directors. (Figure 8).

Board

Director General

Director/Adm Director/ inistration Techincal

Policy/Planni Research/Stat Aquaculture/I Legal MCS ng astics nland

Extension Competent Finance Marine Services Authority

Co- Small- management scales Figure 8. Management Structure of NaFAA

Current management system is thru inputs controls and technical measures. The objective is to regulate fishing effort and mesh sizes through registration of vessels and the monitoring of fishing activities. Regular inspection of gear and the deployment of observers on board industrial vessels and inspectors at fish landing sites are conducted to ensure compliance with rules and regulations governing the fishery sector

To ensure optimal returns to central government while at the same time protecting the fish stocks, the license allocation systems is the means by which access to the resource is managed in the industrial sector. The management of the scale- scales fisheries in Liberia which is the focus of the study is carried out thru the activities of assigned fisheries officers in various communities and

28 landing sites. These officers’ collect data on catches and efforts of registered artisanal vessels/canoes at various landing sites and reports to the director of the artisanal department which forwards the information to the department of research and statistics to be coded in the database. A local governance structures that are allowed under the customary laws of Liberia and is recognized by government do exist within these fishing communities. These structures are in accordance with the fisheries regulation and promote sustainability and adequate conservation of the marine resource. Under this structure the fishing communities are governed by a tribal chief who is assisted by two other chiefs that are selected from the two main ethic groups. The Kru and the Fanti. These chiefs are responsible for all matters concerning the fishers and they serve as the go-between with government and the fishers on matters that concerns the fisheries.

8.2 Co-management in Robertsport

The Government of Liberia thru it long term plan for the decentralization of the management of it fishery resources as well as the opportunity to involve locals in the power-sharing and the decision making of the marine resource signed in 2011 an agreement with the West African Regional fisheries project with funds from the World Bank to established a pilot project of a co-management scheme in Robertsport, Liberia. This initiative was also in response to the break down in the management structures of the fisheries due to the decade long civil war which ushered in a prevalence of illegalities within the fisheries sector.

Robertsport share a boundary with Sierra Leone. This boundary is considered a maritime border and it is strategic (Subah,2010) the consistent flux of licensed and unlicensed vessels into its territory render Robertsport a likely choice for this management structure. Also, due to the lack of monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms in that part of the country, there were countless complaints from communities’ dwellers and fishermen regarding industrial vessels presence, destructions of local fishers fishing gear and habitat areas of the species. To redeem some of the problems stated above the Robertsport co- management became responsible for decision making, self-regulation, conflict regulation and enforcement within the fishing communities. As set up the co-management system was consistent with the national laws and regulations of Liberia.

In adherence with their objectives to promote sustainable fishing, eliminate illegal and destructive fishing and enhanced fishers’ livelihood a territorial user’s rights for fisheries (TURF) in accordance with the fisheries regulation of 2010 was declared by the Government of Liberia in 2013. The TURF covers approximately 80 nautical miles, from the Lofa river at the boundary between Grand Cape Mount and Bomi counties in the south and extents to the Mano River the at boundary between Sierra Leone and Liberia in the north.

Figure 9. The area of the Robertsport Co-Management Association Turf

Most West African states share porous borders, as such species that inhabits the TURF in Robertsport are both sedentary and migratory. The turf is exclusively use by registered CMA members, which in turn enabled the members to maximize their catches, protect the species habitat and foster responsible fishing among the users.

To ensure compliance with NaFAA /CMA regulations and that industrial fishing boats are not in violation with regards of the stipulated 6 nautical miles created by government for use by artisanal fishers a weekly surveillance is done by the MCS. The Co-management of Robertsport and the Government of Liberia have a cooperative partnership wherein both partners share the authority and responsibility to manage the marine resources in that part of the country. Through a formal agreement specific roles, rights and responsibilities to the fishery management were crafted. Roles and responsibilities of the Robertsport co-management include.

• Representation of members in local fisheries management decision making • Community-based enforcement and self-regulation • Community-based monitoring and evaluation • Participation in research, data gathering and analysis

The Government of Liberia role in the agreement include: • The provision of national legitimacy and legal recognition for the CMA. • Provide technical assistance to the Robertsport CMA, including with application of national fisheries regulatory standards, in conducting research that are fisheries related conflict management and appeal mechanism • Address issues as it regards to enforcement and compliance that may be beyond the scope of the CMA

Robertsport co-management controls 15 fishing communities and has a membership of 1038 which consist of fishermen, processors, traders and other stakeholders within the NGOs and private sector. Duties to ensure its effectiveness and efficiency are executed by code of officers that are either elected or appointed.

9 Chapter

9.1 Methodology

9.1.1 Data Collection

This research employed a qualitative method to collect social-economic and demographic data. To ensure the representative sample for analysis that are based on voluntary responses instead of selected a random probability sampling with a purposive approach will be employed. This approach is effective in the reduction of biases that arise in term of estimation of paraments that are considered in research survey. (Patton, 1990).The selection is due to its suitability for the research analysis(Patton, 1990). Storytelling, ethnography and phenomenology are all methodology grounded within a qualitative research (Halcomb E ,2016) However, surveys, structured interviews and observational approaches are among the ones that are often used (Halcomb E, 2016) This study attracted voluntary responses from respondents thru a questionnaire survey method. This was done to obtain evidence on the socio-economic and demography characteristics on all the co-management actors. The characteristics include sex, marital status, educational background, and fishing experience. This data was collected to determine the fisher involvement in fishing activities over the years. The profile of the fisher’s actors (fishers, processors, traders), the assessment of the fishery and the fisher’s assessment of the co-management made up the three sections of the survey questionnaire. The survey targeted 100 resource users as the sample size of the population for analysis.

9.1.2 Survey

The survey questionnaire was prepared and sent out to the Robertsport co-management team who worked along with enumerators from the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Authority to collect. the demographic and socio-economic data within the study area. To obtain the target sample size different resource users were selected from 10 different fishing communities within the Robertsport area.

Participants chosen for this survey were based on the nature of the research questions of this study. Those targeted were all resource users that are directly involved with the fishing activities they were best suited in understanding the situation. The purpose of using different respondent (fishermen, processors, traders) was to obtain an interdependent and balanced assessment as regards of change in quality of life and the overall living standard before and after the implementation of the co-management policies, through this approach it was hoped the survey would avoid underreport or report false positives on specific inquiries to suit the needs and benefits of the particular target group.

During the survey a team which comprises of both males and females, meticulously followed all the instructions of the survey. The objectives and questions of the survey were communicated to the interviewees by way of a face to face communication. The strategy for collecting the sample selection used in the survey involved reaching out to the different resource groups to get responses. The interviews were done either at home after fishing, at the fish processing stations and at the various landing sites(beaches) at the time of landing their catches. In the absence of a user that were target for the survey a visit was scheduled for another day. The demographic and socio- economic analysis data collection lasted for a period of one-month from February 2nd to the 28th in the year, 2019. To obtain the demographic and social economic performance of the fishing activities in the different controlled zones of the CMA, a total sample of 100 actors out of a membership of 1038 were interviewed.

Collaborations were effective amongst fishers that were at home, processors at the various stations, as well as the fishers that were met at the various landing sites. However, non-cooperative posture was exhibited by some traders as they were in a rush to make purchases of the landed catches and therefore did not give much attention to the interview.

Although there was great progress in the data collection process some constraint were experienced during the progress mainly stemming from the fact that once it was known that there no financial or material benefits attached to part taking in the survey some resource users became reluctant in their responses or didn’t want to be interview. Due to the limited time schedule for this study and in anticipation of obtaining high response rate and first-hand information the survey only targeted respondents from easy to reach fishing communities within the CMA controlled zones. Data collectors were unable to get access to inaccessible places and distant zones due to lack of mobility and other essential that could have been useful in the survey.

10 Results

10.1.1 Analysis of demography profile of resource user

Highlighting equity demographic profile of the resource’s users in the survey indicates the active inclusion for all users. This highlight the different levels of people in the usage of the resource and that fishing is the dominant occupation as it serves as a sole means of livelihood for bulk of the families in the study area. Males which accounted for 64% interviewed for the survey are the highly dominated group within this sector while their female counterpart at 36% serves mainly as traders and processors (Figure 10).

Female 36%

Male 64%

Figure 10. Sex distribution of resource users.

Widow 14%

Single 19%

Married 67%

Figure 11. Marital status of resource users.

Figure 11. highlights the difference in the martial status among the resource users in the study. This brings about dependencies problem towards socio-economic and livelihood issues among the resource users and would lead to users exerting pressure on the marine resource, thereby resulting in the overfishing of the fish stock. The marital status among the resource users is very important as it exhibit responsibility and a high level of sensitivity.

Tertiary 10%

Secondary No education 23% 40%

Primary education 27%

Figure 12. Educational status of resource users.

Education plays an integral role in the sustainability of a natural resource; the growth of a society is highly dependent on the human resource capacity of its people being educated. In most artisanal fisheries especially in developing countries, there exist a lack of educational status among the resource actors. In this instance management purpose becomes a bit difficult. Results from the survey shows that users by 60% had some level of education. In view of the above (Figure 12) out of the total sample size of 100 shows that 27% obtained primary education, 23% have secondary education and 10% tertiary education while 40% have no formal education. As compare to the 40% of the illiterate resource users that were interviewed in the survey to the 60% of the other users forms of education this serves an added advantage as users can easily comprehend and implement policies of the co-management that would improve their social economic welfare.

35 30

Frequency 15

10 5

0 <5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-30 Year of fishing experience

Figure 13. Fishing Experience of CMA members.

Figure 13 indicates that livelihood of the resource users in the study area is highly dependent on fishing, marketing and the post-harvesting activities of the fishery. An important factor is years of experience has the propensity to provide information on the history of the fishery that would support labour force that are productive thus enabling stakeholders and mangers to make informed decisions for a sustainable fishery.

Figure 13. also reveal the year of fishing activities by the CMA members, and the shows that most of the fishermen have 5-9 years of fishing experience. Moreover, the average fishing experience by CMA member within is 8.6. This implied that fishing is the main livelihood activities that characterized them as CMA members. This can be verified from the number of fishermen that responded to the survey. Moreover, study area is a fishing settlement

Trader 22%

Fisherman Processor 55% 23%

Figure 14. Occupation of resource users. Figure 14 identified the resource user’s occupation as fishermen, processors and traders. The processors who are predominately woman represent 23%. The traders which comprised of both male and female represent 22% and fishermen 55% of the total sample. Woman representation is less in the study as compared to their male counterpart. The survey results makes no differnce from other studies that have highlighted the marginization of woman in terms of equity and gender balance in the fisheries sector. However, their role in the processing sector involve adding value to the fish this in turn create income generation for them.

325

85 54

Fishermen processors Trader

Figure 15 Household composition by occupation.

Figure 15. shows the number of dependents in household as represented by respondents in the survey. In all there were 100 CMA members sampled in the study and their total household dependents of 464. Of these 325 individuals lived in household headed by fishermen, 85 in household were those surveyed worked in processing and 54 where the head of household was trader.

10.1.2 Assessment of CMA effectiveness

5 2

YES Neutral No Figure 16. Resource users that are aware of the existence of CMA.

Figure 16. shows the result from the question: Are you aware of the existence or know a member of the CMA? 100 resource were surveyed of those 93 responded that they were, five did not know about the CMA activities and two were neutral.

80 70 60 69

50 40

Frequency 30 20 10 18 13 0

Yes No Neutral

Respond of CMA Member

Figure 17.Resource users’ perception on CMA effectiveness.

Figure 17. shows the results from the question what are your perception of the CMA effectiveness? Out of the 100 respondents surveyed, 69 believed that the CMA has been effective, while 18 did not believe it has been effective and the remaining 13 members delivered a neutral response.

Neutral 7

No 7

Yes 86

Figure 18. Resource users that are aware of the inclusive and equitable use of resources.

Figure 18 shows, results from the question: Do members have equitable and inclusive use of the resource? 86 of those surveyed believed that they do. 7 of the members feel neutral in their opinion and the remaining 7 of them did not believed that they do

No Neutral 0% 17%

Yes 83%

Figure 19. Status of conflict since CMA. Figure 19. shows the result form the question: How is the status of conflict since the establishment of the CMA? 100 respondents were surveyed, out of that number 83 believed that conflict status is good, 17 delivered a neutral response.

No Neutral 3% 14%

Yes 83%

Figure 20. Resource user that responded to the minimization of IUU.

Figure 20. shows the result from the question: Has Illegal Unreported Unregulated fishing (IUU) been minimized since the CMA? 83 of those surveyed believed that yes it has been reduced, 14 give a neutral response and 3 believed that it had not been reduced.

10.1.3 Responses of Resource users to Question

Table 4. Users responses to questions on various issues related to co-management effectiveness

Questions Total Yes No Neutral % % l% Knowledgeable of CMA activities/ know a member 100 93% 5% 2%

CMA member selected or elected 100 83% 1% 16%

CMA inclusive and equitable of marginalized resources 100 86% 7% 7%

Meaningful participation exists 100 71% 12% 17%

CMA accountable to stakeholders 100 67% 10% 23%

CMA explain public policies before action 100 78% 4% 18%

Perception of CMA 100 69% 18% 13%

CMA initiative as treat over fisheries resources 100 8% 77% 15%

Feel empowered by CMA 100 78% 5% 17%

Catch of species improved since CMA 100 76% 12% 12%

Knowledge of IUU 100 10% 77% 13%

IUU minimized since CMA 100 83% 3% 14%

Status of conflict since CMA 100 83% 1% 17%

Has CMA built fisheries sector since establishment? 100 77% 4% 19%

CMA needs improvement 100 98% 1% 2%

100 resources users responded to several categories in relation to enforcement, IUU fishing, management of the resources as well as the inclusion of stakeholders in the usage of the resource. Table 4 essentially shows the comparison among all the questions asked regarding the CMA effectiveness in Robertsport. There is not much variation as indicated by the high responses of yes to all the questions answered by all user’s groups.

10.1.4 Relationship between the perception of users on the co-management effectiveness

In this section the effectiveness of the co-management is indicated by the number of respondents that believed that the CMA have been effective compared to the views of all other views on other aspect mentioned in the survey. This is to ascertain the difference in the views as regards CMA effectiveness to the overall inquiry of the survey. Results shows that 69% of the respondents agreed to the overall effectiveness of the co-management. This 69% is measured as the effectiveness from the user’s perception it is considered how well the co-management scheme has done.

Table 5. Comparison of the views of all respondents and those that believed CMA had been effective.

Questions Total Sample Those that (100%) believed that CMA has been effective. (69%) Difference Knowledgeable of CMA activities/ 93% 97% 4% know a member CMA member elected /selected 83% 86% 3% CMA inclusive and equitable of 86% 94% 11% marginalization resources Meaningful participation 71% 72% 1% CMA accountable to stakeholders 67% 72% 5% CMA explains public policies before 78% 77% 1% actions CMA initiative as treat over fisheries 8% 7% 1% resources Feel empowered by CMA 78% 84% 6% Catch of species improved 76% 77% 1% Knowledge of IUU 10% 13% 3% IUU minimized since CMA 83% 87% 4% Status of conflict 83% 86% 3% Has CMA built the fisheries sector 77% 80% 3% since its establishment CMA needs improvement 98% 97% 1%

As seen from the Table 5, there is in general not a great difference between the views of all those included in the sample and the views of those that believed the CMA is effective. In most cases the difference (the column further to the right in table 5) was less than 4 percent. However, in several instances a larger difference was observed. The difference of 4% was measured as the difference for members’ acknowledgement of the CMA activities. This less variation might likely be explained due to the fact that the survey was conducted in most of the easy to reach zones of the CMA. Of the total sampled 93% stated that they knew of the CMA existence of this number

97% responded to the effectiveness of the CMA. the highest respondents were made up of fishermen with fishing experiences that ranged between 1-7 years. Most of the respondent fall within the uneducated categories.

The question: Do members have equitable and inclusive use of the resource shows a difference of 11%. This large difference might likely be explained from the number of respondents that delivered a neutral and no responses. It might also be that these respondents did not see these resources has been equitable probably due to factors (gear type and type of canoes use for fishing) that would hinder their complete access to the resource or that they just did not care. However, of those surveyed 86% believed that the CMA is inclusive of all its members as regard the equitable usage of the resource of this number 94% believed that the CMA is effective. Most of the respondents to this question were married fishermen with a total of 6 members per household.

The question: Is CMA accountable to stakeholders measured a difference of 5%. There were 67% that believed that the CMA is accountable to its stakeholders, of that number 72% believed that the CMA is effective. Most of the respondents were fishermen with fishing experience between 7- 14 years with a household of 6 persons and had no education.

The question: Does the resource users feel empowered by the CMA measured a difference of 6%. This difference in views can likely be attributed to number of respondents that stated a neutral response. It is most likely that those who delivered a neutral or no response thinks there is more to done within the co-management. However, of the total sampled 78% believed that they are empowered by the CMA of this number 84% also think that the CMA is effective. Fishermen will fishing experiences between 5-9 years and have no education were the highest respondent.

The question: Has IUU fishing minimized since CMA measured a difference of 4%. Of those surveyed 83% believed that IUU fishing has been minimized, of those number that believed in the minimization of IUU fishing 87% also stated that the CMA is effective. Fishermen were the highest respondents, with no education and have a 6-8 members household.

11 Chapter

11.1 Discussion

The success of community fisheries management initiatives depends on the strength of the local organization and its ability to ensure compliance from its members to enforce agreed rules and regulations on government policies to established legal bases granting the necessary rights and authority to manage the fisheries (Pomeroy,1996). According to Nielsen (1996) the evaluation of a co-management structure is squarely based of the premises of implementing managements objectives as it relates to the resource. Notwithstanding the impacts of the resource on its users is also paramount. The main objective of the study which was geared to ascertain the Robertsport co-management effectiveness in terms of sustainability, equity and stewardship by views gathered from all resources users is in conformation with the survey findings. The first results in the study scrutinized the demographic and social-economic characteristics of the resource users in the study area. Based on the demographic indicators like sex, marital status, size of household and fishing experience, the results indicate that fishing is an important livelihood activity. The Processors, Fishermen and the Traders made up the demographic component of the study. The demographic profile shows that 64% of the resource users were male and 36% were female. The resources actors had a maximum of 5-9 years of fishing experiences which account for 59%. The cultural and social responsibility reveals that the martial status of the household is high among the fisheries actors and represent 67% with a family size of 6 members. The educational status among the respondents were mostly those with no education. The female participants of 36% are actively involved in the post-harvest sector. The second part of the study ascertain the effectiveness of the co-management through the perception of the resource’s users. This involved how has the establishment of the co-management impacted their lives in terms of conflict resolution, inclusion in decision-making and their involvement in the overall management of the marine resources. As per the perception of the resource users that believed that the CMA is effective, the results from the study shows it at 69%. Factors such as fishing experiences, marital status and number of dependents in households were among reasons that characterizes respondents’ answers to the survey. Considering the total sampled there is little variation among all the answers, however in some instances there were slight differences between the total sample and those that believed that

44 the CMA is effective. The less variation among all the questions indicate cohesiveness among the resource users and the co-management in Robertsport. Fishermen were the highest respondents. Most of respondents had fishing experiences between 5-8 years and no formal education. Research on study that involved the management of common pool resources has shown that there are several methods that have been developed to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing globally; however, no one method seems enough to resolve this problem, rather the combination of measures. The institution of co-management, which involves locals in the implementation of policies designed to combat IUU fishing and would lead to growth in livelihood is a global tool that has proven effective in different nations in which it has been properly executed. Co-management in most cases is established in response to resources depletion. It represents a new approach to fisheries management. This management approach replaces centralized management systems which has proven inefficient to most fisheries especially in the case of small-scale fisheries. The implementation of co-management in small-scale fisheries encourages resources users to become actively involved in operational rules and enforcement that would help maintain a sustainable fishery for future generation. Co-management and decentralization give rise to bolstering of local elite power or to the consolidating of state control. It provides some sense of ownership of the fish resources, which makes user-groups far more responsible for obtaining long-term sustainability of the fish stock. This in turn boost users’ livelihood and welfare from the fishery. Territorial user rights in fisheries is one strategy that is widely implemented in curbing the common property problem which had led to the overexploitation of most fisheries in the world. This management strategy gives communities and individuals exclusive right to a resource within certain boundaries, thus providing users with the incentive to harvest sustainability. The use of TURF in small-scale fisheries serves to meet efficiency criteria by providing rent to the resource that the condition to open access would not. The use TURFs in small-scale fisheries offers the opportunity for increase in livelihood of those communities that manages them.

The Robertsport co-management objectives are set upon eliminating destructive, illegal, and unregulated fishing practices ,to effectively organize, control and manage the fisheries in a sustainable manner, to advocate, support and promote fisher folks by involving all in the workings of the CMA and to promote awareness in all fishing communities for compliance purposes

The Association is responsible for engaging fishers in local fisheries management decision- making, community-based enforcement self-regulation, and conflict-resolution within fishing

45 communities. It also takes a direct role in managing a Territorial User Rights of Fishing (TURF) area in Grand Cape Mount County, which includes the valuable fishing resource of Lake Piso. The association conduct the frequent monitoring of the TURF; thus, it eases the issue of IUU fishing in the area. Commercials vessels and non-members are exempted from the TURF usage giving the communities exclusive rights to the area. There is a restriction on the usage of the TURF at certain time that would enable fish have enough breeding space thus the opportunity for users to harvest sustainably. This study however has shown the adherence to governance as portrayed by the responses. The reduction in conflict and the minimization of illegal fishing depicts the use of the turf in the study area. The 69% which represent user’s perception of the CMA effectiveness considered good governance, inclusion of all stakeholders, empowerment, conflict resolution and sustainable fishing as things that made the CMA effective. Those mentioned above works well in line with the objectives of the Robertsport CMA. This shows that the community is on a fair track of good and effective governance within the co-management structures well as the community involvement in the management of their fish resources from over exploitation and illegal fishing. However, at a 69% effectiveness it cannot be ascertain for an overall evaluation for the co-management in Robertsport as most factor that have would inform this process in its totality was not taken into consideration.

11.2 Limitation

There are many ways by which the assessment of a co-management can be done, thus it become important to acknowledge some of the potential biases in the methodology that was used in this study. The study did not cover many technical details such as trend in fishing efforts, fish stocks and catches, types of gear used and species types. This information’s were not available and did not form part to assess the overall effectiveness of the co-management. The study also only targeted the users in the easy to reach areas where the co-management seems most effective. The remote areas were not assessed and as such could be accounted as a bias in the assessment of the co-management effectiveness. The trader’s uncooperative behaviour during the interview can also be accounted as a bias for the study. This behaviour of the traders had the propensity to give a rush answers which might not have been untruthful and may have alter the objective of the survey. The

46 participants were mostly males and the sample size were less than 10% of the total co-management membership and may not have represented a fair assessment of all stakeholders at the time of this survey. A further investigation covering all aspects and zones be expended in future research.

12 Conclusion

Small-scale fisheries are very important for the livelihood, welfare and food security for most coastal communities; however, the management can be very complex. A holistic management approach suitable for most small-scale fisheries involved one where all stakeholders participate in the planning and decision-making process. The strength, appropriateness and flexibility of the framework determines the success of the management objectives. A co-management is fundamentally a sustainable approach to small-scale fisheries management. The involvement of local knowledge is crucial for strengthening management objective thus promoting sustainability for the resource. In conclusion the success of a co-management is directly related to a well - organized community that has been empowered to act, to manage and conserve it resources. The 69% of the respondents that believed the CMA is effective signifies that the Association has exhibited some potential to sustainably manage the resources in that part of the country.

13 Recommendations

To manage it marine resources and combat IUU fishing in the Robertsport area, the Liberian fisheries management regime implemented a co-management scheme. This study shows 69 % of the respondent believed that the CMA had been effective. several lapses identified in the study discussion section warrant the need for further research. Therefore, it is recommended that the CMA create a vigorous awareness among all users about its activities and functions. It is further recommended that a further study be conducted. One that would consider all factors that would be used for further implementation of the CMA schemes in other part of the country.

References

Aburto, J., & Gallardo, G. (2013). Territorial users rights for artisanal fisheries in Chile-intended and unintended outcomes. Ocean Coastal Management, 248-295. Aburto, J., & Stotz, W. (2013). Learning about turf and the natural variability: Failure of the surf clam management in Chile. Ocean and Coastal management, 71, 88-98. Aburto, J., & Stotz, W. (2013). Learning about TURF and the natural variability: Failure of the surf clam management in Chile. Ocean and Coastal Management, 71, 88-98. Advameg, I. (2009). Countries and their culture : Liberia. Afflerbach, C. J. (2014, December). A global survey of "TURF-reserves",Territorial User Rights for Fisheries coupled with marine reserves. Global Ecology and Ecology, 2, 97-106. Allision, E. H. (2001, September). The Livelihood Approach and Management of small-scales Fisheries. Marine Policy, 25(5), 337-388. Armitage, D. (2008). Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change, 86-98. Arnason, R. (1993). Ocean Fisheries Management : Recent International Development. Marine Policy, 22(4), 334-336. Arnason, R. (2007). Advances in the Property rights-based fisheries management: An introduction. Marine Resources Economics, 22(4), 335-346. Arnason, R. (2009, March 16). Fisheries management and Operations research. European Journal of Operational Research, 193(3), 741-751. Belhabid, D. (2015). Feeding the poor: Contribution of West African fisheries to employment and food security. Ocean and coastal mangement, 111, 72-81. Bene, C. (2006). Small -scale fisheries: assessing their contribution of rural livelihood in developing countries. Fisheries circular, FAO, 46, 1008. Berks, F. (2009). Evolution of Co-management: Roles of Knowledge generation ,bridging organozation and the socila learning . Journal of Enviromental Management, 90(5), 1692- 1702. BNF. (2013). Bureau of National Fisheries Annual Report. Monrovia. Carlsson, L., & Berks, F. (2005). Co-management concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental management, 75(1), 65-76.

Charles, A. (2006). Community Fishery Rights: Issues, Approaches and the Atlantic Canadian case studies. IIFET 2006, Portsmount Proceedinds. University of Iceland and European Commission Research center. Cinner, J. (2009). Poverty and the use of destructive fishing gear near east African marine protected area. Environmental Conservation, 36(4), 321-326. Cordell, J. (1980). Carrying capacity analysis of fixed territorial fishing.In Maritime adaptations ;essays on contemporary fishing communities. University of Pittburgh Press. Costello, C., Hilborn, R., & Ganies, S. (2012). Status and solutions for the world's unassessed fisheries. Science, 338(6106), 517-520. Degnbo, P. (2009). Result-based management. NSRAC Demersal WG special meeting. DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries-European Union. Donda, S. (2017, June). Who benefits from fisheries co-management? A case study in Lake Chiuta, Malawi. Marine Policy, 80, 147-158. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.10.018 FAO. (2005). Increasing the contribution of small scales fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. FAO. (2012). State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture. FAO, Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO. (2014). State of the World fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Gelcich, S. (2015). Incentivizing biodiversity conservation in the artisanal fishing communities through territorial user rights and business model innovation. Conservation Biology, 29(4), 1076-1085. Gordon, H. (1954). The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery. The Journal of Political Economy, 62(2), 124-142. Grafton, R. (2000). Private Property and Economic efficiency: A study of a Common-Pool Resource. Journal of Law and Economics, 43(2), 42-44. Grafton, R. Q., & Squires, D. (1996, October). Private property rights and the crises in the World fisheries: Turning the tides. Comtemporary Economic Policy, 14(4), 90-99. Halcomb, E. (2016). Understanding the importance of collecting qualitative data creatively. Faculty of Science , Medicine and Health. University of Wollogong. Halpern, B. S., Lester, S., & Kellner, J. (2009). Spillover from marine reserve and the replenishment of fish stocks. Environmental Conservation, 36, 268-276. Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 1243-1248.

Ho, H., & Ross, H. (2015). Power sharing in Fishery co-management in Tam Giagn Lagoon,Vietnam. Marine Policy, 171-179. Jentoft, S. (1998). Social theory and fisheries co-management. Marine Policy, 22(4), 423-436. Johannes, R. (1982). Implications of traditional marine resource use for coastal development in Papua New Guinea. In traditional conservation in Papua New Guinea :Implications for today. Institute of Applied Social and Economic Research. Kristofersson, D., & Rickertsen, K. (2009). Highgrading in the Quota regulated fisgeries: Evidence from the Icelandic cod fishery. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(2), 335- 346. Lee, K. N., & Gates, J. (2006). Recent development in Korean fisheries management. Ocean Coastal management, 49(5), 355-366. LISGIS. (2008). 2008 Population and Housing census. Monrovia: Liberia Institute of Statistic and Geo-Information services. NaFAA. (2014). The fisheries and Aquaculture Policy of Liberia. Monrovia: National Fisheries and Aquaculture Authority. Nielsen, K., & Holm, P. (2015, January). Results based management in fisheries: Delegating responsibility to resource users. Marine Policy, 51, 442-451. Nielsen, S. (1996). Fisheries co-management: A comparative analysis. Marine Policy, 20(2), 405- 418. Ostrom, E. (2007). Governing the commons, The evolution of institutions for collective actions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evalution and the research method : second edition. Newbury Park. CA: Sage. Pita, C. (2010). Stakeholders participation in the fisheries management decesion-making process. Fishers perceptions of participations. Marine Policy, 34(5), 1093-1102. Pomeroy, R. S. (1995). Community-based and co-management institution for sustainable coastal fisheries management in Southeast Asia. Ocean and Coastal management, 27(3), 143-162. Quynh, C. N., & Schillizzi, S. (2017, January). Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries (TURFs): State of the art and the road ahead. Marine Policy, 75, 41-52. Schmidt, C. C. (2005). Economic Drivers of illegal ,unreported and unregulated(IUU)fishing. International Journal of Marine and Coastal mangement, 479-507. Sherif, S. A. (2014). The development of fisheries management in Liberia: vessel monitoring systems(vms)as enforcement and surveillance tools:national and regional perspective. The Maritime commons. Malmo, Sweden: World Maritime University.

Subah, Y. (2010). Introduction of Community-based management in the small-scale coastal fisheries of Liberia. Reykjavik, Iceland: United Nation University Fisheries Training Program(UNFTP). Walker, W., Harremoes, P., & Rotmans, J. (2003). Defining uncertainity: a conceptual basis for uncertainity management in model-based decision support. Integrated assessment, 4(1), 5- 17. Wilen, J. E., & Cancino, J. (2012). The economics of Territrial users rights in fisheries or TURF. Marine Resource Economics, 22, 391-406. Wilson, D. M. (2006, September). Cross-scale linkages and adaptive management: Fisheries co- management in Asia. Marine Policy, 30(5), 523-533. World Population Liberia. (2018, August 23). Retrieved August 23, 2018, from World meters, World Population Review

APPENDIX 1 – Questionnaire used for survey

Co-management: Its effectiveness in small -scale fisheries (Co- management activities in Robertsport). General Information: Date: ______Name of District: ______Questionnaire Code: ______Social-demographic characteristics of respondents: 1. Gender: Male () Female () others(specify) 2. Marital Status: Single () Married () Widow () others(specify) 3. Number of households: ______4. Education level: No education () Primary education () Secondary education () Senior School Certificate () Tertiary/Vocational Studies () others(specify) 5. Ethic Group______6. Occupation: Fisherman () Trader () Processor () others(specify)

Questionnaire 1: Assessment of the fishery: 1. How long have you been fishing? 1-7yrs () 7-14yrs () 0thers(specify) 2. How many times in the week do you go fishing? 2 days () 3 days () 5days () 7days () others______3. What was your average catch per ton for the last eight years? 0-3tons () 4-7tons () 8- 11tons () others (specify) 4. What is your current ton per month? ______5. How much do you earn from fishing per month? L$1,000-10,000() 11,000-21,000() Others______. 6. How much did you earn per month eight years ago? L$1,000-10,000() 11,000-21,000() Others______

Fisherman assessment of the existing Co-management structure and its effectiveness: 1. Do you know members or aware of the co-management activities? Agree () Disagree () Neutral 2. Are the co-management members selected or elected representatives of all stakeholders? Agree () Disagree () Neutral ()

3. Is the committee inclusive and equitable of the most marginalized resource users? Agree () Disagree () Neutral () 4. Does meaningful participation exist in the committee? Agree () Disagree () Neutral () 5. Is the committee accountable for its actions to stakeholders? Agree () Disagree () Neutral () 6. Does the committee explain public policies, rules and management decision to all stakeholders before implementation that empower or affect them? Agree () Disagree () Neutral () 7. What is your perception of the co-management? Effective, not effective? Agree () Disagree () Neutral () 8. Do you feel that this initiative is a threat to your control over the fisheries resource? Agree () Disagree () Neutral () 9. Do you feel empower through this co-management? Agree () Disagree () Neutral () 10. Has catch of different fish species improved? Agree () Disagree () Neutral () 11. Do you know of anyone engage in Illegal fishing? Agree () Disagree () Neutral () 12. Has the rate of IUU fishing minizine since CMA? Agree () Disagree () Neutral () 13. How do you rate the level of conflict among resource users since the CMA? Good () Bad () Neutral ()

Other information. 14. Does the Co-management needs improvement in its work? Yes () No () Please specify. ______

15. What are the main issues the CMA faces?

Thank You