Impact on local fishermen on Island, , due to introduction of a new

– with focus on fish catches

Caroline Enebrand

Uppsats för avläggande av naturvetenskaplig kandidatexamen i Miljövetenskap 15 hp Institutionen för biologi och miljövetenskap Göteborgs universitet Juni 2012 Abstract

In July 2009 the government of Mozambique approved a new Marine Protected Area, the Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve (PPMR). The reserve extends from Ponta do Ouro (in the south of Mozambique) up to the mouth of River near the capital Maputo. Recently the Ministry of Tourism wrote a management plan for the reserve. Along with the new management come new restrictions, which can affect local communities depending on the marine resources. As an example it will be prohibited to fish demersal fish and use vertical jigs.

This report will focus on the area of Inhaca Island, which is located in the Indian Ocean within the area of the new reserve. The main purpose of this study was to analyze how the artisanal on Inhaca could be affected by the new restrictions. This was based on semi-structured interviews with local fishermen from Inhaca to learn about their fish habits such as caught fish species. The result showed that 21 % of the total amount of caught fish species stated by all fishermen from the interviews, was demersal species. Since demersal will not be allowed within the new marine reserve, they have to fish differently to be able to fish legally.

This report also contains a brief description of the current management system regarding fishery, which is based on interviews with managers/actors from different public sectors within the . The result showed that the current management system on Inhaca is very unclear and weak. The lack of adherence to regulations has lead to a massive decline in fish stocks. With that background it is fair to say that a new management system is needed. However, on Inhaca where people depend on the resources to make a living, an implementation of a new management system comes with some difficulties.

Keywords: Mozambique, Inhaca Island, Ponta Do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve, fishing, fishermen, interviews, fish management, fish species, bottom fish

Sammanfattning

I juli 2009 godkände regeringen i Mozambique ett nytt marint skyddat område, the Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve. Reservatet utgår från Ponta do Ouro i södra spets, upp till mynningen av Maputo flod, nära Maputo som är huvudstaden i landet. Nyligen skrev Turistministeriet i Mozambique en förvaltningsplan för det nya reservatet. Med denna plan medföljer nya restriktioner för området. Till exempel kommer det att bli förbjudet att fiska bottenfisk inom hela reservatet.

Denna rapport kommer att fokusera på området runt ön Inhaca, som ligger i Indiska oceanen inom området för det nya reservatet. Syftet med rapporten är att analysera hur det småskaliga fisket kan komma att påverkas av de nya reglerna. Det är huvudsakligen baserat på semi-strukturerade intervjuer med lokala fiskare från Inhaca, för att få fram information om deras fiskevanor och fångade fiskarter. Intervjuerna gjordes under vistelsen på Inhaca, vilket var under våren 2012. Resultatet visade att 21 % av alla de fiskarter som respondenterna uppgav att de fiskade, var bottenlevande fiskar. I och med de nya restriktionerna kommer alla fiskare på Inhaca tvingas att fiska annorlunda (med annan utrustning) för att undvika att fånga bottenlevande fisk, alternativt tvingas till att fiska på annan plats för att kunna fortsätta att fiska lagligt.

Denna rapport innehåller också en kortare beskrivning av det nuvarande förvaltningssystemet vad gällande fisket (främst på lokal nivå), vilken främst är baserad på intervjuer med olika offentliga sektorer inom fiskeindustrin. Resultatet påvisade att det nuvarande styrnings- och förvaltningssystemet ibland är oklart och har flertalet brister. Bristen på reglering och kontroll av fisket runt Inhaca har lett till en kraftig minskning i fiskbestånden. Det finns alltså ett behov av ett nytt förvaltningssystem av fisket runt Inhaca. Införandet av ett nytt regelsystem innebär dock en rad svårigheter, detta eftersom att människorna som lever på ön är beroende av dess resurser för att kunna leva och försörja sig.

Nyckelord: Mozambique, Inhaca, Ponta do Ouro Partail Marine Reserve, fiske, fiskare, intervjuer, förvaltning av fiske, fiskarter, bottenfisk

2 TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1. MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND TOURISM ...... 4 1.2 MANAGEMENT OF THE PONTA DO OURO PARTIAL MARINE RESERVE ...... 4 1.2.1 The Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve ...... 4 1.2.2 regulations in the management plan ...... 5 1.2.3 New restrictions in the management plan ...... 7 1.3 AREA OF STUDY ...... 8 1.3.1 Inhaca Island ...... 8 1.3.2 People of Inhaca ...... 9 1.4 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN ON INHACA ISLAND ...... 10 1.5 PURPOSE OF STUDY ...... 11 2. METHOD ...... 12 2.1 FIELD METHOD ...... 12 2.1.1 Quantitative interviews with fishermen ...... 12 2.1.2 Qualitative interviews with different fishery public sectors ...... 13 2.1.3 Methodological challenges ...... 13 2.2 DATA ANALYSIS ...... 14 2.2.1 Analysis of interviews with fishermen ...... 14 2.2.2 Analysis of interviews with fishery public sectors ...... 15 3. RESULTS ...... 15 3.1 CURRENT FISHING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ...... 15 3.1.1. Fishing industry in Mozambique ...... 15 3.1.2 The Fishing Administration in Maputo ...... 16 3.1.3 Maritime Authority on Inhaca Island ...... 16 3.1.4 IDPPE on Inhaca ...... 17 3.2 FISHING MARKET ON INHACA ISLAND ...... 18 3.3 THE FISHING SITUATION ON INHACA ...... 19 3.3.1 Background of the fishermen ...... 19 3.3.2 Fishing habits ...... 19 3.3.3 and transport ...... 20 3.3.4 Fishing environments and fish species ...... 21 4. DISCUSSION ...... 23 4.1 CURRENT FISHING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ...... 24 4.2 IMPACT ON FISHING TRENDS ...... 24 4.2.1 Fishing trends among the fishermen ...... 24 4.2.2.Impact on local population ...... 27 4.2.3 Possible sources of error ...... 27 4.3 INTRODUCTION OF A MARINE PROTECTED AREA AT INHACA ...... 27 5. CONCLUSIONS ...... 28 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... 29 REFERENCES ...... 30 APPENDIX A ...... 32 APPENDIX B ...... 33

3 1. Introduction

1.1. Marine Protected Areas and tourism Marine conservation targets set globally and nationally development of tourism has made many developing countries to expand their Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have become a central factor for marine conservation and . Literature also reports an increasing number of successes, including MPAs that have resulted in higher marine biodiversity and increasing earnings from tourism. However, the success of this approach in developing countries is unclear. Many MPAs are far from meeting their conservation goals, a problem which is often attributed to weak support from local resource users. Fishermen feel excluded with these new restriction implementations while it favours dive operators and tourists (Rosendo S. et al., 2010).

In Mozambique, there is a common agree among local communities and governmental institutions that marine recourses are declining and that something needs to be done to prevent this continuing (Rosendo S. et al., 2010). The opinions in how to achieve this is however of disagreement and some local communities do not see Marine Protected Areas as the only solution. There is an on-going enforcement of fishing regulation that could be better developed. (Rosendo S. et al., 2010)

1.2 Management of the Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve

1.2.1 The Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve The government of Mozambique proclaimed on 14 July 2009 the Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve (PPMR). The reserve has a total surface area of 678 km!, and intends to conserve and protect coastal and marine species and their habitats. With a starting point from Ponta do Ouro in the south of Mozambique, the PPMR extends on a straight line 100 meters to the interior, with a seaward extent of 3 nautical miles out in the Indian Ocean, all the way up to Inhaca Island. On the west side of Inhaca the reserve has a seaward extent of one nautical mile. The PPMR has its headquarters in Ponta Do Ouro.

The Council of Ministers published the proclamation of PPMR officially in terms of the Fisheries Law of 26 September 1990 and the Marine General Fishing Law of 10

4 December 2003. The laws foresee the establishment of conservation, preservation and management measures for fishery resources. The proclamation of PPMR was also supported by the Environmental Law of 1 October 1997, which establishes the general grounds for the regime of biodiversity protection. It also highlights the importance of activities control within areas of conservation.

The PPMR is to contribute to the attainment of national conservation targets in Mozambique. The Management Plan for the PPMR, which is issued by Ministry of Tourism under the government, aims to prescribe the management of the Marine Protected Area (MPA). It is based on relevant guidelines published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and incorporates legal and institutional requirements. The management plan for PPMR, will be regularly reviewed and if appropriate modified to be able to heighten performance in achieving its biodiversity objectives ((DNAC), 2011).

1.2.2 Fisheries regulations in the management plan This report will only focus on the new restrictions in the management plan that will affect the artisanal fishery on Inhaca Island. Below comes a short description of the content of the management plan, focusing on the restrictions regarding fisheries.

The purpose of the management plan of PPMR is to protect and conserve values there are within the reserve, while allowing for reasonable opportunities for local coastal communities to access and use the reserve. The management plan sets out the managing framework for the PPMR. It uses zoning as a management tool to assist the special control of activities within the reserve. It defines permitted activities and prohibitions within specific geographic areas. The area of PPMR is divided into three different kinds of zones (figure 1):

• Sanctuary zones (marked red in figure 1) • Restricted use zones (marked yellow in figure 1) • Multiple use zones (marked green in figure 1)

5 A full description of the specific regulations in these zones when it comes to fishing- regulations can be found in Table 1. Since the area of PPMR covers the entire area from Ponta do Ouro to the mouth of the Rio Maputo, and therefore is very large, six management units have been identified according to the cover of the previously mentioned zones. This report will only treat the area of Inhaca Island, which is one of the six areas in the PPMR. Within the unit of Inhaca Island there are some zones that are sanctuary, some are restricted use zones and the rest is multiple use zones. !"#$%&'( !!""# #

#

$%-#./##++$0#12&%*32&#

#$%&'()$($*+$(#'+&,'-(.'+,%/(+/0/+1/#~#$%&%'()(&*#+,%&#

Figure 1 The area of the Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve distributed into different zones. Details around Inhaca Island are shown in the top left close-up map.

6 Table 1 Zone description concerning fishing regulations

Zone Permissible activities and use Non-permissible activities and use

Sanctuary zones Offshore: - All forms of extractive use - Use of motorised vessels except for essential management, research, monitoring and vessels that have the right of passage.

Restricted use zones Inshore: Inshore: Recreational spear fishing (pelagic - Harvesting of intertidal organisms species only) other than subsistence invertebrates or under special permit Offshore: - - (pelagic only) - Recreational spear fishing (pelagic Offshore: game fish only - Fishing, or being in the possession of bottom fish - Vertical jigging from or the possession of vertical jigs on vessels - Use of fish aggregating devices, anchored or drifting - Commercial fishing - Anchoring except in cases of emergency

Multiple use zones Inshore: Inshore: - Recreational spear fishing (pelagic - Harvesting of intertidal organisms species only) other than subsistence invertebrates or under special permit Offshore: - Commercial fishing - Recreational fishing (pelagic only) - Recreational spear fishing (pelagic Offshore: game fish only) - Fishing, or being in the possession of bottom fish - Vertical jigging from or the possession of vertical jigs on vessels - Use of fish aggregating devices, anchored or drifting - Commercial fishing - Anchoring except in cases of emergency

1.2.3 New restrictions in the management plan As seen in Table 1, the management plan describes permissible and non-permissible activities and use in the three different zones regarding fishing industry. Commercial fishing will be prohibited in all zones, this means that all commercial fishing will have to move from the area. Sanctuary zones are the strictest, where all forms of extractive us is forbidden. Restricted use zones and multiple use zones look the same when it comes to fishing regulations but look different regarding other restrictions such as parasailing etc., but this is not included in table 1. Both restricted use zones

7 and multiple use zones allow recreational fishing, with exception from fishing bottom fish, which means demersal fish or fish very much connected to the milieu near the bottom. Neither will it be allowed with vertical jigging as fishing technique. Within all zones harvesting of intertidal organisms will also be prohibited except for subsistence invertebrates ((DNAC), 2011).

1.3 Area of study

1.3.1 Inhaca Island Inhaca Island belongs to Mozambique in Africa. The island is located 32 km east from the capital city Maputo, in southern parts of Mozambique (see figure 2). On the west side of the island lays the entrance to a larger bay called . The east side on the other hand, is facing the open sea of the Indian Ocean. The island has an area of approximately 40 km! and the distance from its northern point, Ponta Mazondue, to its southeast point, Ponta Torres, is about 12,5 km (Macnae W., 2001).

The climate on Inhaca is subtropical with a rainy season from October to March. The difference in amplitude between low and high tide varies distinctly depending on neap or spring (up to approx. 3,5 m difference), leaving widespread intertidal areas exposed during low tide in spring periods (Gullström M., 2004)

The island has long been known for its marine and terrestrial environments, which provides the island with a high biological value. Examples of marine ecosystems that can be found on Inhaca are coral reefs, sea grass beds, sandy beaches, mud flats, rocky shores, tidal channels and mangroves. The richness of biodiversity and the high biological value of the island have always attracted many biologists to come and visit. In 1951 a research station was built in order to facilitate the teaching of biology for students coming from both domestic and foreign universities. In 1965 the government of Mozambique announced its high value when they declared parts of the island a nature reserve because of the rich marine flora and fauna. This was also deemed necessary to be able to control the excessive collecting of valuable species. Tree felling and tilling of land were also exploited because of the needs of the local people. Following the independence of Mozambique Republic, the University of Eduardo Mondlane has administered the Marine Biological Station ever since 1980. The

8 biological station under the authority of University of Eduardo Mondlane is responsible for control of the reserves and implementation of new regulations on the Island. (Macnae W., 2001)

1.3.2 People of Inhaca The population on Inhaca is estimated to be about 5 200 people and the dominating livelihood is fisheries, followed by tourism and public sector services. There is one well-established hotel on the island, but otherwise there are no comprehensive tourism activities. The fisheries includes both women and men where men go fishing and women, who works in an organisation called “ladies organisation”, buy the fish from the fishermen and sell it on to the market in Maputo. Women and children also search reefs and intertidal areas for molluscs, crustaceans and other small fish, primarily for home consumption but also for selling in the local area. The fishery has been an important part of Inhacas history as far as anyone on the island can remember. During the civil war of Mozambique (1977-1992) a lot of people moved from the city to the island and the main job even then was fishing, increasing the pressure on the resource.

The official language of Mozambique is Portuguese but the people of Inhaca speak mostly local languages, in this case either Shangana or Ronga. When they are being interviewed they prefer to speak their local language. The best Portuguese-speaking inhabitants of Inhaca are the ones that work within the business of tourism.

9 Figure 2 Location of Inhaca. Map created on Google Earth

1.4 Implementation of the management plan on Inhaca Island The management plan of PPMR is approved by the government and will in a foreseeable future be implemented. The restrictions reported in the management plan will be the only valid restrictions in the area. There will be no other reserves in the area except for the Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve, which means that current

10 reserves will cease to exist. Before investigating in what degree the artisanal fisheries will be affected it is important to have adequate statistics and information about today’s current fishing situation. This could be information like fishing effort, income, fishing grounds and equipment. This information is important since knowledge is needed on how the local population is depending on the marine resources.

The implementation of the management plan is a long-term project that has a time perspective of 20 to 25 years. Scientific research and monitoring are important factors and have to be performed in parallel with the implementation of the new reserve for support in the decision-making (pers. com. with Gonçalves, Marine manager of PPMR).

1.5 Purpose of study With the background of this introduction it is fair to say that more information is needed about the impact of a new marine reserve, to be able to know how the people that rely on its resources, will be affected. This report will therefore focus on the impact on local fishermen on Inhaca Island due to the new management plan of the PPMR. An overlook of the current fishing management will also be done to better understand the current fishing situation in Mozambique. The main issue to be discussed in this report is: How will the new management plan of PPMR affect the current fishing situation on Inhaca? The main objective has been stepwise analysed through these three questions:

1. Is there a current fishing management system on Inhaca today? If so, how does it work? (Investigated via interviews with officials, qualitative method). 2. What are the overall fishing trends among the fishermen on Inhaca? Focusing on caught marine species (Investigated via fishermen and semi-quantitative method). 3. In what way can the new Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve (PPMR) affect the current fishing situation on Inhaca due to the fishing trends studied in this survey? (Investigated through analysing the result from the first two methods).

11 2. Method

2.1 Field method As a method to describe both the current fishing trends among fishermen on Inhaca and the current management system, an interview-based method was used. This was chosen in order to get a true picture of the fishing habits of the fishermen and get a real insight in how the management system works in practice. The method aims to get data and information in order to answer the questions at issue.

2.1.1 Quantitative interviews with fishermen The study on the current fishing trends among fishermen on Inhaca is based on semi- quantitative methodology. The interviews were structured and the questions were held standardized and open-ended. The questions in the interviews were made in a predefined order and wording, while allowing for explanatory answers and follow-up questions for those answers that were considered important. To be able to equally compare the answers from all respondents when doing the analysis, the goal was that each respondent would have the same “question-stimuli” and questions were therefore very specific.

The predefined questioner was written in English with open-ended questions, meaning that there are now pre-defined answers. However, space was left for clarifications and follow-up questions. All interviews with the fishermen on Inhaca were carried out with help from a local translator and guide. He is born on the island and is well familiar with the environment and the people. The questions on the questioner hade been elaborated several times and were well understood by the translator. Depending on the respondent’s language of preference, interviews were held in either the official language Portuguese or in the local language Shangana. After each respond the answer was directly translated into English and written down on paper. The translator masters all three languages well.

The interviews with the fishermen were carried out during the stay at Inhaca Island, which was in April 2012. All the participants in the study were approached when walking on the beach or in the village. There was no specific choice of respondent other than it had to be a fishermen living on Inhaca Island. The interviews were held with one respondent at a time and the total number of fishermen was 32, with an age

12 range of 26-68. None of the asked fishermen rejected to participate in the study. All interviewees were men, consequently this study has no statements from women providing from the fishing industry on Inhaca. Prior to all interviews the translator and guide announced the intention of research field studies, which was “a description of general fishing habits on the island”. Thus there was no enlightenment that the impact of the new restrictions would be evaluated since there was a chance that could affect the answers.

2.1.2 Qualitative interviews with different fishery public sectors Unlike the interviews with the fishermen, the study on the current fishing management system was carried out through a qualitative methodology with unstructured questions. There were a total of four interviews with different public sectors within the fishing industry. There were two interviews with two different officials from IDPPE on Inhaca (Eng. Institute for development of small-scale fisheries). There was also one interview with Maritime Authority on Inhaca and one with Fishing Administration in Maputo. All of these interviews had the purpose to describe the current fishing system when it comes to regulations etc., in Mozambique and on Inhaca Island. These interviews were not so much meant for data collection, as they were to underlie the basis for a short status report of the current fishing situation, on a local level but also on a national one. All four of the interviews were planned to be semi-structured but in retrospect it is better to describe it as an unstructured interview. Some questions were prepared in advance but as the conversations went on several follow-up questions appeared in order to truly understand the information. Three of the four interviews were made with help from the local translator, which meant in this case that they were held in Portuguese, but the last one (Fishing Administration) was held in English without any help from translator.

2.1.3 Methodological challenges There are several methodological challenges with these kinds of qualitative interviews studies. First of all there are always possible sources of error in all kind of surveys. Some of the most important ones could be: vague questions, tone of the interviewer, misunderstanding of questions or maybe the respondent is mistaken (Bryman, 2001). Second, working with a translator always poses an extra challenge since questions and answers are modified when they are being translated. Usually the accuracy of

13 information depends to a large degree on the ability and language skills of the translator.

The questioner is this study were, as previously mentioned, well studied in advance to make sure that all questions were clearly understood by the translator. The questions were also well thought through, this for making sure that they were formulated in the right way. A question needs to be neutral in formulation; otherwise there is a risk that people answer in a confirming way in order to fulfil expectations. Another issue to be aware of is the problematic with sensitive questions. Here was the translator’s knowledge of the culture and the people essential on order to approach these questions in a proper way. The interpreter had a major role during the project, which in this case meant that he knew the exact aim of the study and could therefore ask questions in a right way in order to get the correct data.

2.2 Data analysis

2.2.1 Analysis of interviews with fishermen There were a total of 32 interviews with fishermen from Inhaca. After the interviews the answers were compiled into a document, using Microsoft Excel. The analysis was carried out through a content analysis of the answers where each response on a question was summarized into a shorter meaning unit. For example on the question what kind of gear they used the meaning units became: nets, line, both nets and line and other. After that, the units were classified into one of several given content, which consisted all of the answers from the respondents. For some answers figures of the distribution was made.

When it came to analysing what kind of fish the respondents fished, each stated fish species was looked up using Fishbase (Fishbase.org) for information on what kind of environment it lives in. Following that, all fish species were divided into four different categories: benthopelagic, pelagic, demersal and reef-associated.

14 2.2.2 Analysis of interviews with fishery public sectors There were a total of four interviews with different fishery public sectors. As previously descried the interviews were unstructured interviews and reminded a lot of a conversation. For analysing the information given from the interviews it was compiled into a document. This information was later used to be able to describe the current management system within the fishing industry.

3. Results With the method, which has just been described, the results from the interviews will now be presented. First comes a description of the current management system within the fishing industry. Following that comes a presentation of the current fishing trends among the local fishermen on Inhaca.

3.1 Current fishing management system

3.1.1. Fishing industry in Mozambique

The fisheries in Mozambique are divided into tree different groups: industrial, semi- industrial and artisanal (or small-scale fisheries). The industrial and semi-industrial fisheries accounts for 40 % of the total Mozambican foreign exchange earnings while the artisanal sector supply the domestic market (Amade, 1999).

Since the 1950s, Mozambique has reported to the “Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)” primarily industrial catches and has vastly underreported the country’s small-scale fishing sector (Villy Christensen, 2011).

In comparison to industrial and semi-industrial fisheries the artisanal is much more difficult to control since everyone have access to the resource. The term artisanal fisheries include two different concepts: subsistence fisheries, where the fish goes to feeding the ’s family, and commercial fisheries, where the fish is sold on some form of market. In Mozambique there is no exact distinction between the two, and that complicates the situation as people can run away from paying fishing fees, since it is only the commercial fishing out of the two, that have to pay fees (pers. com. with employees working at Fishing).

15 3.1.2 The Fishing Administration in Maputo The Fishing Administration is a governmental body situated under the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Their main job is to control the fishing licensing in the country. When it comes to the control of artisanal fisheries this role has been delegated to the Maritime Authority, a governmental body working under the Ministry of Transport and Communications (Amade, 1999). The Fishing Administration is also to give guidelines regarding fishing rules to provincial level. They collect statistics from the provincial level as well (pers. com. with employees working at Fishing Administration).

Further information given at the interview with Fishing Administration was that they expressed concern about fishermen escaping from paying fishing fees and fishermen using illegal equipment. An example of illegal fishing equipment is mosquito nets used as fishing nets. They also explained the current problematic with the monitoring of the artisanal fisheries. The authorities lack resources to be able to monitor and control many areas at sea. It is also problematic because of the simple reason that the ocean is too big to be able to control everywhere (pers. com. with employees working at Fishing Administration).

3.1.3 Maritime Authority on Inhaca Island As previously mentioned the Maritime Authority is a governmental body subordinate to the Ministry of Transport and Communications and their main assignment is to issue fishing licenses (gear and permit), which Fishing Administration has delegated to Maritime Authority (Amade, 1999). Legally, the Maritime Authority is responsible for navigation and safety at sea but as just mentioned the licensing have become a main part of their job (Afonso, 2004). Maritime Authority is also responsible for monitoring and enforcing fisheries regulations (WIOMSA, 2011).

Two people working on Maritime Authority explained during the interview that each fishing boat must have a licence where it is stated what kind of gear they use when fishing. If a fisherman only has licence for fishing with nets, he cannot go fishing using lines. They also explained that there are some “general rules” of fishing on Inhaca. First of all it is forbidden to go fishing in the current marine reserves near the island and second it is prohibited to catch wales, dolphins or turtles. If you break any

16 of these rules you have to pay a fee, which can be very high, depending on the crime. The people working on Maritime Authority tell that there is also a general rule, which says that mesh sizes on nets smaller that 2,5 cm is not allowed. However, Maritime Authority on Inhaca Island lack resources like boats and therefore they cannot do the controlling and monitoring in the extent that they would have wanted (pers. com. with employees at Maritime Authority, Inhaca Island).

When asking the people working at Maritime Authority about the new management plan for PPMR they are positive, since they feel that the current system is incomplete. They also express their concern about the uncontrolled fishing and the declining fish stocks. However they have not yet seen a document of the new management plan even though it is a very topical subject on Inhaca.

According to the people working at Maritime Authority on Inhaca, there are 26 valid fishing boats near Inhaca Island.

3.1.4 IDPPE on Inhaca The institute for development of small-scale fisheries, IDPPE (Instituto de Desenvolvimento da Pesca de Pequena Escala) in Mozambique is a governmental agency under the Ministry of Fisheries, that provides extension services to artisanal fisheries and monitors fish catches and fishing sites (WIOMSA, 2011).

There are 11 people working at IDPPE on Inhaca Island. In the interviews with two of them, it is stated that one of their main responsibilities is to collect information from the fishermen coming in to the harbour. They keep a protocol of information like caught fish species, hours a day fishermen spend fishing, how long time the nets lay in the water, location where fishermen fish etc. (pers. com. with employees at IDPPE, Inhaca Island).

Employees working at IDPPE reported information about CCPs (Community Fisheries Councils, port. Conselho Communitario da Pesca) during the interview. CCPs are community level fisheries co-management organisations. CCPs are responsible for assisting the government to implement existing fisheries regulations with a well-defined geographical area of operation. Most of CCPs have been set up with assistance of IDPPE (WIOMSA, 2011). IDPPE works as an aid to the fishermen.

17 They have a big role when it comes to making sure that implementation of new fishing rules happens in consultation with the different fishermen. The system with the CCPs, in which fishermen from different associations have representatives, is still very new and the assistance of IDPPE has been necessary.

Further information shared from the interviews with IDPPE was the statistics when it came to the number of fishermen on Inhaca. According to IDPPE there are 202 fishermen with license on Inhaca. 51 fishing boats have license and each boat have a captain, therefore 51 captains.

When asking about the new management plan of the PPMR the response was positive. The two women working at IDPPE expressed their concern for the disappearance of some fish species due to in the past years and there is a shared opinion on IDPPE that something needs to be done. However, IDPPE have not yet seen a document of the new management plan and therefore they feel that it is still hard to have an exact opinion about it (pers. com. with employees working at IDPPE, Inhaca Island).

3.2 Fishing market on Inhaca Island When the fishermen come in to the harbour after fishing they sell the fishes to an organisation called “ladies organisation”, which are the ones that sell it on to the city (almost always to Maputo) (Machel, pers. com. 2012). Therefor many women also have a way to make a living on Inhaca. Women and children also search reefs and intertidal areas for collection of molluscs, crustaceans and other small fish, primarily for home consumption but also for selling in the local area.

The commercial fishes that are sold on the island are divided into 3 different classes, where 1th class fishes are the most expensive ones. The first class fishes have the best taste and are in general harder to catch than 3th class fishes. The prices, if you buy fish directly from a fishermen, are said to be: 1th class: 120 MT/kg (approx. 4.24 USD) * 2th class: 75 MT/kg (approx. 2.65 USD) *

3th class: 40 MT/kg (approx.1.41 USD) * *) Rate Mozambican Metical (MT): 100 MT = approx. 3.53 USD (Coinmill, 2012)

18 Examples of first class fishes, which fishermen sought to capture, are rockcods (sereral different fishes in the family Serranidae) and king mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson). Third class fishes are in general smaller ones, which is easier to catch in comparison with first class fishes (Machel, pers. com. 2012).

3.3 The fishing situation on Inhaca

3.3.1 Background of the fishermen The results that now will be presented are coming from the interviews made with 32 different fishermen from Inhaca. As previously described all respondents were asked the exact same questions and the answers have been compiled into statistic data.

The age range of the respondents was 26-68, but the majority (59 %) were between the ages of 30-40 years old.

When asking the fishermen if they were originally from Inhaca 97 % that stated that they were so. Several of them (63 %) said that their ancestors were also fishermen. 69 % of the fishermen had been a fisherman for the most part of his adult life. A few of these 69 % (5 people) had been fishing as long as they could remember. One of the respondents had only been a fisherman for 2 months, since the restaurant where he previously worked had closed. It was only 9 % of the respondents that had another job besides fishing (or related to fishing).

3.3.2 Fishing habits On the question if the fishermen fished every day 75 % said that they do so, if the weather is good. Many of the respondents said that they don’t go fishing if the wind is too strong, since it can be very dangerous. The rest (25 %) did not in general fish every day. Five fishermen stated that they go fishing for days at a time and go far away and because of that their weeks look a little different from those fishing near the island.

The fishermen were also asked if their fishing change over seasons. All respondents said that there is less fish in the winter, which makes it harder to catch the same amount of fish as they do in the summer. A few fishermen developed the answer and said it is better do go fishing far out at sea in the winter. The explanation was that

19 several fish species search for deeper ocean in the winter therefore it is best to go fishing with line in the deep sea.

There was one fisherman, who developed the answer on his fishing effort, that stated he have to spend many more hours fishing than his father did, to be able to catch the same amount of fish as he did 10 or 20 years ago. He wanted to emphasize that the fish stocks have significantly decreased in the last decade.

3.3.3 Fishing techniques and transport Out of the 32 fishermen, 88 % (28 people) went fishing using a boat, motor or sailing boat, and the rest did not have access to a fishing boat. The majority (75 %) of all fishermen went fishing with a motorboat (see figure 3). It was a total of 28 people that had access to a boat, but of these people it was only 7 fishermen who had an own boat. The fishermen who did not own a fishing boat fished together with a group on someone else’s boat. They were usually 4 or 5 people on each boat and the money they earned was divided between them. Some fishermen went fishing on many different boats.

The fishermen were also asked if they would have fished further away from Inhaca if they would have had the possibility and 88 % (28 people) said that they would have. Reasons like bigger and safer boat and better equipment were the main explanation to what they needed in order to go further away.

Transportation for ishing

No boat

Sailing boat

Motorboat

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

Number of ishermen

Figure 3 Reported fishing-transportations from the 32 interviews.

20 Regarding what kind of equipment they used when they fished, the answers were complied into four different categories: Line, nets, both line and nets and other. 59 % stated that they use only line as fishing equipment and 25 % used both line and nets. 13 % fished with nets exclusively and only one person used another gear (in this case spear gun). The distribution can be seen in figure 4.

Furthermore it can be mentioned that fishermen using line, which was a total of 27 people, all had access to a boat (motor or sailing boat). The people that didn’t have access to a boat fished with nets except for one person who fished with a spear gun. Fishermen, who used both nets and line, were in general those who went further away from the island.

Fishing techniques

Other

Both net and line

Nets

Line

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Number of ishermen

Figure 4 Different fishing techniques used by 32 fishermen divided into four categories.

3.3.4 Fishing environments and fish species The interviewed fishermen were asked in what kind of environment they fish. They gave six different answers-categories; seagrass, mud, rocks, sandbanks, pelagial and deeper water. Most of them went fishing in several different environments. Rocks and reefs were the most common environment in which they fished (in this study rocks and reefs have the same meaning). The pelagial and the seagrass were also common environments in which the fishermen went fishing. The distribution of the different habitats where fishes are caught can be seen in figure 5.

21 Environments where ishermen catch ish (n=32)

Seagrass

Mud

Rocks

Sandbank

Pelagial

*No speciic habitat

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

Number of ishermen *In deeper water

Figure 5 Distribution of habitats where fishes are caught according to responding fishermen. Regarding the main result of the study, the interviewed fishermen were asked what kind of fish they catch the most and the answers were given in species. As previously mentioned the species were divided into four different categories depending on what environment the fishes live in: benthopelagic, pelagic, demersal and reef-associated. The distribution of caught fishes from different habitats can be seen in figure 6.

Distribution of ish from different environments

5%

24% Benthopelagic Pelagic (ocean or neritic) 50% Demersal Reef-associated

21%

Figure 6 Distribution of caught fish species divided into 4 different categories based on the habitats of the fishes (data from the fish species the fishermen stated that they fish).

As seen in figure 6 the most common habitat of the caught fish species are reefs. Half of the caught fishes are reef-associated and 21 % of the fish species are demersal

22 fishes, meaning bottom fish. The remaining species are pelagic (two different kinds). The classifying of the fish species, have been done using Fishbase (Fishbase.org), where each fish type could be demersal, reef-associated or pelagic (different kinds).

I several cases there were a clear connection between the caught fish species and what kind of gear that was used to catch it. Regarding pelagic fishes, they were mostly caught with lines, even if they could be caught with nets used in shallow water and in seagrass. Some of the pelagic fishes were referred to as game fishes. The most common game fish (which was also the most common one of all) was king mackerel Scomberomorus commerson. As much 72 % of the asked fishermen stated that they caught king mackerel and the majority of these fishermen used jigging as fishing technique. Jigging is a technique that can catch everything from the bottom and up. Rockcods, which are several different fishes in the family Serranidae, are considered by the fishermen to be demersal fishes. According to the result, rockcods could be caught using both line and net, even if the most common was line. A full table of the caught marine species can be seen in Appendix A.

The majority of the fishermen using nets fished only in seagrass where the water is shallow. The caught fishes from the seagrass could be of many different species, however the game fishes could not in general be caught there. Fishermen fishing with line went mostly fishing in environments like rocks and in the pelagic. Some of the fishermen used both nets and lines. In general these were fishermen who fishes further out at sea, and when they used nets, they fished from the boat. It was then often cotton-net, unlike the nets used in the seagrass near Inhaca, which were made of nylon.

4. Discussion With basis from the results in this survey, a discussion will now be presented. First comes a discussion about the current fishing management system, followed by a discussion on how the local fishermen on Inhaca will be affected by the new fishing restrictions. In conclusion comes a shorter text regarding some difficulties by implementing a Marine Protected Area.

23 4.1 Current fishing management system After analysing information given from all interviews with the public sectors within the fishing industry, there is no doubt that the current system is very complex. It does not feel cohesive. Maritime Authority and IDPPE said different numbers regarding the number of licenced fishing boats near Inhaca. The CCPs, who should work as aid to the government in the purpose of having better control of the fishery out at sea, did not themselves always follow the rules. They sometimes use illegal equipment (pers. com. with employees at Fishing Administration). The resources for monitoring and supervising fishing sites are very weak. The Maritime Authority expressed that they could not monitor the area because they did not have a boat, which off course is a basic prerequisite to be able to do their job. The job of IDPPE is to assist as an aid to the fishermen. They are also to monitor fish catches and fishing sites. In practice they seemed to spend a lot more of there time trying to get the system complete. They try to get members of CCP to help write down fishing rules, work on regulation etc. The role of IDPPE seemed to be a lot greater in practice than what it says on paper.

On a national level there is a better fishing regulation system regarding industrial and semi-industrial fisheries. Employees working at Fishing Administration explained the difficulties of having a good regulation system regarding artisanal fisheries. The problematic lies in that everyone can fish and a controlling system out at sea is much harder to accomplish compared to similar activities on land. Lack of resources of the authorities and the general problematic with controlling at sea seam to be the main causes of the dysfunction in the system today. It is also important to keep in mind that Mozambique is a developing country where many people still live below subsistence level and fishing can be the only chance to get food on the table. This could be an explanation to why people break the rules or run away from paying fishing fees etc.

4.2 Impact on fishing trends

4.2.1 Fishing trends among the fishermen According to the management plan all kind of commercial fishing will be prohibited within the area of PPRM. With assumption that local fishermen on Inhaca will continue with the subsistence fisheries (fishing to feed family) in those areas it will be allowed, it will be discussed how the ban of fishing bottom fish and the ban of using vertical jigs as fishing technique, will affect the local fishermen on Inhaca.

24 The main result in the study from the interviews with fishermen can be seen in figure 6. The result said that 21 % of the caught fish species were demersal. With that meaning that 21 % of caught fish species will be forbidden. However, there are some difficulties with separation between different fish species. The benthopelagic species are fishes living just above the bottom. In the management plan there is no exact definition of bottom fish. There could be a chance that the bentopelagic species will be considered to be bottom fish as well. In that case another 5 % (the benthopelagic fishes) of the stated fish species in this survey will belong to that category demersal fishes instead. The reef-associated fishes were of many different species. In this survey, the establishment of the habitat of each fish have been decided using Fishbase (Fishbase.org), and it could have been insufficient. There could be a chance that some of these species could be considered to be demersal if looking in another database. There is also an uncertainty if there is a possibility that reef-associated fishes can also be bottom fishes. Because of these uncertainties it is important to point out that it is highly possible that more fish species could be considered to be demersal fishes in the new management plan, but this survey can only state that at least 21 % of the fish species will be prohibited. A weakness this survey possesses is that the amount of caught fish in /individual, has not been investigated. The fishermen were asked, “What kind of fish do you catch the most?” hence information on the amount of fish in kg was not shared.

Fishermen fishing mostly demersal fish use in general line by jigging from the bottom and up. The new restrictions also say that vertical jigs will no longer be allowed. To be able to still catch game fish within the area, which they usually catch by jigging in the pelagic, fishermen have to reinvest in new equipment like spinning rods or line to be dragged after the boat. If choosing to continue with jigging as fishing technique (commercial or not) the fishermen have to go outside of the reserve boarders. With reference to the work of Frida Book (Book, F. 2012), her result showed that almost half (48 %) of the current fishing grounds were inside the borders for the new reserve. 24 % of the grounds were both inside and outside the borders and only 28 % of the fishing grounds were definitely outside of its borders. This states that many fishermen using line (vertical jigs) and motorboat, which was the majority, fish inside the boarders today. A conclusion is therefore that they will be strongly affected in two ways. First of all because they have to relocate if they want to continue with

25 commercial fishing, second that have to reinvest in new equipment if choosing to stay within the reserve boarders to fish for subsistence reasons, since vertical jigs will no longer be allowed. It is also important to mention that not all fishermen have the possibility to go outside of the reserve boarders today. Reasons like bigger and safer boats were the main explanation to what they needed in order to go further away (Book, F. 2012). This said without taking into considerations that many fishermen do not even have a boat today, so they do not have the possibility at all.

Another thing that needs to be discussed is the difficulties that could occur when trying to exclude bottom fishes from the catches. Regarding the fishery with vertical jigs it could be easy to understand that a ban of that equipment will exclude captures of demersal fish, but when it comes to catches with nets it is more problematic. In the result of this study, bottom fish could be caught using both nets and line. Fishermen fishing with nets in the seagrass catch everything from the bottom to the surface, including bottom fish. With the current fishing technique of those fishing with nets in the seagrass, it could be very problematic with an exclusion of bottom fishes from their catches. Even if it would be possible to exclude bottom fishes, it could also be an issue that many of the bottom fishes are considered to be first class fishes. Rockcods, which are bottom fishes, are very common fish species to catch near Inhaca and they are first class fishes. The fact that they are first class fishes is important to take into consideration. As described in the result, the first class fishes pay a lot more in comparison to the third class fishes. A possible consequence of the prohibition of fishing bottom fish could be that the fishermen will lose a lot of money if excluding rockcods from their catches.

In this survey 32 interviews with local fishermen from Inhaca have been made. According to IDPPE there are 202 fishermen with a licence on Inhaca. However, after the interviews with the different public sectors it seemed to be a shared opinion that many fishermen do not get a licence since it costs money. It is more likely that captains bother to get a licence, since they risk having to pay a high fee if they are being controlled. The results of this survey also say that many fishermen go fishing together on someone else’s boat. It could be a chance that these are the fishermen not getting a licence as the system is today, cause there are definitely more than 202 fishermen on Inhaca. Since it is problematic to know the exact number of fishermen,

26 it is difficult to say what percentage 32 fishermen correspond of the total number of fishermen from Inhaca.

4.2.2.Impact on local population Apart from the fishermen living on Inhaca, the restrictions of the PPMR will also affect the rest of the population on the island. Many of the women living on Inhaca are often working within the fishing industry. Some of them work in the “ladies organisation” and sell the fish on to Maputo and many women and children also collect molluscs and crustaceans for selling to the market. This will also be prohibited, apart from collecting subsistence invertebrates, and therefore the women on Inhaca will also be strongly affected. This survey has however no statement from women or children and can not comment on the extent to which they will be affected.

4.2.3 Possible sources of error Besides the existing methodical challenges, which have already been motioned, there have been some other possible sources of error in this survey. The names of the caught fish species were written down on paper in Portuguese during the interviews and later on translated into English and scientific name. The names could have been translated incorrectly and thereby refer to another species. Another possible source of error is that the interviewees could be mistaken and forget to name some fish species. When discussing the impact on local populations, this survey has no statements from women on the island and can by that it cannot assert the exact extent of this impact.

4.3 Introduction of a Marine Protected Area at Inhaca Inhaca Island has approximately 5 200 inhabitants and fisheries has since always been a big part of their history. As seen in this study, 69 % of the fishermen had been a fisherman for the most part of his adult life and the majority of them had ancestors who were also were fishermen. Since there is no well-developed tourist-, trade- or administrative business on Inhaca today the fishery remains as main source of income for the local population. This information and the rest of the results in this survey highly emphasize a population strongly depending on the marine resources.

The targets, which are to be conserved, within PPMR, are well identified in the management plan and the high biological value of the area around Inhaca can well be justified. On Inhaca there is also a common agree among local fishermen and public

27 fishing sectors that something needs to be done to prevent the decrease of the marine resources. However, it can still be discussed if an imposition of a Marine Protected Area could be the only solution.

As a warning to an imposition of a new Marine Protected Area, the authors of the article “A clash of values and approaches: A case study of marine protected area planning in Mozambique”, highlight the importance of including resource users and communities in choice of marine conservation management. If not, the introduction of a MPA could have a counteracting effect (Rosendo S. et al., 2010). It is important to mention that the industrial and semi-industrial fishery in Mozambique is as well as the artisanal fisheries, of great extent, nationally but also internationally (Afonso, 2004). This could indicate that local fishermen are not to blame for the massive degradation of marine resources. In that case, it could be highly likely that local fishermen feel it to be unfair to be subject to prohibitions aimed at solving problems they do not feel responsible for causing (Rosendo S. et al., 2010). It could also be that the fishermen on Inhaca simply cannot afford to adjust to the new rules. Having to invest in a bigger boat or another equipment can be too expensive for the local fishermen on Inhaca, which could lead to increased poverty or that they have to move.

With this said, this survey intends to emphasize that there are several difficulties and challenges by implementing a Marine Protected Area, where the local population is very dependent of its marine resources. It is very important that the implementation of new restrictions happens in consensus with the local population on Inhaca, otherwise the new reserve will not succeed in fulfilling its purpose.

5. Conclusions

• There is an existing management system regarding the artisanal fisheries on Inhaca today, but the system is in practice insufficient. • Many of the fishermen used vertical jigs as fishing equipment. Since it will be prohibited within the PPMR, these fishermen have to reinvest in new equipment if choosing to stay within the reserve boarders. • Based on the interviews with 32 fishermen, 21 % of the caught fish species near Inhaca was demersal.

28 • In the area of Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve commercial fishing will be prohibited. Some zones allow subsistence fishing but it will still be forbidden to fish demersal fishes, meaning that 21 % of the caught fish species will be prohibited. • Excluding the demersal fishes from the catches can be problematic for some fishermen, mainly those fishing with nets. The fishermen will also loose a lot of money by excluding bottom fishes from the catches. • The fishery is an intact part of Inhacas history and the inhabitants are very dependent of the marine resources. • It could be problematic to introduce a Marine Protected Area, where the local population is very dependent of the marine resources. It is important that implementation of new restrictions happen in consensus with the local population.

Acknowledgement First of all I would like to give my thanks to my partner during my time in Mozambique, Frida Book, for sharing this experience with me and supporting me in my fieldwork. I would also like to thank my supervisors Linus Hammar (Chalmers University of Technology) and Per Nilsson (University of Gothenburg) for all help during my study both on Inhaca and in Sweden. Finally I would like to express my gratitude ant thanks to Arlindo Machel, for being my translator and guide during my fieldwork at Inhaca Island. This work was founded by SIDA through my Minor Field Studies and IRIS scholarship.

29 References Personal communication with:

Employees working at Fishing Administration.

Miguel Gonçalves, Marine manager of the Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve.

Arlindo Machel, Translator, working at Marine Biological Station on Inhaca.

Employees working at Maritime Authority, Inhaca Island.

Employees working at IDPPE (Institute for development of small-scale fisheries), Inhaca Island.

Abdul Cawio A. Amade (1999): Fisheries Co-management in Inhassoro - A license Limitation Programme. Institute for Small Scale Fisheries Maputo, Mozambique

Paula S. Afonso (2004): Review of the state of world marine capture fisheries management: Indian Ocean: Mozambique, Institute for Fisheries research, Mozambique, Food and Agriculture of United Nations (Electronic source). Available at: Reports (2012-05-30)

Book, F. 2012. Possible impacts on a marine protected area on the artisanal fisheries on Inhaca Island, Mozambique – focusing on fishing sites and transportations. Gothenburg University.

Bryman, A. 2001. Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder Upplaga 1:5, Liber AB. Upplaga 1:5, p. 127, 300-312) Coinmill – The Currency Converter (Electronic source). Available at: Reports (2012-05-31)

Christensen, V. & Maclean, J. Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries, A Global Perspective, Cambridge University Press 2011. Page.122

30 DNAC (2011): Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve Management plan, First Edition. National Directorate of Conservation Areas (DNAC), Ministry of Tourism, Mozambique. 65 pp

Gullström, M. & Dahlberg, M. 2004. Fish community structure of seagrass meadows around Inhaca Island, southern Mozambique. Uppsala.

W.Macnae & Kalk, M. 2011. A Natural History of Inhaca Island, Mozambique, Witwaterstrand University Press.

National Directorate of Conservation Areas 2011. Ponta Do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve. In: TOURISM, M. O. (ed.) First ed.

Rosendo, S., Brown, K., Joubert, A,. Jiddawi, N & Mechisso, M. 2011. A clash of values and approaches: A case study of marine protected area planning in Mozambique. Ocean & Camp; Coastal Management, 54, 55-65.

WIOMSA (2011): Migrant fishers and fishing in the Western Indian Ocean: Socio‐ economic dynamics and implications for management. Final Report of Commissioned Research Project MASMA/CR/2008/02.

31 Appendix A

Questions to fishermen The following questions were asked to the fishermen and they were asked in the same order for each respondent. 1) What’s your name? 2) How old are you? 3) How long have you been a fisher? Do you have another job besides fishing? 4) Are you from Inhaca? 5) Were you natives (parents and grandparents) also fishers? 6) Do you have children that fish? 7) Do you fish every day? 8) How many hours per day do you fish? 9) Do you fish with a boat? Is it a motorboat or a sailing boat? 10) Do you have an own boat? 11) How many fishers are there on the boat? 12) What kind of equipment do you use? (If many; which one do you use the most?) 13) What kind of net/line is it and how do you use it? 14) In which environment do you catch your fish? (Bottom, sea grass, fish banks, reefs, mangroves or deep sea?) 15) What kind of fish do you fish the most? Write down species 16) In which location do you fish the most? Use the map 17) How deep is it where you fish? Use the map 18) Where is the best place to catch fish close to Inhaca? Use the map 19) In places with very strong currents, do you find less, more or similar numbers of fish as in places with less current? 20) What kind of fish do you earn the most money from? 21) How much money do you make per week? 22) Are there any rules that stop you from fishing what you want? 23) Would you have fished further away from Inhaca if you would have the possibility? (Why?) 24) Does your fishing change over seasons? 25) Do you fish differently depending on spring or neap?

32 Appendix B

Fish species In table 2 it can be seen the total number of fishermen catching each specific fish. The names of the fishes is in English.

Table 2 The distribution of caught marine fish species and their names.

Number of Species of fish (name in fishes English) 23 King mackerel 10 Kingfish 1 Eastern little tuna 20 Rockcod 15 Emperor Snapper 4 Emperor (Thumbprint emperor) 4 Queenfish 6 (Hound) needlefish 4 Blackspot snapper 6 Hardtail scad 3 Parrotfish 6 Lined silver grunt 2 Banded barracuda 1 Horse mackerel 2 Humpback red snapper 1 Marlin 1 Spadefish 3 Indian mackerel 3 Goldlined seabream 1 Smallspotted grunt 2 Sea bream 5 Tiger tooth croaker 1 Bluefish 1 Bigeye 3 Sweetlip 3 Rainbow sardine 1 Silver sillago 1 Southern mullet 1 Wolfherring 1 Lobster 2 Flathead grey mullet = 137

33