Regional Catch Assesment Survey of 2019 for Lakes Edward and Albert (D.R Congo and Uganda)

REGIONAL CATCH ASSESMENT SURVEY OF 2019 FOR LAKES EDWARD AND ALBERT (D.R CONGO AND UGANDA) NELSAP Technical Reports: Basin Development Series 2020 - 04 JUNE 2020 MULTINATIONAL LAKES EDWARD AND ALBERT INTEGRATED FISHERIES AND WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (LEAF II) PROJECT

Regional Technical Report of Catch Assessment Surveys (CAS) of Lake Edward and Lake Albert was conducted by the National Service for the promotion and development of fisheries / Service National de Promotion et de Développement de la Pêche (SENADEP) of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the National Fisheries Resources Research Institute (NaFIRRI) of Uganda on the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Ugandan sides of lakes Edward and Albert between July and August 2019.

This report was prepared by the Regional Catch Assessment Survey Working Group (RWG) composed of technicl experts from DRC, UGANDA and NELSAP LEAF II Project. December 2019

The purpose of the technical report series is to support informed stakeholder dialogue and decision making in order to achieve sustainable socio-economic development through equitable utilization of, and benefit from, the shared Nile Basin water resources.

Project: Multinational Lakes Edward And Albert Integrated Fisheries And Water Resources Management (LEAF II) Project Funding Source: The African Development Bank (AfDB) and Global Environment Facility (GEF) Project Number:

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of NBI’s Member States or its development partners. Trademark names and symbols are used in an editorial fashion and no intention of infringement on trade mark or copyright laws. While every care has been exercised in compiling and publishing the information and data contained in this document, the NBI regrets any errors or omissions that may have been unwittingly made in this publication.

The NBI is not an authority on International Administrative Boundaries. All country boundaries used in this publication are based on FAO Global Administrative Unit Layers (GAUL).

2 CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Regional Catch Assessment Survey Working Group (RWG) is grateful to the NELSAP LEAF II Project Regional Implementation Unit for supporting the fisheries monitoring surveys particularly, the Frame and Catch Assessment Surveys on lakes Edward and Albert. The contribution towards planning and implementation of these surveys by the LEAF II national coordination offices in Uganda and DRC is also acknowledged. The fisheries personnel from the riparian districts, territories and provinces of lakes Edward and Albert are equally appreciated for their contribution into the planning and mobilization of enumerators and riparian communities. The field enumerators who undertook the actual field data collection are highly appreciated for the job well done. The fisher communities, particularly those at the CAS landing sites in the two lakes are highly appreciated for the good cooperation during the field data collection exercise. In the same spirit, we extend our sincere appreciation to the landing site management and administrative committees for publicizing the CAS activity and encouraging active participation of the respective communities. Sincere gratitude goes to the governments of the DRC and Uganda for their commitment to strengthening the bond of cooperation within the framework of the implementation of the LEAF II Project in the two countries. The Directorates of Fisheries Resources (DiFR) in the respective countries are particularly recognised for the continued support towards the implementation of fisheries surveys on lakes Edward and Albert. The media are also appreciated for their publicity role and professional services that created mass awareness and promotion of the 2018 Frame Survey (FS) exercise resulting into the successful CAS implementation. The various hotels are thanked for the conference facilities and catering services that enabled the successful conduct of CAS national planning, training, and validation workshops. Lastly, the technical and administrative staff of NaFIRRI and SENADEP are sincerely appreciated for the various contributions (planning, coordination, and implementation) made towards the successful implementation of the 2019 CAS. Monitoring fish stocks in relation to species composition, abundance, distribution, catch, and fishing effort is required for sound management of the fisheries resources. Catch Assessment Surveys (CASs)in particular are important tools for monitoring trends in the fish catches and exploitation patterns to inform development planning and management decisions. Catch Assessment Surveys on lakes Albert and Edward have been characterized with inconsistences due to inadequate financial and logistical support. The available information on the size of fish populations, fishing effort and the level of fishing pressure that the fisheries can support on these lakes is limited and yet these data are essential for effective management of the fisheries resources.

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 2019 CASs on the two systems (Edward and Albert) were supported by the Nile Basin Initiative / Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program (NELSAP) under the Multinational Lakes Edward and Albert Integrated Fisheries and Water Resources Management (LEAF II) Project. The NELSAP Coordination Unit (NELSAP-CU) signed service contracts with the National Fisheries Resources Research Institute (NaFIRRI) in Uganda and the National Service for the Promotion and Development of Fisheries (SENADEP) of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), conduct CASs on the sections of lakes Edward and Albert.

The CASs were carried out at 56 landing sites (41 on Albert and 15 on Edward) between July and August 2019. In DRC, 29 landing sites were sampled (19 on Albert and 10 on Edward) while in Uganda 27 landing sites were sampled (22 on Albert and 5 on Edward). A total of 141 CAS enumerators (87 DRC; 54 Uganda) were recruited from selected CAS landing sites on the two water systems and were trained in CAS field sampling protocols. The enumerators were provided with CAS logistics and they undertook the actual field data collection under the direct supervision of Sub-County/District (Uganda) and Province (DRC) Fisheries Officers (FOs), with the overall coordination provided by NaFIRRI/DiFR (Uganda) and SENADEP (DRC). The CASs were implemented following the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) agreed upon and harmonized by the two countries sharing both lakes. Capacity building of enumerators selected from the fishing communities and their participation in fisheries data collection is considered one of the avenues for sustainable data collection.

This report presents key findings of the CASs conducted in the waters of lakes Edward and Albert of the respective countries. For Lake Edward, the annual total of 32,092.8 tons (29,347.2 tons (91.4%) DRC; 2,744 tons (8.6%) Uganda) of fish was estimated. In DRC, the catch was dominated byTilapia spp 10,881.6 tons, 36.7%), followed by Bagrus spp (9,584.4 tons, 32.3%) and Haplochromis spp (3,135 tons, 11.6%) while in Uganda, Bagrus docmak (919.3 tons, 33%) dominated, followed by Protopterus aethiopicus (489.2 tons, 18%) and Tilapia spp (463.1 tons, 18%). The 32,092.8 tons of fish from Lake Edward generated an annual revenue of USD 62,702.7, dominated by DRC (USD 57,216.7; 91.3%) and Uganda (USD 5.4; 8.75%). Lake Albert on the other hand recorded a total annual catch of 31,384.8 tons (3.428.5 tons (10.9%) DRC; 27,956.3 tons (89.1%) Uganda) with Lates spp contributing 22.8 % of the annual catch on the DRC side, followed by Synodontis spp (12.8%) and Tilapia spp (9.1 %). In Uganda, Engraulicypris bredoi and Brycinus nurse contributed 56.2% of the annual catch. The total annual catch was valued at USD 278,513.5 at beach value with DRC contributing (USD 70,673.5; 25.4 %) and Uganda (USD 207,840; 74.62 %) to the annual gross revenue.

The results indicated an improvement in catches on lakes Edward and Albert. Although this is the first time since 1987 when FAO conducted such studies on the DRC side of these lakes, the CASs revealed an increase in production which could be explained by improved patrolling and enforcement of fisheries regulations and this has to some extent aided the recovery of fish species. Similarly, in Uganda, the improvement in catches on Lake Edward is attributed to the improved enforcement of the fisheries regulations by the Fish Protection Unit (FPU), an enforcement arm of the Uganda Peoples Defence Force (UPDF) instituted by H.E. the President of the Republic of Uganda to curb illegal fishing practices on the major lakes in the country. However, the observations on the Ugandan waters of Lake Albert should be treated with caution as majority of the catch was harvested and landed in the illegal destructive gears which not only provides short term benefits, but also severely compromises the sustainability of the Lake fisheries. Management efforts should therefore be directed towards total removal of illegal fishing effort from the commercial fisheries of Lake Albert. The results also showed that the economic importance of the large sized species, particularly Nile perch annual beach revenue far superseded that of the dominant small pelagic; E. bredoi and B. nurse on the Uganda portion of Lake Albert. There is urgent call for concerted efforts to protect the large bodied fish species from illegal practices such as use of undersize and other prohibited fishing gears (e.g. beach seines, boat seines, cast nets, basket traps, under-size gillnets and under-size small seines). The low economic returns from the two dominant small sized fish species E. bredoi and B. nurse stresses the need to improve fish handling facilities appropriate for these fishes. There are currently inadequate appropriate facilities for post-harvest handling and processing of the small fish species, with the bulk of their catch processed on bare ground. This exposes the fish to contamination and hence rejection for human consumption. It is also proposed to

5 have development measures targeting value addition for these small fish species to promote them for human consumption rather than their current predominant use as animal feed.

Fishery independent stock assessment studies (fisheries trawls and hydro-acoustics) are strongly recommended to generate data on fish stock size (biomass) that can be incorporated together with results in this report and that from Frame Surveys to model stocks in the two water bodies and generate reference points in terms of optimal fishing effort, sustainable biomass, and allowable catch. This will ensure sustainable utilization of the lake resources in the two shared water systems. Continuous joint scientific monitoring of the fisheries stocks in the two systems to build a foundation for science led sustainable fisheries management is also recommended.

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables

Table 1: Estimated monthly catch production (tonnes) on Lake Albert presented by species per country 14

Table 2: Average unit cost (USD) of the fish species landed on Lake Albert...... 15

Table 3: Estimated annual catch production (tons) on Lake Albert presented by species per country 16

Table 4: Estimated annual beach revenue (‘000 US$) of catch on landed on Lake Albert in July 2019 presented by species per country...... 17

Table 5: estimated monthly catch production (tons) on Lake Edward presented by species per county 19

Table 6: Annual fish catches (tons) of the main commercial species landed on Lake Edward.20

Table 7: Estimated annual beach revenue (‘000 US$) of catch on landed on Lake Edward in July 2019 presented by species per county...... 21

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of fish landing sites on Lake Edward sampled for CAS in July, 2019...... 11

Figure 2: Location of fish landing sites on the Uganda and DRC sides of Lake Albert sampled for CAS between July and August 2019...... 12

Figure 3: Catch per unit effort (kg/boat/day) for the main vessel-gear combinations on Lake Albert 13

Figure 4: Estimated monthly beach revenue (‘000 US$) of catch on landed on Lake Albert in July 2019 presented by species per country...... 15

Figure 5: Catch per unit effort (kg/boat/day) for the main vessel-gear combinations on Lake Edward (SF- LL; Ssese flat-Longline, SF; Sseseflat-gillnet)...... 18

Figure 6: estimated monthly beach revenue (‘000 US$) of catch on landed on Lake Edward in July 2019 presented by species per county...... 20

List of Plates Plate 1: Participants at National pre-survey technical planning meeting for CAS on Lake Albert in Bunia, DRC ...... 4

Plate 2: Participants at the National pre-survey technical planning meeting for CAS on Lake Edward at TJ Global Hotel, Kasese District (10th May 2019)...... 5

Plate 3: Participants at National pre-survey technical planning meeting for CAS on Lake Albert at MIIKA ECO RESORT Hotel, Hoima (13th May 2019)...... 6

Plate 4: Group photo for enumerators from Butembo, North Kivu...... 7

Plate 5: Training of enumerators from Mahagi, Ituri...... 7

Plate 6: Participation in the field for practical demonstrations during the CAS training workshop for supervisors and enumerators for Lake Albert at Kaiso landing site, Hoima District (28th May 2019) 8

Plate 7: Weighting of fish on Lake Edward...... 10

Plate 8: Weighting of Nile perch on Lake Edward...... 10

7 ACRONYMS

AfDB: African Development Bank ArcGIS: Arc Geographical Information System B: Boat Activity Coefficient BMU: Beach Management Unit CAS: Catch Assessment Survey CDF: Congolese Franc CPUE: Catch per Unit Effort DFO: District Fisheries Officer DiFR: Directorate of Fisheries Resources DRC: Democratic Republic of Congo FO: Fisheries Officer FPU: Fisheries Protection Unit FS: Frame Survey GEF: Global Environmental Facility ICCN: Congolese Institute for the Conservation of Nature LEAF II: Multinational Lakes Edward and Albert Integrated Fisheries and Water Resources Management MSY: Maximum Sustainable Yield NaFIRRI: National Fisheries Resources Research Institute NBI: Nile Basin Initiative NCU: National Coordination Unit NELSAP: Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program NEMA: National Environment Management Authority NGO: Non-Government Organisation NWG: National Working Group OfDP: Oil for Development Programme PSU: Primary Sampling Units QENP: Queen Elizabeth National Park QGIS: Quantum Geographical Information System R: R programming language RWG: Regional Working Group SENADEP: National Service for the promotion and development of fisheries / Service National de Promotion et de Développement de la Pêche SOPs: Standard Operating Procedures ViNP: Virunga National Park UPDF Uganda Peoples Defence Forces 8 INTRODUCTION

The Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program Coordination Unit (NELSAP-CU) of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) signed service contracts with the National Fisheries Resources Research Institute (NaFIRRI) of Uganda, and the National Service for the promotion and development of fisheries / Service National de Promotion et de Développement de la Pêche (SENADEP) of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), to undertake lake-wide Frame Surveys (FS) and Catch Assessment Surveys (CAS) on lakes Edward and Albert, under the Multinational Lakes Edward and Albert Integrated Fisheries and Water Resources Management Project (LEAF II). The surveys were jointly implemented in a harmonised and synchronised fashion by NaFIRRI on the Ugandan side of the lakes, and SENADEP on the DRC side following Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) which were jointly harmonized and agreed upon by the two lead national fisheries agencies in August 2017. The Frame Surveys which started in July 2018 were concluded in March 2019 with preparation and submission of national and regional technical reports to NELSAP. The FS were immediately followed by the Catch Assessment Surveys (CASs), implemented between July and August 2019. The 2018 FS provided information on total fishing effort which was used as a sampling frame for Catch Assessment surveys as well as in the estimation of total catch from the two lakes. In Uganda, NaFIRRI coordinated the surveys on the Uganda side, working closely with the Directorate of Fisheries Resources (DiFR), District Local Government (Fisheries staff), the LEAF II National Implementation Unit, and selected personnel from the fisher communities of the riparian Districts; Kasese, Rukungiri, and Rubirizi on Lake Edward and Pakwach, Buliisa, Hoima, Kikuube, Kagadi and Ntoroko on Lake Albert. In DRC, SENADEP coordinated the surveys on the DRC side, working closely with the LEAF II National Implementation Unit, national directorates, provincial inspectors, local fisheries administration, and fisher associations of the Lubero and Rutshuru territories on Lake Edward, and Irumu, Djugu and Mahagi territories on Lake Albert. On Lake Edward, SENADEP also worked closely with the Congolese Institute for the Conservation of Nature (ICCN). This approach of involving key stakeholders and resource users in planning and implementation of the surveys is intended to build capacity of the lower level fisheries managers and landing site/ beach management committees/units for sustainability of fisheries dependent data collection beyond the LEAF II Project.

1.1 The relevance of CASs in fisheries resources monitoring and management Catch Assessment Survey is a systematic evaluation of the catch landed by artisanal or commercial fishers (harvest sector) to generate information which helps to assess removals/harvest from a water body and their economic value. The major outputs from CASs include: i. Fish species composition of the landed catch; ii. The catch rates (catch per unit effort – CPUE) by vessel gear category; iii. The total monthly fish catch by species, category of fishing boats, and gears in the riparian local administrative units; iv. The estimated total annual fish catch by species, category of fishing boats, and gears in the riparian local administrative units; v. The contribution of different fish species to the total catch; vi. The monetary value of the fish landed at beach level; vii. Information on type and sizes of fishing gears and harvesting methods used to target the different fish species and their contribution to the catch; and viii. Trends and changes of different fish species between different areas, seasons, gear types and gear sizes; Information generated through Catch Assessment Surveys, particularly catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) and annual catch is used to input into fisheries stock assessment models to estimate allowable catch (removals) and harvest rates as well as guiding planning, development and management of the fisheries resources. 9 2. METHODS AND DESCRIPTION OF BASIC CONCEPTS

2.1 Approaches to CASs on lakes Edward and ICCN/Virunga National Park, NGO partners in Albert the development of the fishing sector and fishers’ committees and staff of LEAF II. In Uganda, the Unlike on the DRC side of lakes Edward and Albert meetings targeted the technical NWG group members, where CASs were being conducted for the first time, comprising of key experts from NaFIRRI and DiFR, previous CASs on the Ugandan side of these lakes have the National LEAF II Fisheries Expert, and the been on ad-hoc basis. The surveys were implemented fisheries staff from the riparian districts (Rukungiri, by both NaFIRRI and DiFR in a collaborative way, Kasese, and Rubirizi on Lake Edward and Pakwach, with funding from different sources, including the Buliisa, Hoima, Kagadi, Kikuube, and Ntoroko on Government of Uganda, National Environment Lake Albert). The meetings were also attended by Management Authority (NEMA), and the Oil for participants from the Fisheries Protection Unit (FPU) Development Programme (OfDP). The surveys did as key players on the two lakes, particularly engaged not directly involve the lower level fisheries managers in enforcement. and the resource users, the fisher communities. On Lake Victoria, lake-wide CASs have been jointly The purpose of the NWG pre-survey meetings were implemented since 2005 in a synchronized manner to; (i) brief participants on progress of fisheries among the riparian partner states of Kenya, Uganda research activities supported by NELSAP-LEAF II and Tanzania, the approach involving the lower Project and coordinated by NaFIRRI/SENADEP, (ii) level fisheries managers and enumerators selected draw a roadmap (effective implementation schedule) from the fishing communities (LVFO, 2016). This for CAS activities to avoid overlap with other activities approach has provided timely and reliable data which that involve the key stakeholders, (iii) identify CAS has guided a number of management decisions for field supervisors and enumerators and field logistics, the Lake Victoria fisheries in the three countries. (iv) review and customize data collection tools for CASs, and (v) update records of landing sites to The LEAF II Project adopted a similar approach, as form the Primary Sampling Units (PSU) for CASs. one way of contributing to improved management of The meetings also aimed at identifying roles of key the fisheries in lakes Edward and Albert, starting with stakeholders, anticipated challenges and mitigation the FS implemented between July 2018 and March measures. 2019. This was followed by a Regional Working Group (RWG) meeting held in Gisenyi, Rwanda in February A total of 15 landing sites on Lake Edward (10 in DRC; 2019 to finalize the FS lake-wide (regional) report 5 in Uganda, Figure 1) and 41 landing sites on Lake and also develop the implementation schedule for the Albert (19 in DRC; 22 in Uganda, Figure 2) were 2019 CASs. The meeting was attended by members of identified and selected as PSU for the 2019 CASs. the RWG from the two participating partner states; Uganda and DRC and from the NELSAP LEAF II Field enumerators (data collectors) were recruited Project. This was then followed by the National for each of the selected CAS landing sites for training Working Group (NWG) planning meetings held and subsequent field data collection. A total of between April and May 2019 to plan and develop an 40 enumerators (30 DRC;10 Uganda) and their implementation schedule for the 2019 CASs on lakes supervisors (10 DRC; 10 Uganda) were recruited Edward and Albert. on Lake Edward, and 101 enumerators (57 DRC; 44 Uganda) and supervisors (19 DRC; 15 Uganda) on 2.2 National technical planning meeting Lake Albert. Additionally, key inputs and logistics for the CASs were also identified and included stationery In DRC, two NWG pre-survey planning meetings th (e.g. water-proof note books, clipboards, sharpeners, were convened in Goma (North Kivu Province, 29 torches, tonner, paper, pencils, pens, erasers/rubbers, April – 30th April 2019) for Lake Edward participants, rd th and water-proof bags) and personal protective wear and Bunia (Ituri Province, 23 – 24 April 2019) for (e.g. life jackets, gumboots, raincoats, umbrellas, Lake Albert. Similar meetings were held in Uganda gloves) for the field enumerators and supervisors. in Kasese (9th – 10th May 2019) and Hoima (13th – 14th May 2019) districts for lakes Edward and Albert At the national planning meetings, the CAS field data participants respectively. collection forms customized at the RWG planning meeting were presented to participants and minor In DRC, the meetings were attended by SENADEP adjustments were made to further customize them experts, representatives from the provincial to suit the local conditions at the two lakes in the inspectorates for agriculture, fisheries, animal respective countries. husbandry and rural development, the environment and sustainable development, and officials from 10 PLATE 1: PARTICIPANTS AT NATIONAL PRE-SURVEY TECHNICAL PLANNING MEETING FOR CAS ON LAKE ALBERT IN BUNIA, DRC

PLATE 2: PARTICIPANTS AT THE NATIONAL PRE-SURVEY TECHNICAL PLANNING MEETING FOR CAS ON LAKE EDWARD AT TJ GLOBAL HOTEL, KASESE DISTRICT (10TH MAY 2019). 11 12 PLATE 3: PARTICIPANTS AT NATIONAL PRE-SURVEY TECHNICAL PLANNING MEETING FOR CAS ON LAKE ALBERT AT MIIKA ECO RESORT HOTEL, HOIMA (13TH MAY 2019).

2.3 Identification, Recruitment, and Training 2. Review and customize field data collection of CAS Field Enumerators and Supervisors forms, together with the enumerators to ensure they are well understood for data Following the pre-survey national technical planning capture; meetings, SENADEP delegated the national coordination unit of LEAF II in DRC to recruit 3. Identify additional field requirements for appropriate enumerators. These were chosen from CASs that may have been omitted at the among those responsible for provincial inspections national pre-survey planning meetings; of agriculture, fishing and animal husbandry, NGOs in the fishing sector, universities and fishermen’s 4. Identify challenges expected during the actual committees. Supervision was conducted by the field collection of CAS data and the possible Senior Provincial Inspectors. mitigation measures; and In Uganda, field supervisors (DFOs and FOs/AFOs) 5. Draw a roadmap for the implementation of from the riparian districts were tasked to identify CAS field data collection on lakes Edward and and recruit two enumerators for training in CAS field Albert data collection. The supervisors were encouraged to identify enumerators who were residents of the selected CAS landing sites and interested in the CAS The trained enumerators and supervisors were exercise, preferably the fishers and others who had encouraged to build capacity of other members of previously participated in the FS activities. the fisher communities in data collection as a way of ensuring long term sustainability of fisheries data The training in CAS field data collection was collection beyond the LEAF II project conducted for both the enumerators and supervisors. These were trained in CAS field survey tools and data collection and the training was delivered through classroom theoretical and field practical sessions. The objectives of the training were to; 1. Equip the recruited enumerators and field supervisors with techniques in CAS field data collection and filling of customized field survey tools; 13 PLATE 4: GROUP PHOTO FOR ENUMERATORS FROM BUTEMBO, NORTH KIVU

PLATE 5: TRAINING OF ENUMERATORS FROM MAHAGI, ITURI

14 15 PLATE 6: PARTICIPATION IN THE FIELD FOR PRACTICAL DEMONSTRATIONS DURING THE CAS TRAINING WORKSHOP FOR SUPERVISORS AND ENUMERATORS FOR LAKE ALBERT AT KAISO LANDING SITE, HOIMA DISTRICT (28TH MAY 2019)

2.4 Publicity of the Catch Assessment Survey For DRC, sampling was done for six days on Lake activities Edward (between 14th – 27th July 2019) and Lake Albert (between 29th July – 10th August 2019). Publicity of the CAS activities was implemented through radio announcements, posters, and by 2. Data was recorded in the harmonized and fisheries officers and trained enumerators. Publicity customized CAS field data collection forms (Appendix was intended to create awareness about the CAS 4); exercise to ensure that fishers avail their fishing boats, gears, and catch to the enumerators on the sampling 3. At least 30% of boats landing on a sampling days. Since enumerators were recruited from among day were sampled and their catch recorded; members of the fishing communities, they would 4. The sampled boats were representative of all effectively promote awareness of the CAS activities fishing vessel gear categories; among the fishing communities before the actual CAS field data collection. Information dissemination 5. All catch in the sampled fishing boats was materials (factsheets and brochures) summarizing weighed and recorded; the FS results were packaged and distributed at each landing site during the period of publicity. 6. The catch landed in each sampled boat was first sorted and identified into respective species 2.5 Field collection of CAS data on lakes groups/taxa; Edward and Albert 7. For each species, the quantity (number and The actual collection of CAS data (recording fishing weight) were measured and recorded; boat details and weight the catch landed) was undertaken by the recruited CAS enumerators. These 8. For each species recorded in the sampled were supervised to provide immediate technical boat, information on the beach value (price) per unit guidance to the enumerators. The key experts weight was recorded; from NaFIRRI & DiFR/SENADEP coordinated the 9. Data was also collected on the quantity of exercise, oversaw the implementation and provided catch (fish or species) retained by fishers for domestic additional technical support during the field or household consumption; supervision of the CAS activity. 10. For each boat sampled, additional information For each sampling day, the following procedure such as; the type and size of fishing boat, the type was followed in recording information for each boat and size of gear used to catch the fish, hour that the sampled for CAS; gear fished, the number of hours the boat was used in 1. In Uganda, sampling was done on both lakes fishing using the same gear in the previous week as Edward and Albert for three consecutive fishing days well as the number of crew on the sampled boat were at each landing site (PSU) in week one (1st – 3rd also recorded. July, 2019) and week three (16th – 18th July, 2019). 16 PLATE 7: WEIGHTING OF FISH ON LAKE EDWARD

2.6 Study Area (landing sites sampled for the Mahagi territory. On Lake Edward, the 10 sites CAS) sampled where two (2) in Beni, five (5) Lubero and three (3) Rutshuru territories. In Uganda, the 22 Catch data was obtained from 15 landing sites on landing sites sampled on Lake Albert were located Lake Edward (Figure 1) and 41 landing sites (Figure in Pakwach (4), Buliisa (6), Hoima (4), Kagadi (3), 2) on Lake Albert. The sampled landing sites were Kikuube (2) and Ntoroko (3) districts. On Lake identified at both the RWG and NWG meetings. Edward, the 5 sampled landing sites were located in For DRC, the 19 landing sites sampled on Lake Albert Kasese (2), Rubirizi (2) and Rukungiri (1) districts. were distributed as follows: six (6) sites in the Irumu territory, five (5) in the Djugu territory and 8in

17 FIGURE 1: LOCATION OF FISH LANDING SITES ON LAKE EDWARD SAMPLED FOR CAS IN JULY, 2019

FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF FISH LANDING SITES ON THE UGANDA AND DRC SIDES OF LAKE ALBERT SAMPLED FOR CAS BETWEEN JULY AND AUGUST 2019 18 2.7 Estimation of CAS-based Indicators ii. The fish catches were estimated using the mean fish catch rates and the FS data of 2018. For After data collection, the completed CAS field each effort group, the Boat activity coefficient (B), i.e. data collection forms were collected by the field the probability that a fishing vessel of each Vessel- supervisors, validated, and submitted to the NaFIRRI/ Gear (V-G) type would be active on any day during SENADEP supervision teams. Data were entered and the month was estimated as the mean number of days stored in Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet. Data analysis boats in each effort group fished in a week divided by was performed using both Microsoft Excel and R the number of days in a week. The catch (C) of each programming language. The maps of sampled CAS effort group was then estimated. landing sites were generated using ArcGIS and QGIS (version 3.2.1). The fishing crafts were segregated iii. The mean monthly estimates for each effort into effort groups (Vessel-Gear Combinations) and group and species were then raised through 12 the CAS indicators were estimated for each effort months to obtain the annual catch estimates. group. iv. The beach value of the catch, i.e. the gross i. The mean fish catch rates (CPUE) (kg boat- income to the fishers, was estimated by raising the 1 day-1) were estimated for each effort group by estimated catch in each effort group by the mean unit species. price of each fish species landed.

PLATE 8: WEIGHTING OF NILE PERCH ON LAKE EDWARD 19 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents results of the CASs conducted registered the highest catch rates (197.6 kg boat- between July and August 2019 on both the Ugandan 1 day-1) and followed by Brycinus nurse at 90 kg-1 and DRC side of lakes Albert and Edward. Details of boat-1 day-1 on the Uganda side of the Lake while the results, i.e. fish catch rates and the estimated fish Lates spp recorded the highest CPUE at 48.5 kg-1 catches are presented in both tabular and graphical boats-1 day-1 on the DRC side. The CPUE for other forms. The section of results is presented in two sub- species groups recorded in the commercial landings sections; the first one being for Lake Albert and the on Lake Albert between July and August 2019 varied second for Lake Edward. across the different V-G categories (Figure.3). 3.1 LAKE ALBERT 3.1.1 Fish catch rates (kg boat-1day-1) for the main vessel-gear categories on Lake Albert The catch per unit effort (CPUE) expressed in kg boat-1day-1 was calculated for each effort group i.e., V-G category (Figure. 3). Engraulicypris bredoi

FIGURE 3: CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (KG/BOAT/DAY) FOR THE MAIN VESSEL-GEAR COMBINATIONS ON LAKE ALBERT 20 3.1.2 Estimation of monthly fish catches followed by Brycinus nurse (5,610.9 tons; 20.1%) on (tons) of the main commercial species landed the Uganda side of the lake, while Lates spp (2,351.1 on Lake Albert tons; 24.9%) dominated the catch on the DRC side followed by Synodontis spp (424.5 tons; 12.4%). In Table. 1 summarizes the estimates of monthly catches the DRC side, Labeo spp and Schilbe spp have shown of the fish species landed on Lake Albert in July low values of (7.1 tons; 0.21%) and (7.6 tons; 0.22%) 2019 by country. A total monthly catch of 31,384.8 respectively, while in Uganda, Schilbe spp recorded tons was estimated for the entire Lake with Uganda low values of (27 tons; 0.1%). dominating the fish catch (27,956.3 tons; 89.1%) and DRC (3,428.5 tons; 10.9%). Engraulicypris bredoi (Muziri) dominated with (10,092.2 tons; 36.1%)

TABLE 1: ESTIMATED MONTHLY CATCH PRODUCTION (TONNES) ON LAKE ALBERT PRESENTED BY SPECIES PER COUNTRY

21 3.1.3 Estimation of monthly gross value (US$) species landed in the respective countries in Table.1 of the main commercial fish species at beach above was multiplied by the corresponding unit price level on Lake Albert based on the July-August in Table. 2 to raise the monthly gross value of catch sampling by species ((Figure. 4). The gross monthly beach revenue of the monthly catch was USD 23,209.4 The monthly gross value of catch estimated for the where Uganda dominated with USD 17,320 and DRC major commercial fish species recorded on Lake with USD 5,889.4. Albert during the 2019 survey period was calculated using the average price per unit (kilogram) of fish species recorded. The total monthly catch for each

TABLE 2: AVERAGE UNIT COST (USD) OF THE FISH SPECIES LANDED ON LAKE ALBERT

22 FIGURE 4: ESTIMATED MONTHLY BEACH REVENUE (US$) OF CATCH ON LANDED ON LAKE ALBERT IN JULY 2019 PRESENTED BY SPECIES PER COUNTRY.

The results on the estimation of monthly gross value It is important to conclude that Lates spp dominated (US$) reveal same trends as per the estimated catch on both sides of the Lake with Uganda earning USD where Lates spp and Synodontis spp have generated 3,333 and DRC USD 1,469. the highest gross values of (US$ 1,469; 24.9% and US$ 736; 12.5%) respectively in DRC. In Uganda, Estimation of annual fish catches (tons) of the main Lates spp has presented the highest gross values of commercial species landed on Lake Albert (US$ 3,333; 19,2%) followed by E. bredoi with (US$ The total annual fish catch estimates for the lake were 2,675; 15.4%). based on monthly estimates obtained for the July- When comparing the gross values of the catches August 2019 sampling in Table. 1. The estimated landed in Uganda with DRC and regardless of the monthly catch for each species was raised through 12 catch production, it can be easily observed that the months to obtain estimates of annual catch (Table. Uganda side is generating more revenue for some 3). Generally, the pattern in species contribution commercial species. The reason behind this situation to the annual catch on the Lake was similar to that is explained by the high operating cost of fishing described for the monthly catch estimates. A total of activities which comprise many economic parameters 376,617.6 tons was estimated for the entire lake, with such as led-light, engine capacity consuming much Uganda contributing 89.06% (335,475.6 tons) and fuel, etc. DRC 10.92% (41,142 tons).

23 TABLE 3: ESTIMATED ANNUAL CATCH PRODUCTION (TONS) ON LAKE ALBERT PRESENTED BY SPECIES PER COUNTRY

24 3.1.5 Estimation of annual gross beach 207,840 (74.6 %) and DRC at USD 70,673.5 (25.4 revenue of catch of the main commercial %) from the 41,142.0 tons. Generally, the pattern in species on Lake Albert both annual contributions by species and country did not differ from that observed for the monthly gross The annual estimate of gross value of catch was value of catch in Figure 4 above. On the Ugandan calculated for the major commercial fish species side, Lates spp contributed highest to the lake-wide recorded in July and August 2019 by raising the annual gross revenue of catch (US$ 399,995.9; monthly gross beach revenue in Appendix 1 to twelve 19.2%), followed by E. bredoi (US$ 32,084.6; 15.4%) (12) months. The annual gross values of catch for the and B. nurse (US$ 22,031.6; 10.5%). The Synodontis different species in the respective riparian countries spp contributed the least to the annual catch (US$ were then summed to determine the lake-wide annual 88; 0.04%). On the DRC side, Lates spp dominated gross value of catch at USD 278,513 from the 376,617.6 the annual beach revenue with US$ 17,632; 24.9 % tons of fish landed annually. Notably, in Uganda, and least for Schilbe spp at US$ 102; 0.14 %. the 335,475 tons of fish landed were valued at USD

TABLE 4: ESTIMATED ANNUAL BEACH REVENUE (US$) OF CATCH ON LANDED ON LAKE ALBERT IN JULY 2019 PRESENTED BY SPECIES PER COUNTRY

25 3.2 LAKE EDWARD Uganda and DRC side of Lake Edward of which six (6) species were categorised as the major commercial 3.2.1 Fish catch rates (kg boat-1day-1) for the fish species (Figure 5). The highest catch per unit main vessel-gear categories on Lake Edward effort (CPUE) on the Uganda side was recorded in July 2019 for Clarias gariepinus (11.2 kg boat-1day-1) in the The CPUE expressed in kg boat-1day-1 was calculated SF-LL boats and for Bagrus docmak (9.8 kg boat- for each effort group i.e. V-G category on Lake Edward 1day-1) in SF-GN in DRC (Figure 5) and for DRC, (Figure. 5). On the Uganda side, two (2) effort groups Tilapia spp dominated with 97.8 kg-1 boat-1 day-1 (V-G categories), i.e. Sesse Flat boats using gillnet in the BS-SP boats. The CPUE varied highly across (SF-GN) and Sesse Flat boats using Longline hooks species and country for the rest of the vessel-gear (SF-LL) were recorded harvesting the fish during categories (Figure 5). On the DRC side, catch rates the July 2019 CASs. On the DRC side 15 vessel-gear were dominated by Tilapia spp 97.8 kg-1 boat-1 day-1 combinations were used to catch fish. A total of eight in BS-SP boats and followed with Bagrus sp 82.2 kg-1 fish species were recorded in the fish landed both boat-1 day-1 in DI-SP (Figure. 5).

FIGURE 5: CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT (KG/BOAT/DAY) FOR THE MAIN VESSEL-GEAR COMBINATIONS ON LAKE EDWARD (SF-LL; SSESE FLAT-LONGLINE, SF; SSESEFLAT-GILLNET)

26 3.2.2 Estimation of monthly fish catches spp that with 32.7% (798.7 tons). Clarias spp recorded (tons) of the main commercial species landed the lowest catch with 1.7% (42.5 tons). For Uganda, on Lake Edward in July 2019 Bagrus spp contributed highest 33.5% (76.6 tons) to the monthly catch while the least contributors were The total monthly catch production for Lake Edward the Haplochromine species (1.0 tons; 0.4%). While in July 2019 was estimated at 2,674.4 tons (Table Labeo spp and Mormyrus spp were encountered on 5), shared between the DRC (2,445.6 tons; 91.4%) the Uganda side but absent in the catch on the DRC and Uganda (228.5 tons; 8.6%). On the DRC side side. of the Lake, Tilapia spp dominated the catch and contributed 37.1% (906.8 tons), followed by Bagrus

TABLE 5: ESTIMATED MONTHLY CATCH PRODUCTION (TONS) ON LAKE EDWARD PRESENTED BY SPECIES PER COUNTY

27 3.2.3 Estimation of monthly gross value recorded on the lake in July 2019 was determined as (US$) of the main commercial fish species a product of average price per unit (kilogram) of fish at beach level on Lake Edward based on the species (Appendix 2) and total monthly catch (Table. July-August sampling 5). The estimated monthly catch of 2674.4 t landed on Lake Edward in July 2019 generated a monthly The monthly gross beach value of catch which is beach revenue of US$ 5,300 shared between Uganda the total sum from the monthly landings without (US$ 460; 8.7%) and DRC (US$ 4,770; 91.3%). considering the investment and operational costs was estimated. The major commercial fish species

FIGURE 6: ESTIMATED MONTHLY BEACH REVENUE (US$) OF CATCH ON LANDED ON LAKE EDWARD IN JULY 2019 PRESENTED BY SPECIES PER COUNTY.

The two graphs on the estimation of monthly gross value (US$) show that Tilapia spp and Bagrus spp generated the highest gross values of (US$ 2,154; 45.2% and US$ 1,851; 38.8%) respectively in DRC. In Uganda, reverse trends occurred where Bagrus spp presented the highest gross values of (US$ 147; 32.2%) followed by Tilapia spp with (US$ 101; 22.2%).

28 3.2.4 Estimation of annual fish catches (tons) Generally, the pattern in species contribution to the of the main commercial species landed on annual catch on the Lake was similar to that described Lake Edward for the monthly catch estimates. A total of 32,092.8 tons was estimated as annual catch for the entire Using estimates of monthly catches determined during Lake Edward, with Uganda contributing 2,745.6 tons the sampled month of July 2019, extrapolations of (8.6%) and while DRC earned 29,347.2 tons (91.4%). the total annual fish catch estimates for Lake Edward were calculated by multiplying the monthly catch (Table 5) by twelve (12) months in a year (Table 6).

TABLE 6: ANNUAL FISH CATCHES (TONS) OF THE MAIN COMMERCIAL SPECIES LANDED ON LAKE EDWARD

29 3.2.5 Estimation of annual gross beach estimated annual catch of 32,092.8 tons landed on revenue (US$) of catch of the main commercial Lake Edward was projected to have a beach value species on Lake Edward of US$ 62,702.8 (Table 7). Similar to the monthly revenues, DRC had a share of 91.3% (US$ 57,216.7) The annual value of catch landed annually on Lake of the annual revenue while Uganda had only 8.7% Edward was estimated by multiplying the monthly (US$ 5,486.1). value of catch determined based on the July 2019 data (Appendix 1) by 12 (months in a year). The

TABLE 7: ESTIMATED ANNUAL BEACH REVENUE (US$) OF CATCH ON LANDED ON LAKE EDWARD IN JULY 2019 PRESENTED BY SPECIES PER COUNTY

30 4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.1 Fish catches The small pelagic species were closely followed by the Lates spp on the Uganda side, but the species catches Monitoring trends in stock abundance and yield were highest on the DRC side. In Uganda, the species of harvestable or commercial species is a key was mainly targeted using illegal fishing gears and component of stock assessment used to inform methods comprising of beach seines, boat seines, and fisheries management decisions aimed at ensuring undersize gillnets and longline hooks among others. sustainability and maximizing economic benefits The illegal fishing effort cropped large proportions from the fishery. Catch Assessment Survey is one of of immature individuals of Nile perch observed in the most popular fisheries monitoring tools widely the landed catch. Overall, the species was landed used to estimate and monitor trends in fish catches in 11 different fishing gear categories compared to (yield/ total removals) and economic value of a only three on DRC side (Figure 3). The use of illegal commercial stock for both the marine and freshwater fishing gears on the lake is detrimental to the target systems. species as it affects stock recruitment and recovery. 4.1.1 Lake Albert Management interventions on the lake should therefore be directed towards removal of illegal fishing The lake registered a total of 21 fish species landed effort and reducing legal effort at sustainable levels. in the commercial catch, with variations in species While the other species such as haplochromines did composition between the two countries. Until the not contribute substantially to the commercial catches 1990s, the commercial catches in Uganda were of Lake Albert, field observations indicated that they dominated by large fishes namely Lates niloticus, are were very important components, mainly sold as Alestes baremose, and Hydrocynus forskahlii baits for the Nile perch and other large sized species (Cadwalladr & Stoeman, 1966; Orach-Meza et al., fisheries. Indeed, high catch rates of Nile perch were 1989), but there has since been a shift to dominance higher in boats using haplochromines as baits. of the small pelagic species represented by E. bredoi and B. nurse (Mbabazi et al., 2012). The two species In terms of economic revenue, Lates spp dominated dominated (56%) of the 2019 monthly and annual the monthly and annual value of catch on the lake catches on the Uganda side of Lake Albert. However, (Figure 4 & Table 4). Except for Hydrocynus spp for DRC, because of the inconsistent data collection and Tilapia spp, Lates spp had a relatively higher around the lake, the trends have not yet been fully average unit price at the beach level (Table 2). This is established. The absence of E. bredoi on the DRC side perhaps inclined on its large size and high demand at is because the species is exclusively harvested at night the local, regional, and international markets which using artificial light attraction technologies which are facilitates. The high average unit price for Tilapia prohibited on the DRC side (Taabu-Munyaho et al., spp, Hydrocynus spp and Clarias spp, is driven by 2012). the high demand at both local and regional markets. Unlike E. bredoi, B. nurse (Rüppell, 1832) was Despite the high catches for E. bredoi and B. nurse recorded on the entire lake, with the highest catches in Uganda, the highest annual and monthly revenue recorded on the Uganda side (Table. 1 & 3). The B. was recorded for Lates spp (Table 4 & Figure 4). The nurse is comparably larger (grows up to 25 cm, low revenue for the small pelagic is attributed to TL) than E. bredoi at (< 10 cm, TL) and hence is poor post-harvesting procedures which lowers their harvested in different gears, notably, the small seines quality, and thus unfit for human consumption. For using light attraction technology, gillnets, beach example, some fishers add sand into the fish landed seines, hand lines, monofilaments and boat seines. to increase weight as they alleged to facilitate faster Therefore, the low catches for the species on the DRC drying (Bwambale et al., 2017). This lowers the side in comparison to Uganda is attributed to the quality and value of the species and consequently, the prohibition of light fishing technology. species are sold for use in the animal feed industries. The least catch was recorded for the Schilbe spp 4.1.2 Lake Edward (butter catfish) and the results are comparable to the They were nine (9) species landed in the commercial previous studies conducted on the Ugandan side of catches on Lake Edward. Although the lake is the lake (Cadwalladr & Stoneman 1966; Orach et al., connected to Lake Albert through northward flowing 1989; Mbabazi et al., 2012; and NaFIRRI, 2014). The River Semliki (Acere & Mwene-Beyanga, 1990; Bassa low catches for the species could be attributed to its et al., 2014), there is less homogeneity in the species ecological habitat requirements since it is riverine in composition. In contrast to Lake Albert, the DRC nature, and thus, sampling in the inflow rivers could contributed higher species numbers and quantity of enlighten the species stocks dynamics. 31 catch than Uganda. The DRC has the largest share Furthermore, although the stocks of haplochromine (71%) of the lake with Uganda taking only 29% (FAO, cichlids are high in the lake, less effort are devised 2004; Bassa et al. 2014). by riparian countries to harvest these species. This requires detailed study to understand the population The annual catches for the lake have greatly increased dynamics as well as the harvesting technologies that compared to the previous studies conducted on the will ensure sustainable utilisation of these resources. Ugandan side (Bassa et al., 2014). The increased catches on the Ugandan side is attributed to the Catch assessment surveys have been rare on the tremendous improvement in monitoring patrols DRC side of Lake Edward since the 1990 studies and enforcement of the fisheries regulations on the (FAO 2001), however, in 2001, the annual fish catch lake by the Fisheries Protection Unit, an arm of the predictions were estimated at 11400 t. For the annual Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF). and monthly revenue, while Clarias spp dominated the catches in terms of weight, the Tilapia spp fetched Previously, illegal gears such as gillnets of less than more revenue (Figure. 6 & Table. 7) on the Uganda 4.5 inches were used to harvest mostly Oreochromis side. This observation was attributed to the higher niloticus (Bassa et al., 2014). However, these average unit price for Tilapia spp in addition to its illegalities including boats were dismantled which demand. led to species-specific shift in the catches on the Ugandan side of the lake. Presently, the catches 4.2 Implications for existing Legal and policy are dominated by Bagrus spp and Protopterus spp frameworks owing to the shift by fishers to these two fish species from Tilapia spp. The enforcement of the 5-inch size The riparian countries should improve or draft gillnets and larger hooks by the Ugandan authorities policies on post-harvest handling procedures for the perhaps led to the shift. For the DRC side where there emerging small pelagic fishes namely; B. nurse and E. is still weak enforcement of the fisheries regulations, bredoi to reduce on the losses mostly for the fishers the Tilapia species dominated the catches. In DRC, on Lake Albert and increase income generation to the the high catches of Tilapia spp was due to the high fishers and the countries. effort (number of gears) used to target the species. Harmonisation of policies between the two countries Overall, 12 different gear categories were used on the should be done to ensure uniform implementation DRC side compared to only two (2) in Uganda. In and enforcement on both countries. This will reduce addition, gillnets below the legal 4.5-inch mesh were on the illegalities to ensure sustainable harvest of used in harvesting fish on the DRC side of the lake. catches.

32 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS gear selectivity studies need to be conducted immediately to understand the most suitable gear This is the first lake-wide catch assessment survey and size for their sustainable harvest. (Can we include implemented in a standardized and synchronized management issues such as restraining harvesting of manner on both the Uganda and DRC sides of small pelagic to allow growth of biomass in the both the two Lakes. On the DRC side, this is the first lakes as a recommendation) study carried out in a standardized manner. All the previous evaluations were sporadic and carried out 5.2.3 General Recommendations using approaches different from the one used in the current survey. Therefore, there is no lake-wide There is need to package information dissemination comparable data to generate information on trends materials targeting the different stakeholder (fishers and make inferences for the entire lake, however, and managers) to enable mass dissemination and such information is presented for the Ugandan side use of the CAS results, combined with awareness of the lakes where some historical trend data exists campaigns and popularization of regulatory texts for some years. There is need for regular CASs preferably twice Although the report provides projections of annual each year on each lake to monitor trends and catches based on only one month (July 2019), there evaluate responses of fish stocks to the management is need to consider seasonal and periodical variations interventions proposed by these surveys. The by sampling for more than one month and use surveys should be conducted simultaneously in averages to estimate the annual catches. In the lakes the two countries to enable data comparability and Edward Albert basin, there are mainly four seasons, formulation of uniform policies and management i.e. wet and dry. The 2019 CASs were conducted plans. between July and August, coinciding with the of the In order to improve on fisheries data management, dry period. In order to obtain information on effects storage, and sharing, we recommend the fast-tracking of season on catch and to improve estimation of and finalization of the LEA Fisheries Information annual catch values. Management System (LEA FIMS). Once the system Based on quantity of fish retained for household is completed, the technical teams should be trained consumption and revenue of catch, it is evident that in the use of the system and begin to use it for data fish contributes substantially to livelihoods of the processing, storage, and management. riparian populations in terms of income, food and Future Catch Assessment Surveys should capture nutritional security. information on size (length) of fish landed to 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS understand the population size structure and effects of the harvesting gears as well as evaluating 5.2.1 Lake Albert compliance to existing regulations on slot size limits. 1) Illegal fishing gears (beach/boat seines, cast We recommend the next CAS to be conducted during nets, and under-size mesh gill nets) are still the main the rain period, preferably between March and May. gears used to harvest fish on both sides of Lake Albert. This calls for the strengthening of enforcement of the For long-term sustainability of CAS data collection, existing fisheries regulations to remove all the illegal we suggest to the riparian governments (district, fishing effort from the lake. territorial, and provincial) and key stakeholders to begin planning and budgeting for these surveys in 2) There is need to design appropriate (cost- their annual work plans and make use of the trained effective, environmentally sound, and sustainable) enumerators to capture these data. handling and processing facilities for the small fisheries of E. nurse and B. nurse that dominate the We propose establishment of collection agents at the commercial catch on the Uganda side of the lake but landing sites; and capacity building for collection are still of low economic due to post-harvest loss agents through training to continue with routine from poor handling and processing. data collection. Landing site or local government leadership should devise mechanisms for motivating 5.2.2 Lake Edward the agents assigned to the collection of data in the field to ensure sustainability and quality data records. 1) Future research should focus on exploring the potential and possibilities for sustainable harvest of Future CASs should be designed in such a way that the abundant haplochromine species. Specifically, information on the size (length) of fish landed by

33 fishers is captured to understand the population size terms of optimal fishing effort, sustainable biomass, structure and effects of the harvesting gears. and allowable catch (total removals) from the lake. Information on quantities of fishing effort and LESSONS LEARNT catch is now available, we recommend a fishery independent stock assessment through hydro- Capacity building of enumerators selected from acoustic and trawl surveys to generate information the fishing communities and their participation on the composition and stock size (biomass) of the in fisheries data collection is considered one of the harvestable fish species for inputting into the stock avenues for sustainable data collection. assessment models to determine reference points in

34 REFERENCES

Acere. T. O & Mwene-Beyanga. P (1990). Lake Albert fisheries resources and their management strategy. Technical consultation meeting on lakes Edward and Albert/Mobutu between Zaire and Uganda. 21-26 may 1990, Kampala, Uganda. Balirwa, J. S., Chapman, C. A., Chapman, L. J., Cowx, I. G., Geheb, K., Kaufman, L., Lowe-McConnell, R. H., Seehausen O., Wanink, J. H., Welcomme, R. L., & Witte, F. (2003). Biodiversity and fishery sustainability in the Lake Victoria basin: an unexpected marriage?. BioScience, 53(8), 703-715. Bassa, S., Mbabazi D., Taabu-Munyaho., Nakiyende, H., Muhumuza, E., Nsega, M., Amiina, B., Rukunya, E., Bakunda, A., & J.S. Balirwa (2014). Can protected areas work in artisanal fisheries of Uganda? The case of Lakes Edward-George and Kazinga Channel. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2014, 15 (1): 27 - 39 Bwambale, M., Candia, A., Masette, M., Odongkara, K. O., Nasuuna, S., Namatovu, S., … Bamwirire, D. (2017). Postharvest processing practices, marketing and gender roles in the smal pelagic fisheries at lakes Victoria, Kyoga and Albert. Jinja. Cadwalladr, D. A., & Stoeman, J. (1966). A review of the fisheries of the uganda waters of Lake Albert. East Africa, 1928-1965/66, with catch data mainly from 1953. Entebbe. Cadwalladr, D. A., & Stoneman, A. J. (1966). A Review of the Fisheries of the Ugandan Waters of Lake Albert, East Africa, 1928–1965/66, with Data Mainly from 1953. East African Freshwater Fisheries Research Organisation, Jinja. 19 pp. FAO (1989). Past and recent trends in the exploitation of the great lakes fisheries of Uganda. Fisheries Statistics and Information Systems (FISHIN): (26 January 2015). Retrived from http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/ AD143E/AD143E00.htm. FAO (1995). Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1995. 49 pp. FAO (2001). Information on fisheries management on Lake Albert in the Democratic Republic of Congo. (Accessed 13 July 2014). Retrived from http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/cod/body.htm. FAO (2001). Information on fisheries management in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. (Accessed 10 January 2020). Retreived from http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/fcp/en/cod/body.htm. FAO. (2004). Information on the Ugandan Fisheries sector (Vol. 19). Retrieved from http://eprints.uanl. mx/5481/1/1020149995.PDF GoU (2010). The fish (FISHING) Rules, 2010. In MAAIF, editor. The Uganda Gazette No. 53 Volume CIII, Entebbe pp 193-254. GoU (2012). Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries: Department of Fisheries Resources Annual Report 2010-2011. 41 pp. Greenwood, P. H. (1966). The fishes of Uganda. The Uganda Society, Kampala. 73 pp. Holden, M. J. (1963). Report on the Fisheries of Lake Albert mimeo; Fisheries Laboratory Lowestoft 7. LVFO (2005). Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for collecting Catch Assessment Survey data on Lake Victoria. LVFO, Jinja. 45 pp. LVFO (2016). Regional Catch Assessment Survey Synthesis Report June 2005 to November/December 2015. Compiled by CAS Regional Working Group Members. Mbabazi, D., Taabu-Munyaho, A., Muhoozi, L., Nakiyende, H., Bassa, S., Muhumuza, E., … Balirwa, J. S. (2012). The past, present and projected scenarios in the Lake Albert and Albert Nile fisheries: Implications for sustainable management. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 13(2), 47–64. NaFIRRI (2014). A report of Catch Assessment Survey of Lake Albert–Albert Nile conducted in November 2013 and July 2014. 20 pp.

35 NaFIRRI (2018). National report of the Frame Survey 2018 on the Uganda side of Lakes Edward and Albert Orach-Meza, F. L., Coenen, E. J., & Reynolds, J. E. (1989). Past and recent trends in the exploitation of the Great Lakes fisheries of Uganda. International Symposium on Resource Use and Conservation of the African Great Lakes, 109–121. Retrieved from http://aquaticcommons.org/20686/1/orah meza.pdf Taabu-Munyaho, A., Mbabazi, D., Nakiyende, H., Bassa, S., Muhumuza, E., Nsega, M., … Balirwa, J. S. (2012). Report of Catch Assessment Survey of Lake Albert-Albert Nile conducted in July 2012. Wandera, S. B. & Balirwa, J. S. (2010). Fish species diversity and relative abundance in Lake Albert-Uganda. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 13, 284-29 Worthington, E. B. (1929). A Report on the Fishing Survey of Lakes Albert and Kyoga: March to July, 1928. Government of Uganda Protectorate by the Crown Agents for the Colonies. 136 pp. Ministère de Pêche et des Ressources Halieutiques, Rapport Pilote d’Evaluation des captures Zone d’intervention du PACP au Madagascar. Projet d’Appuis aux Communautés des Pêcheurs de TOLIARA. 23p. Déc.1995 DE GRAAF G., NGONTHE R., NGBANZA J., NGAH NGAH S., DJIENOUASSI S. et OTETE BIKIMI G., Cours de Formation Internationale en Statistiques des Pêches et Collecte de Données, ISSEA Yaoundé, Cameroun, 174p, Septembre 2015 Ngbelenge M. et Kapagama M., Rapport d’Enquête d’Evaluation des Pertes après Capture du Poisson à Banana et Kiùwabi, Projet : Appui à la Réduction des Pertes Après Captures du Poisson à l’Estuaire du Fleuve Congo dans la Province du Kongo Central/RDC. 68p. Mars 2016. Ngbelenge M., Kapagama M., Mbongombatshi S. et Bungumbetshi G., Rapport d’Enquête d’Evaluation des Pertes après Capture du Poisson à l’Estuaire du Fleuve Congo et à la Coté Atlantique en RDC, Projet : Appui à la Réduction des Pertes Après Captures du Poisson à l’Estuaire du Fleuve Congo dans la Province du Kongo Central. 104p. Juillet 2016. Ministère de l’Agriculture, Rapport de l’Evaluation Approfondie du Système national de statistiques agricoles, Plan Stratégique Pour les Statistiques Agricoles et Rurales de la RDC, 53p. Mai 2018 Membre du Groupe de Travail Régional Nelsap/Leaf II, Rapport Régional de l’Enquête-Cadre 2018 sur les lacs Edouard et Albert, 322p. Mars 2019 W. Ssentongo G, Exploitation des Pêcheries et Gestion Rationnelle des Lacs Edouard et Mobutu/Albert, Projet PPEC, 21p.

36 ANNEXES

F. René et P. Daniel, les Ressources Halieutiques du Lac Mobutu/Albert, CEA/JEFAD, 6p. Annex 1: Standard Operating Procedure for Catch Assessment Surveys for lakes Edward and Albert

Annex 2: Report of Catch Assessment Surveys conducted on the Uganda side of Lakes Edward and Albert in July 2019

Annex 3: Report of Catch Assessment Surveys conducted on the Democratic Republic of Congo side of Lakes Edward and Albert between July and August 2019

Annex 4: List of fish species recorded and local names

REGIONAL TECHNICAL REPORT OF CATCH ASSESSMENT SURVEYS (CAS) OF LAKE EDWARD AND LAKE ALBERT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE NATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE PROMOTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF FISHERIES / SERVICE NATIONAL DE PROMOTION ET DE DÉVELOPPEMENT DE LA PÊCHE (SENADEP) OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (DRC) AND THE NATIONAL FISHERIES RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE (NAFIRRI) OF UGANDA. ONE RIVER ONE PEOPLE ONE VISION

Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program (NELSAP-CU) Kigali City Tower, 5th Floor, P. O. Box 6759, KN 81 Street Kigali, Rwanda Tel: (250) 788 307 334 Twitter: NelsapCu, Facebook: NelsapCu/ Email: [email protected] www.nelsap.nilebasin.org