Fred Mukisa, the Fisheries State Minister has allowed his frustration over chronic under-funding to fisheries sub-sector to impair his objectivity and perception as to how fisheries resources should be managed. Mr. Mukisa is irritated, and rightly so, by a paltry 2bn shilling fisheries budget despite the sub-sector being the second highest income source to the Government. Apparently, he seems to believe that unleashing a tighter central control over fishing licences and other potential money-making ventures will make up for his financial deficits. How absurd!
In his own article “fisheries sector needs vigilantes” (New Vision, August 25, 2008), Fred Mukisa enumerated bizarre measures aimed at re-centralising fisheries management and purging fisheries managers and technical staff whom he accused of “hiding in technicalities to frustrate government.” He threatened to disband local Beach Management Committees because of their alleged collusion in illegal fisheries exploitation and revenue leakages.
Surprisingly, Fred Mukisa is part of the same Government which in May 2004 endorsed the National Fisheries Policy whose strategic objective among others is to deepen decentralisation and community involvement in fisheries management. The policy clearly articulates roles and mandates for different stakeholders (Central Government, Local Governments, private sector, NGOs/CBOs and local communities). By pushing through his bizarre package of fisheries re-centralisation, Fred Mukisa is therefore acting like a chicken which eats her own egg after laying it!
It should be noted that the spirit of decentralised fisheries management as espoused in the 2004 Fisheries Policy was borne out of the sheer failure of the centre to manage fisheries resources as livelihood assets for the rural poor. Decades of central control over fisheries resources which Mukisa is seeking to reintroduce ignominiously failed to arrest fisheries resource degradation. It failed to address spiralling poverty, social inequality and economic marginalisation among the Barias and other local communities directly dependant on fisheries resources. Landing sites at lake fisheries used to be a haven for idlers and petty criminals. The essence of fostering government and local-level partnerships through decentralised fisheries management was therefore to let fishery folks decide how fishery resources would be managed to catalyse local development.
There is not doubt that illegal gears, unregulated fishing, and illicit trade in immature fish are still prominent issues to deal with. However, the solution to overcoming those vices is to strengthen decentralisation through local institutional capacity building. For instance local beach management committees, landing site committees, and other community institutions have not yet flexed their influence over fisheries resource management because they lack skills to do their job.
Government – whether for lack of resources or poor planning – has not provided the required training to make local fisheries institutions effective. Quite often, involvement of NGOs in sustainable fisheries management is not properly coordinated and has consequently remained disjointed and ineffectual. The private sector role remains largely egocentric with little or no provision for corporate social responsibility and fisheries conservation.
Even the fisheries managers and technical staff whom the State Minister is accusing of sabotaging government and failing in their duties are not adequately facilitated with the tools they need to do the job. This notwithstanding, the State Minister is prepared to unleash “a more aggressive (centralised) monitoring, control, and surveillance programme” by invoking the Department of Marine Police to take a lead. One wonders whether this Marine Police department has the capacity to patrol every inch of Uganda’s fishery resource – where Beach Management Committees, Local Governments and other local institutions have allegedly failed to patrol! I wonder why Fred Mukisa can not realise that General Kale Kayihura already has enough problems of “illegal” political rallies, escalating violent crime, etc to deal with!
Robert Chambers of the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex (UK) once wrote that devolution of power and responsibility is fundamentally a painful process of change; painful because those in power do not want to let go! Fred Mukisa might be writhing with pain and hangover of the former central control. However, there is no doubt in my mind that his proposal to recentralise fisheries management is archaic and should be rescinded.
Published on: http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/business/Our_fishing_will_not_get_any_better_with_tighter_controls_70719.shtml
