There were five types of Fisheries Economic Units (FEU's) active on Lake Kivu during June - August 1991 i.e. FEU's-trimarans and four types of FEU's traditional as follows: (1) FEU-trimaran; (2) FEU-beach seine; (3) FEU-gill net; (4) FEU-pole and/or hand line; (5) FEU-bottom longline (Table 2 and Figure 2). The following sections provide details on each of them.
Table 2: Number and type of FEU's by stratum.
| Stratum | TM | BS | GN | HL | BL | Oth | Total |
I | 32 | 59 | 56 | 124 | 6 | 3 | 280 |
II | 44 | 102 | 19 | 51 | 3 | 0 | 219 |
III | 94 | 277 | 62 | 35 | 12 | 2 | 482 |
| Subtotal | 170 | 438 | 137 | 210 | 21 | 5 | 981 |
IV | 33 | 276 | 32 | 76 | 1 | 0 | 418 |
V | 27 | 406 | 10 | 84 | 2 | 27 | 556 |
VI | 5 | 264 | 3 | 38 | 2 | 3 | 315 |
VII | 4 | 35 | 31 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 86 |
| Subtotal | 69 | 981 | 76 | 202 | 9 | 38 | 1375 |
Total | 239 | 1419 | 213 | 412 | 30 | 43 | 2356 |
Figure 2: Relative distribution of gear per stratum.
The FEU's-trimarans are not motorized; each of them is composed as follows: (1) crew: 10–12 fishermen; (2) hull composed of three canoes (average length: 8.3 m; average width: 1.4 m and average height: 0.55 m) attached together by two eucalyptus poles which maintain the canoes some 4 m apart ; (3) hauling device composed of eight 6 m long eucalyptus poles, six of which are located on each end of each canoe plus two located on the middle of two external canoes; one block is attached at the end of each pole for manoeuvreing of the lift net's hauling lines; (4) lift net of approximately 400 m2 opening and 74 m depth made of 12 mm mesh size stretched in its code end; (5) two or more kerosene pressure lamps of different makes located on the middle canoe. Appendix 2 details a typical hull and lift net while Appendix 3 details the different types of kerosene pressure lamps. The number and distribution of FEU's - trimarans, by stratum, is now presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3: FEU's trimarans: number and distribution by stratum.
Some FEU's - trimarans use an auxiliary skiff which carries extra lamps; there are 102 FEU's - trimarans, i.e. 43% of total, which use them. Their percentage, by stratum is given, in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Trimarans using auxiliary skiffs (in % by stratum)
As apparent from Appendix 3 there are several types of kerosene pressure lamps in use on Lake Kivu. Generally, on lake's northern portion the lamps Columbus are used, usually two by each trimaran. The lamps Drum and Coleman are generally used by the FEU's - trimarans on the lake's southern portion. The number and configuration used by FEU's - trimarans varies greatly as apparent in Figure 5.
Figure 5: FEU' - trimarans: number and types of lamps
Table 3: Distribution of lamps: numbers, types and ownership
| Stratum | Columbus | Drum | Coleman | ||||||
| Lamps | Owners | Lamps/owner | Lamps | Owners | Lamps/owner | Lamps | Owners | Lamps/owner | |
| I | 58 | 30 | 1.9 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 4 |
| II | 68 | 37 | 1.8 | 7 | 5 | 1.4 | 33 | 9 | 3.7 |
| III | 11 | 5 | 2.2 | 88 | 65 | 1.4 | 364 | 87 | 4.2 |
| IV | 12 | 5 | 2.4 | 46 | 27 | 1.7 | 156 | 28 | 5.6 |
| V | 0 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 27 | 1.5 | 89 | 21 | 4.2 |
| VI | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 1.2 | 30 | 4 | 7.5 |
| VII | 5 | 3 | 1.7 | 3 | 2 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 145 | 80 | 1.8 | 192 | 133 | 1.4 | 680 | 151 | 4.5 |
Extrapolated by the percentage of respondents
Fishing is done exclusively at night; once the fishing ground is selected the net is lowered and lamps are lighted at dusk for several hours to concentrate the fish. The net is lifted 3–6 times during night.
There has been a spectacular growth of the number of FEU's - trimarans on Lake Kivu. The first known unit was noted in 1976 (Ruremesha, pers. comm.); it was a catamaran. Subsequent efforts of particularly the UNDP/FAO Fisheries Development Project based in Gisenyi have gradually increased the number of these units, all catamarans, on Rwanda's lake side. This was followed by a similar increase of units on Zaire's lake side; most of these units were transferred directly from the Uvira region of Lake Tanganyika. Eventually all these FEU's - catamarans were transferred in late 1980's to FEU's - trimarans by simply adding the third canoe and enlarging the net from approximately 180 m2 to 400 m2 opening. The evolution of these units has been closely monitored over the years and is presented in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Lake Kivu: evolution of lift net fleet
As already stated the fishing takes place at night. Generally, the units fish about 20–22 days a month. The number of fishing trips is determined principally by the moon cycle; during full moon nights the light intensity decreases substantially the efficiency of the kerosene pressure lamps, making the fishing uneconomical. Consequently, most trimarans do not fish during the full moon period. In addition there are two main factors affecting the fishing effort; these are the weather conditions (rain and wave agitation) and availability of spare parts and/or kerosene, particularly on Zaire's lake portion. Our data indicate that 90% of all FEU's - trimarans make more than 15 fishing trips per month.
The total catch of L. miodon and Haplochromis spp. in lake Kivu by FEU's - trimarans was estimated on the basis of a catch assessment survey - KIVUSTAT (Lamboeuf, 1991). A large number of FEU's are monitored on daily basis at 12 landing sites around the lake. On the basis of the sampled units a catch per unit effort is calculated and used as a basis to estimate the lake's total production. In 1990, the total production of L. miodon was estimated at 2,660 tons and that of Haplochromis spp. at 1,133 tons distributed by stratum as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Production in 1990 (in tons by stratum)
While there are some differences, the cost of each FEU - trimaran, fully equipped, is about the same i.e. 370,000 FRW 1 per FEU: three canoes cost approximately 45,000 FRW, cost of hauling equipment is about 25,000 FRW and the fishing gear, both the lift net and lamps, approximately 300,000 FRW. Consequently, it is estimated that the investment value of 239 FEU's - trimarans is 88,430,000 FRW or about US$ 700,000.
1) all values are expressed in FRW (1 US$ = 125 FRW as of 01.10.1991)
A number of FEU's - trimarans has been monitored over the last two years, carefully noting their production, fixed and variable costs (Farhani, 1990; Diquelou and Farhani, 1990). A cost/benefit analysis of a ‘typical’ FEU - trimaran is now presented in Table 4.
Table 4: FEU - trimaran: cost/benefit analysis.
| DESIGNATION | QUANTITY IN KG | NUMBER | AMOUNT IN FRW |
| (I): INVESTMENT COSTS | |||
| (a): HULL | 45 000 | ||
| (b): EQUIPMENT | 25 000 | ||
| (c): (a)+(b) | 70 000 | ||
| (d): FISHING GEAR | 300 000 | ||
| (e): (c)+(d) | 370 000 | ||
| (II): ANNUAL FIXED COSTS | |||
| (a): DEPRECIATION | 78 000 | ||
| (b): INSURANCE | 0 | ||
| (c): MAINTENANCE | 0 | ||
| (d): CREW BASE SALARY | 120 000 | ||
| (e): MANAGEMENT COSTS | 0 | ||
| (f): TOTAL FIXED COSTS | 198 000 | ||
| (III): ANNUAL VARIABLE COST | |||
| (a): FUEL | |||
PETROL | 0 | ||
KEROSENE | 270 000 | ||
FUEL OIL | 0 | ||
| (b): LUBRICANTS | 0 | ||
| (c): NET REPAIRS | 48 000 | ||
| (d): HULL REPAIRS | 23 000 | ||
| (e): ENGINE REPAIRS | 0 | ||
| (f): MISCELLANEOUS COSTS | 25 200 | ||
| (g): CREW INCENTIVE | 21 000 | ||
| (h): TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS | 387 200 | ||
| (IV): TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS | 585 200 | ||
| (V): ANNUAL RETURN | |||
| (a): AVERAGE CATCH PER TRIP | 45 | ||
| (b): AVER.NUMBER OF TRIPS/YEAR | 250 | ||
| (c): AVERAGE ANNUAL CATCH | 11250 | 0 | |
| (d): AVERAGE UNIT COSTS | 70 | ||
| (e): TOTAL ANNUAL RETURN | 787 500 | ||
| (VI): NET PROFIT | 202 300 | ||
| (VII): ACCOUNTING RATE OF RETURN | 0,55 |
The FEU - beach seine is composed as follows: (1) crew (two persons, one of which is on shore and the other on canoe); (2) one eucalyptus dugout canoe (2 to 3.5 m long); (3) a generally small sized beach seine which is cut out of a single net webbing without bag and of varied mesh sizes but generally between 15 and 20 mm stretched; and (4) some 70 to 100 m long hauling rope usually made of plaited vegetal. Appendix 4 details a typical FEU - beach seine. The number and distribution of FEU's - beach seines, by stratum, is now presented in Figure 8.
Figure 8: FEU's - beach seines: number and distribution by stratum.
It should be noted that the majority of beach seines used on Lake Kivu are not typical beach seines; they are short, the netting part is equivalent to the bag of a typical beach seine and thus more than 60% being less than 6 m long as apparent in Figure 9.
Figure 9: Length of beach seines (in m)
Fishing is done during the day; the canoe is paddle propelled by one person. Starting from the shore the net is set in semi-circle and its ends are pulled by ropes from the shore.
The number of fishing trips per month per FEU - beach seine is estimated at 15 and the average catch of almost exclusively Haplochromis spp. per fishing trip per unit at 8.5 kg i.e. approximately 2,170 tons annually. The estimated annual production, by stratum, is now presented in Figure 10.
Figure 10: FEU's - beach seines: estimated annual production (in tons by stratum).
The average cost of a typical FEU - beach seine is approximately 16,000 FRW: dugout canoe costs approximately 8,000 FRW and the fishing gear, the net and ropes, about the same i.e. 8,000 FRW. Consequently it is estimated that the investment value of 1,419 FEU's - beach seines is approximately 22,700,000 FRW or about US$ 182,000.
Cost/benefit analysis of a typical FEU - beach seine has been carried out and is now presented in Table 5.
Table 5: FEU - beach seine: cost/benefit analysis.
| DESIGNATION | QUANTITY IN KG | NUMBER | AMOUNT IN FRW |
| (I): INVESTMENT COSTS | |||
| (a): HULL | 8 000 | ||
| (b): EQUIPMENT | 0 | ||
| (c): (a)+(b) | 8 000 | ||
| (d): FISHING GEAR | 8 000 | ||
| (e): (c)+(d) | 16 000 | ||
| (II): ANNUAL FIXED COSTS | |||
| (a): DEPRECIATION | 6 000 | ||
| (b): INSURANCE | 0 | ||
| (c): MAINTENANCE | 0 | ||
| (d): CREW BASE SALARY | 30 000 | ||
| (e): MANAGEMENT COSTS | 0 | ||
| (f): TOTAL FIXED COSTS | 36 000 | ||
| (III): ANNUAL VARIABLE COSTS | |||
| (a): FUEL | |||
PETROL | 0 | ||
KEROSENE | 0 | ||
FUEL OIL | 0 | ||
| (b): LUBRICANTS | 0 | ||
| (c): NET REPAIRS | 4 575 | ||
| (d): HULL REPAIRS | 500 | ||
| (e): ENGINE REPAIRS | 0 | ||
| (f): MISCELLANEOUS COSTS | 2 100 | ||
| (g): CREW INCENTIVE | 21 000 | ||
| (h): TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS | 28 175 | ||
| (IV): TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS | 64 175 | ||
| (V): ANNUAL RETURN | |||
| (a): AVERAGE CATCH PER TRIP | 8,5 | ||
| (b): AVER.NUMBER OF TRIPS/YEAR | 180 | ||
| (c): AVERAGE ANNUAL CATCH | 1530 | 0 | |
| (d): AVERAGE UNIT COSTS | 70 | ||
| (e): TOTAL ANNUAL RETURN | 107 100 | ||
| (VI): NET PROFIT | 42 925 | ||
| (VII): ACCOUNTING RATE OF RETURN | 2,68 |
The FEU - gill net is composed as follows: (1) crew (one person); (2) one eucalyptus dugout canoe (2 to 3 m long); and (3) gill net varying in length between 50 and 300 m and up to 12 m deep (stretched mesh); it is a multifilament 210/2 and of usually 100 mm stretch size. Appendices 5 and 6 detail a typical FEU - gill net. The number and distribution of FEU's - gill nets, by stratum, is now presented in Figure 11.
Figure 11: FEU's - gill nets: number and distribution by stratum.
Fishing is done both during day and night; the canoe is paddle propelled by one person. Once the fishing area is selected the net is set and generally lifted once a day. Occasionally, and particularly when fishing near shore, a bamboo screen is used to frighten the fish into the gill net. In all cases Tilapia spp. is the target species. The average length of gill nets used on Lake Kivu is 137 m. Figure 12 provides further data.
Figure 12: Length of gill nets (in m).
The number of fishing trips per month per FEU - gill net is estimated at 20 and the average catch per fishing trip per unit at 11 kg i.e. some 560 tons annually. The estimated annual production, by stratum, is now presented in Figure 13.
Figure 13: FEU's - gill nets: estimated annual production (in tons by stratum).
The average cost of a typical FEU - gill net is approximately 44,000 FRW: dugout canoe costs approximately 4,000 FRW, installations some 5,000 FRW and the fishing gear, the net and ropes, about 35,000 FRW. Consequently, it is estimated that the investment value of 213 FEU's - gill nets is approximately 9,370,000 FRW or about US$ 75,000.
Cost/benefit analysis of a typical FEU - gill net has been carried out and is now presented in Table 6.
Table 6: FEU - gill net: cost/benefit analysis
| DESIGNATION | QUANTITY IN KG | NUMBER | AMOUNT IN FRW |
| (I): INVESTMENT COSTS | |||
| (a): HULL | 4 000 | ||
| (b): EQUIPMENT | 5 000 | ||
| (c): (a)+(b) | 9 000 | ||
| (d): FISHING GEAR | 35 000 | ||
| (e): (c)+(d) | 44 000 | ||
| (II): ANNUAL FIXED COSTS | |||
| (a): DEPRECIATION | 9 100 | ||
| (b): INSURANCE | 0 | ||
| (c): MAINTENANCE | 0 | ||
| (d): CREW BASE SALARY | 70 000 | ||
| (e): MANAGEMENT COSTS | 0 | ||
| (f): TOTAL FIXED COSTS | 79 100 | ||
| (III): ANNUAL VARIABLE COSTS | |||
| (a): FUEL | |||
PETROL | 0 | ||
KEROSENE | 7 800 | ||
FUEL OIL | 0 | ||
| (b): LUBRICANTS | 0 | ||
| (c): NET REPAIRS | 47 600 | ||
| (d): HULL REPAIRS | 250 | ||
| (e): ENGINE REPAIRS | 0 | ||
| (f): MISCELLANEOUS COSTS | 2 550 | ||
| (g): CREW INCENTIVE | 24 000 | ||
| (h): TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS | 82 200 | ||
| (IV): TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS | 161 300 | ||
| (V): ANNUAL RETURN | |||
| (a): AVERAGE CATCH PER TRIP | 11 | ||
| (b): AVER.NUMBER OF TRIPS/YEA | 240 | ||
| (c): AVERAGE ANNUAL CATCH | 2640 | 0 | |
| (d): AVERAGE UNIT COSTS | 100 | ||
| (e): TOTAL ANNUAL RETURN | 264 000 | ||
| (VI): NET PROFIT | 102 700 | ||
| (VII): ACCOUNTING RATE OF RETURN | 2,33 |
The FEU - pole and/or hand line is composed as follows: (1) crew (one person); (2) one eucalyptus dugout canoe (1.5 to 3 m long); and (3) 4–6 bamboo poles of 2 to 3 m long with some 5–6 m monofilament line with one end attached to each pole while to the other a locally made small size steel hook is attached.
The fishing is done only during the day and particularly in the bay of Gisenyi's brewery from which a considerable quantities of brewer's spent grain is being discharged. There a large group of fishermen operates together, throwing additional amounts of brewer's spent grain into water to increase the fish density in the area. Pole and line is then employed, pulled briskly in frequent intervals. Appendix 7 details a typical FEU - pole line.
As apparent from Table 2 there are 124 FEU's - pole line using the above described technique in stratum I, i.e. in the bay situated next to Gisenyi's brewery. Other FEU's in this category are FEU's - hand lines and are located in other strata. All of these are using a different fishing technique with Clarias spp. being the target species. Two to three hand lines with baited hooks per fisherman are used and the fishing is done exclusively during the day.
The number and distribution of FEU's - pole and hand lines, by stratum, is now presented in Figure 14.
Figure 14: FEU's - pole and/or hand lines: number and distribution by stratum.
The number of fishing trips per month per FEU - pole and hand line is estimated at 15 and the average catch per fishing trip per unit at 6 kg, i.e. approximately 445 tons annually. The estimated annual production, by stratum, is now presented in Figure 15.
Figure 15: FEU's pole and/or hand lines: estimated annual production (in tons by stratum).
The average cost of a typical FEU - pole and/or hand line is approximately 8,600 FRW: dugout canoe costs approximately 5,000 FRW, installations some 2,000 FRW and the fishing gear about 1,600 FRW. Consequently, it is estimated that the investment value of 412 FEU's - pole and/or hand lines is approximately 3,540,000 FRW or about US$ 28,000.
Cost/benefit analysis of a typical FEU - pole and/or hand line has been carried out and is now presented in Table 7.
Table 7: FEU - pole and/or hand line: cost/benefit analysis.
| DESIGNATION | QUANTITY IN KG | NUMBER | AMOUNT IN FRW |
| (I): INVESTMENT COSTS | |||
| (a): HULL | 5 000 | ||
| (b): EQUIPMENT | 2 000 | ||
| (c): (a)+(b) | 7 000 | ||
| (d): FISHING GEAR | 1 600 | ||
| (e): (c)+(d) | 8 600 | ||
| (II): ANNUAL FIXED COSTS | |||
| (a): DEPRECIATION | 1 250 | ||
| (b): INSURANCE | 0 | ||
| (c): MAINTENANCE | 0 | ||
| (d): CREW BASE SALARY | 0 | ||
| (e): MANAGEMENT COSTS | 0 | ||
| (f): TOTAL FIXED COSTS | 1 250 | ||
| (III): ANNUAL VARIABLE COSTS | |||
| (a): FUEL | |||
PETROL | 0 | ||
KEROSENE | 0 | ||
FUEL OIL | 0 | ||
| (b): LUBRICANTS | 0 | ||
| (c): NET REPAIRS | 0 | ||
| (d): HULL REPAIRS | 0 | ||
| (e): ENGINE REPAIRS | 0 | ||
| (f): MISCELLANEOUS COSTS | 1 200 | ||
| (g): CREW INCENTIVE | 0 | ||
| (h): TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS | 1 200 | ||
| (IV): TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS | 2 450 | ||
| (V): ANNUAL RETURN | |||
| (a): AVERAGE CATCH PER TRIP | 6 | ||
| (b): AVER.NUMBER OF TRIPS/YEAR | 180 | ||
| (c): AVERAGE ANNUAL CATCH | 1080 | 0 | |
| (d): AVERAGE UNIT COSTS | 100 | ||
| (e): TOTAL ANNUAL RETURN | 108 000 | ||
| (VI): NET PROFIT | 105 550 | ||
| (VII): ACCOUNTING RATE OF RETURN | 12,27 |
The FEU - bottom long line is composed as follows: (1) crew (one person); (2) one eucalyptus dugout canoe (2 to 3.5 m long); and (3) bottom long line usually 25 m long equipped with 10 to 15 hooks. Appendix 8 details a typical FEU - bottom long line. The number and distribution of FEU's - bottom long lines, by stratum, is now presented in Figure 16.
Figure 16: FEU's - bottom longline: number and distribution by stratum.
The average length of bottom longlines used on Lake Kivu is 242 m. Further details are now presented in Figure 17.
Figure 17: Length of bottom longlines (in m).
Fishing is done exclusively during the night. For bait either the worms or Haplochromis spp. are used. The bottom long lines are generally lifted twice during 24 hour period, early morning and at dusk.
The number of fishing trips per month per FEU - bottom longline is estimated at 8 and the average catch per fishing trip per unit at 10 kg i.e. 30 tons annually. The estimated annual production, by stratum, is now presented in Figure 18.
Figure 18: FEU's bottom lines: estimated annual production (in tons by stratum).
The average cost of a typical FEU - bottom longline is approximately 7, 700 FRW: dugout canoe and installations cost approximately 4,200 FRW and the fishing gear about 3,500 FRW. Consequently, it is estimated that the investment value of 30 FEU's - bottom longlines is approximately 230,000 FRW or about US$ 1,850.
Cost/benefit analysis of a typical FEU - bottom longline has been carried out and is now presented in Table 8.
Table 8: FEU - bottom longline: cost/benefit analysis.
| DESIGNATION | QUANTITY IN KG | NUMBER | AMOUNT IN FRW |
| (I): INVESTMENT COSTS | |||
| (a): HULL | 2 000 | ||
| (b): EQUIPMENT | 2 200 | ||
| (c): (a)+(b) | 4 200 | ||
| (d): FISHING GEAR | 3 500 | ||
| (e): (c)+(d) | 7 700 | ||
| (II): ANNUAL FIXED COSTS | |||
| (a): DEPRECIATION | 6 050 | ||
| (b): INSURANCE | 0 | ||
| (c): MAINTENANCE | 0 | ||
| (d): CREW BASE SALARY | 0 | ||
| (e): MANAGEMENT COSTS | 0 | ||
| (f): TOTAL FIXED COSTS | 6 050 | ||
| (III): ANNUAL VARIABLE COSTS | |||
| (a): FUEL | |||
PETROL | 0 | ||
KEROSENE | 0 | ||
FUEL OIL | 0 | ||
| (b): LUBRICANTS | 0 | ||
| (c): NET REPAIRS | 0 | ||
| (d): HULL REPAIRS | 0 | ||
| (e): ENGINE REPAIRS | 0 | ||
| (f): MISCELLANEOUS COSTS | 100 | ||
| (g): CREW INCENTIVE | 0 | ||
| (h): TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS | 100 | ||
| (IV): TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS | 6 150 | ||
| (V): ANNUAL RETURN | |||
| (a): AVERAGE CATCH PER TRIP | 10 | ||
| (b): AVER.NUMBER OF TRIPS/YEA | 100 | ||
| (c): AVERAGE ANNUAL CATCH | 1000 | 0 | |
| (d): AVERAGE UNIT COSTS | 160 | ||
| (e): TOTAL ANNUAL RETURN | 160 000 | ||
| (VI): NET PROFIT | 153 850 | ||
| (VII): ACCOUNTING RATE OF RETURN | 19,98 |
On the basis of KIVUSTAT, which monitors the daily landings of FEU's - trimarans, the total annual production has been estimated at 3,793 tons of which some 2,660 tons of L. miodon and the rest i.e. 1,133 tons of mainly Haplochromis spp. Further, on the basis of our survey, an average catch and the number of fishing trips per year for each of the remaining FEU's has been determined and which allow for the following extrapolations:
total annual production of FEU's - beach seines, which fish principally Haplochromis spp., could therefore be estimated at 2,170 tons;
total annual production of FEU's - gill nets, whose target species are Tilapias, is estimated at 560 tons;
total annual production of FEU's - pole and/or hand lines is estimated at 445 tons of which some 134 tons of Tilapias and some 311 tons of mainly Clarias spp.; and
total annual production of FEU's - bottom longlines, which fish principally Clarias spp., is estimated at 30 tons.
It must be stressed here that these are indicative estimates only. Nevertheless, it is felt important to provide these estimates as they furnish the first ever indications of the importance of the traditional FEU's.
In conclusion, therefore, it could be stated that the annual production of Lake Kivu artisanal fishery has been estimated at approximately 7,000 tons and it's indicative composition is as follows: 3,303 tons of Haprochromis spp., 2,660 tons of L. miodon, 694 tons of Tilapias and 343 tons of Clarias spp.. The estimated annual production, by stratum, is now presented in Figure 19.
Figure 19: Lake Kivu: estimated annual production (in tons by stratum).
The investment value of each type of FEU has been determined as evident from the previous sections and which thus allows for the following extrapolations:
the cost of a typical FEU - trimaran at 370,000 FRW: there are 170 FEU's - trimarans in Rwanda and 69 in Zaire. Their total investment value is thus 88,430,000 FRW; 62,900,000 FRW in Rwanda and 25,530,000 FRW in Zaire;
the cost of a typical FEU - beach seine at 16,000 FRW: there are 438 FEU's - beach seines in Rwanda and 981 in Zaire. Their total investment value is thus 22,704,000 FRW; 7,008,000 FRW in Rwanda and 15,696,000 FRW in Zaire;
the cost of a typical FEU - gill net at 44,000 FRW: there are 137 FEU's - gill nets in Rwanda and 76 in Zaire. Their total investment value is thus 9,372,000 FRW; 6,028,000 FRW in Rwanda and 3,344,000 FRW in Zaire;
the cost of a typical FEU - pole and/or hand line at 8,600 FRW: there are 210 FEU's - pole and/or hand lines in Rwanda and 202 in Zaire. Their total investment value is thus 3,543,000 FRW; 1,806,000 FRW in Rwanda and 1,737,000 FRW in Zaire; and
the cost of a typical FEU - bottom longline at 7,700 FRW: there are 21 FEU's - bottom longlines in Rwanda and 9 in Zaire. Their total investment value is 231,000 FRW; 162,000 FRW in Rwanda and 69,000 FRW in Zaire.
In conclusion, therefore, the total investment value of the Lake Kivu fishery has been determined at 124,270,000 FRW or about US$ 1 million; 62.7% i.e. 77,900,000 FRW or about US$ 623,000 in Rwanda and 37.3% i.e. 46,370,000 FRW or about US$ 372,000 in Zaire. The investment value of FEU's - trimarans represents 71.1% of the total investment on Lake Kivu. The total investment value of Lake Kivu fishery, by type of FEU and by country, is now presented in Figure 20.
Figure 20: Total investment value by type of FEU and country.
The fish processing on Lake Kivu is simple. On Zaire's lake portion virtually all production is sold fresh. Only the fish not sold the same day is preserved, either by smoking and/or by sun drying; the larger fish specimens i.e. Tilapias and Clarias spp. are first gutted and than either smoked or sun dried. There are similar fish processing techniques used on Rwanda's lake portion. The only difference is the treatment and processing of L. miodon.
While most of the total production of L. miodon is sold and distributed fresh, three other products have been developed by the UNDP/FAO Fisheries Development project (Horn, 1983). Two types of frozen products were developed: (1) whole frozen isambaza - fish is washed, packed into 1 kg plastic bags and frozen; and (2) treated frozen isambaza - fish is gutted, washed, packed into 0.5 kg plastic bags and frozen. The isambaza which is sun dried is either marketed as such or further treated as fish meal. The final product, destined for human consumption, is packed into 100 gr plastic bags (Mahy and Farhani, 1990). Several types of smoked isambaza were also developed (Diakite, 1988) but due to high production costs and relatively short storage live their production have been discontinued.
The fish landed is sold either at three fisheries centers (Gisenyi, Kibuye, Cyangugu) or at ever increasing number of landing sites. In 1990, there were 38 in Rwanda and 32 in Zaire (Figure 21); it was estimated that 82% of the total production is sold at these markets and 18% landed at the three fisheries centers (Farhani, 1991). The fish is sold in fresh state and generally distributed within a relatively small range, equal to more or less one day's walk. The only exception is the distribution by fisheries centres which supply more distant parts of Rwanda, particularly in Kigali, the capital, either directly or through a number of private distributors (Hanek et al., 1990). This sector provides employment to some 3,340 women (Farhani, 1991).
On Zaire's lake portion the fish markets are more developed and well organized. First there exists a committee of artisanal fishermen which coordinates the activities of the fishermen and market women. Further, there are three categories of market women: leading women (= chieftains), wholesale market women and retail market women. The leading woman is an intermediatory between the fishermen and market women; they discuss and eventually agree on sale price of fish case and a measure. The wholesale market women buy the entire fish cases and then sell the fish by measure to the retail market women who in turn retail the fish to the consumers.
Figure 21: Location of markets.
