BIOST REPT. NO. 24

REPORT ON THE ASSESSMENT OF FRAME SURVEY RETURNS AND ON THE CONDUCT OF THE CATCH ASSESSMENT SURVEY REFRESHER COURSE FOR FIELD STAFF ON LAKES EDWARD/GEORGE & KAZINGA CHANNEL.

By

J. WADANYA & E. COENEN

INTRODUCTION :

The first trip to Kichwamba Region (24–28/6/1991) came about as a result of trial compilation and documentation of the Frame survey and CAS returns from this region. The second trip came about as a result of the need to carry out further field operations by the project team to assess the final developments that the project has accomplished in the three years of its existence. First, to deliver equipment and assess the completion of various constructions and repairs in the various field stations as well as offices. Secondly, for the case of Kichwamba, to check on the Frame Survey and missing CAS returns pledged to be made ready by the time of the second visit. CAS trial runs have been going on in Kichwamba region for one year now (May 1990 – April 1991).
The itinerary for the two missions is shown in appendix 1 and 2.

During editing of Frame Survey questionnaires prior to computer entry, it was discovered that procedures had not been correctly followed by field assistants in handling data items that went into the questionnaire. The purpose of a frame survey is, among other things, to give inventory information on a number of data objects. This survey was interpreted and executed in a restrictive sense and ended without capturing global information on all data objects in the region. Furthermore, a number of omissions of questions was detected while a number of entries were simply not the correct ones for individual questions.

Throughout the region, emphasis was placed on only licensed canoes at every fish landing. It became clear that boats which were in a process of transfer within landings of the same water body, as the law permits, had not been intelligently accounted for. In a nutshell, the number of returned boat cards (360) was far below the estimated 409 canoes expected to legally operate in the region. To reach this number the missing forty-nine (49) canoes had to be accounted for (Table 1).

On the side of CAS submissions, returns were no better. In all the twelve months running, which should have produced 156 total returns, only 119 were returned. A total of 37 returns were missing, making a 24% bad returns rate (Table 2).

Whereas the aim of the refresher course for assistants was to bring them into line with the new modifications to the CAS design, interest in this missing aspect of both Frame Survey as well as CAS returns remained important in planning the first trip.

During the second trip, the Chief Technical Advisor was able to corroborate the persistent lack of effective leadership, particularly in supervision of field stations, failing to submit up to-date FS and CAS in the region and not fulfilling deadlines for submission of Performance Related Allowance assessment returns to headquarters.

2. TRIP ONE :

2.1 DISCUSSIONS WITH RFO :

The team for this mission left Entebbe in the late morning hours of 24^th June and arrived in Kichwamba in the evening time. It had been scheduled to arrive and meet the RFO on the same day but this proved impossible. Rather, on the immediate next day, the 25^th, thorough discussions were held with the RFO and his Fisheries Development Officer.

Discussions explored the activities of the project in the region to-date and the problems that make execution difficult. In particular, emphasis was laid on Frame Survey and CAS returns that had just been compiled and fairly analysed at the headquarters. Following a preliminary quality compilation of the completed FS in the region which reflected returns of only official canoes, it was discovered that FS returns were not complete. It became therefore important to ascertain anew the exact number of canoes on the lakes and also to know exactly how many canoes are associated with each landing. The number of boat cards returned did not tally with the number of operating boats on the landings. Thus, a separate form to dig out this information was designed for the RFO to fill in and return it to the headquarters (Appendix 3).

The known summary of fishing canoe distribution on the Kichwamba Lake system stands as follows:

Every landing in the region has an official number of operating canoes but because internal transfers can take place only on the same body of water, the number of canoes for each landing changes time and again.
The problem of poor coverage of FS by field assistants was that not enough attention had been given to the explanation of the forms at the beginning. As a result, a face value interpretation of the questionnaire had been used as the criterion of making entries into the forms. On his part, and throughout the FS exercise, the RFO assumed that the inventory exercise was only about the licensed canoes. This notion further fooled the field assistants to the extent that, for a number of landings, canoes on transfer were not enumerated.
In recent times, a new landing in the region has become operational at Mweya. Mweya Landing, as it has come to be called, was altogether omitted during the frame survey, but is known to have up to ten(10) canoes. A fisheries staff from across at Kazinga Landing will soon be assigned added duties to check on Mweya Fish landing while the general staffing in the region is being reviewed.

On the problem of lack of submission of CAS summary forms to the project headquarters as well as covering reports, the regional office seems to have taken this issue rather lightly. There were no backlog Forms available in the office relating to the late submissions as had been hoped.

Indeed, an attempt to keep up to-date records about project CAS activities started only around December 1990. This means that for all earlier months of CAS execution in the region no copies of raw data as well as final regional summaries were kept (Kajwara, FA i/c statistics; pers. comm.).

To this end, the Regional Fisheries Officer, who is also the supervisor, will make a follow-up of missing forms and let the project know accordingly.

2.2 DISCUSSION WITH THE FISHERIES ASSISTANT I/C STATISTICS :

The discussions held with the assistant in-charge of statistics can be described as having been very useful. Being the officer directly involved in the recompilation of field data, tabulation and making final summaries, he has built up a critical mind in this area.

The following key issues were noted during the discussions :

1. Figures submitted by field staff to the office are less accurate because not all boats are surveyed, except for the licensed ones.
   On the other hand, the level of illegal fishing is increasing all over these lakes. Presently, the Regional Office estimates that for every official active canoe, there are two to three illegal ones (or duplicates carrying the same licence number). These canoes may land at official landing sites though in the majority of cases they merely transfer their catches into the legal canoes for easy disposal and to avoid coming to the fish landings.

2. CAS procedures have not been properly followed, e.g. Value is not converted to thousands-units(000). The FA in office had to spend a lot of time redoing this anew. He tried to visit some landings to explain to them his observations and also to suggest what should be done but few staff at fish landings have paid attention.

3. Fisheries Assistants heading large landings complained about their present rate of PRA payment. They drew comparison between other FAs/AFDOs on smaller landings, whom they alleged to be doing relatively smaller amount of work, yet earn the same amount of money. There is generally a resigned resolve in many of the big fish landings like Hamukungu, Kasenyi, Katunguru (K), Katunguru (B), Kazinga, and Kayanja.

4. Data handling is very poor. The submitted reports carry many errors of omission.

5. Forms are very late in arriving in the office. In all instances, field staff expect the supervisor from the regional office to play his vital role of collecting these forms. When nobody has collected them, the assistants merely wait at their landings for a suitable day when they will manage to take the forms to the regional office.

6. Failure of the regional office to keep in touch with field people has led to late and even total lack of submission of reports. Co-operation between field staff and office staff is early non-existent. Field people are generally hostile to office staff.

7. Quality of data is still under doubt due to an apparent lack of seriousness on the part of field assistants. Up to the present time, assistants at a number of fish landings do not carry weighing scales. No actual weighing is done. Thus, when quality checks are done, using known estimators, the majority of returns show underestimates.

8. Management of submitted statistical forms at the regional office still needs improvement. A kind of organised system was only started by the fisheries assistant in December 1990 to keep records of each copy of the monthly data summary sent to the project headquarters in Entebbe.
   Prior to this, data forms would just lie about in the office. It is not surprising, therefore, that effective follow-up of missing reports is not done since there are no records to enable the office to keep track of such reports.

2.3. THE CATCH ASSESSMENT REFRESHER COURSE :

This course was conducted on the 26th June 1991 at Katunguru, Kasese District. It was attended by thirteen fisheries assistants from all the landings of Lakes Edward, George and the Kazinga Channel. The refresher instruction team was accompanied to Katunguru by the Regional Fisheries Officer, Mr. Ayen; Mr. Tibategyeza, FDO; Mr. Kajwara, FA i/c Statistics. A list of people who were in attendance is shown in Appendix 4.

The course which started at 9'o'clock in the morning was well attended. This was due to an earlier radio announcement which filtered through very well. Incidental to attendance of this course was also Mr. Aryampa, FA, Marketing in Kasese who decided to attend the refresher course on his own initiative.

The refresher course was geared towards consolidating the gains made by the project towards field implementation of the newly proposed catch assessment in light of the modifications made on the new forms.

Emphasis was laid on the fact that the newly revised forms have been rendered much easier to understand and to fill in. The data generated in FORM CAS 1 is purely the sample measurement. This will greatly eliminate carry over calculations and attendant errors which can be introduced at every stage. FORM Cas 2 merely abstracts daily sample totals from FORM CAS 1 and in addition calculates the overall species totals of the sample day. The most rigorous of the calculations will be left to the computer program.

The fact that field staff will now have reduced workload at their landings should now mean quick return of completed forms to their regional stations. This will ensure quick transmission of the CAS 2 summary forms to project headquarters at the beginning of the new month to commence computer data entry.

On the other hand, the mission's other objective was to assess the validity of the data about frame survey which had been concluded in the region and also discuss issues relating to the use of illegal canoes and document the major constraints of catch/ effort data collection.

During discussions with field assistants, it became clear that a number of assistants were hesitant to reveal the actual number of illegal canoes at their fish landings. Few who volunteered to do so only gave partial information. The Kichwamba office is, however, aware that presently every landing has a number of illegal canoes whether with the blessing of field staff or not. It is generally believed in the region that for every single licensed canoe operating, there is a maximum of three illegal duplicates to it. Thus for the 409 canoes officially said to be in the region, the estimated number of total canoes may be about 1200–1600.

All catch from illegal canoes is never accounted for in the estimates from the fish landings by the field assistants. However, the regional office thinks that with the present level of illegalities on the water systems, a factor of 15% should be applied to raise the catch figures of these lakes. It is this figure which they have been applying to estimate monthly catches in the region. It is not clear how this sweeping percentage is arrived at, since in a number of instances the regional office conducts periodic patrols and destroys a number of illegal canoes (at least temporarily). What is basically clear is that the sizes of illegal boats is so small and cheap to make. This makes the problem of law enforcement very difficult as any broken boat can be replaced in a matter of hours or just a day.

On the side of frame survey results, the present discrepancies arose simply because the field officers were not properly briefed on the procedure of filling in the forms. A preliminary Frame survey questionnaire had been tried out here on a few landings in the formative stage of the project. However, the interviews were held with the head fishermen of every landing (Nyeko, 1989). The failure to present the true picture of FS in the region may have emanated from the fact that assistants did not have basic information about the FS questionnaire they eventually used. Thus field officers made a face value interpretation of the forms and filled them in accordingly. All landings completely avoided the illegal canoes and others failed to take into account the transfer canoes which were on their landings at the time of the frame survey. Though the entries on individual boat cards were based on the number of licensed canoes at the landing, the latter oversight made the number of total canoes returned to the headquarters less than the official figure in the region.

The prevailing situation in FS returns is well demonstrated by the example of Katwe fish landing. In the formative stage of the project, a total of 112 licensed canoes were operating here (Wadanya, 1989). However, during the final FS, only eighty (80) canoes are presented. The other thirty-two (32) canoes which are in Katwe on transfer from other landings of Lake Edward were ignored.
Based on these anomalies, the meeting proposed that perhaps the frame survey could be repeated in the region if this would give a better picture of the fisheries in the region.
However, in the meantime, while awaiting a decision to be made on this, a format to ascertain the total number of canoes on every landing has been given to the RFO for cross checking and is keenly awaited at the headquarters.

2.4 PROBLEMS FACED BY STAFF IN DATA COLLECTION :

1. There is general accord among the field staff that their morale for work is running low every other day due to delayed payment of PRA by the RFO who didn't submit his PRA assessment reports. The assistants had not received their PRA since March 1991. They were planning to organise, themselves and send a team to the headquarters in order that the situation could be explained to them.

2. The question of supervision by the RFO in the whole region needs a quick solution. Field officers complain that they lie with their forms for quite a long time before these can be taken to the regional office. There does not seem to exist a suitable system of data flow from all fish landings to the regional office. Fish landings that are far away like Rwenshama have experienced the greatest difficulty in bringing their forms to the regional office. It needs at least two days to be away from the station just to bring forms up to Kichwamba Office. However, claims for such nights are not paid and officers who have tried to do this have quickly become discouraged. In this regard field officers proposed that the office of the RFO puts into place a mechanism of using either the boat or the motor cycle to collect forms at the earliest possible time as this would alleviate their plight in regard to early payment of their PRA. It is indeed the task of the RFO and his staff to visit at least once a month all of the (only) 13 landings.

3. Since the start of this controlled fishery in the 1950s, these lakes are facing illegal fishing and this will continue to interfere with data collection. The fishermen who own illegal gear as well as illegal canoes continue to use them to fish. However, on returning to the landing, the fish is either piled in the legal boats and disposed of at the landing or the illegal catch is simply disposed of away from the landing without declaring it for statistical verification.

2.5. VISITS TO LANDINGS :

Following the end of the course, a trip was made to Kahendero and Hamukungu landings as a follow-up to what had been grasped during the course. The team arrived at Kahendero about eleven o'clock and saw the last activities. Examination of the assistant's records showed neat entries in CAS Form 1. The exercise had been well understood.

At Hamukungu, where he team arrived about 3 p.m., all activity had already ended. The assistant's records for the day had been well done. According to him, CAS Form 1 is very easy to fill and presents no problems.

2.6. OTHER PROJECT RELATED WORK IN THE REGION :

Plans are under-way to erect a uniport and a weighing shed at Katwe Landing. The rest of the other uniports are still lying in the office stores awaiting transport to Bwera and Kasese markets. Renovation works on the office block has progressed tremendously: the internal of the offices has been completed. On the outside, only one side remains to be completed. However, before this can be done, the wall needs to be scraped before renovation can be done. This will need slightly more money to meet the extra costs.

2.7 STAFF TRANSFER FROM KICHWAMBA :

Field staff supposed to have transferred out of the region are still there, basically because of the inability of the Fisheries. Department Headquarters to send suitable transport to collect them and their families. From the region, one staff is supposed to move to Tororo, two to Jinja and three to Sesse Islands.

3. THE SECOND TRIP :

The second trip was essentially a field operations trip aimed at:

1. Delivery of some field equipment:
2. Evaluating the progress of construction and repairs activities in Masaka and Kichwamba project zones.
3. Checking on FS and CAS activities in the regions.

3.1 DISCUSSIONS AT MASAKA REGIONAL FISHERIES OFFICE; DELIVERY OF EQUIPMENT AND INSPECTION OF RENOVATION/CONSTRUCTION WORKS

The team departed from Entebbe on Wednesday 31^st August at 1:15 p.m. We arrived in Masaka, the first stop-over at 3:30 p.m. The team met the Regional Fisheries Officer and held discussions on problems, progress and developments concerning project activities in the region. A list of people met at the station appears in Appendix 5.

The team also delivered to the region, a platform weighing scale and a uniport. The former is to be transported to Bukakata landing on Victoria mainland where a weighing shed is being constructed to house it. The latter was earmarked to be built at Zinga Landing on Masaka mainland.
While here, the team observed that renovation works had gone according to schedule with the offices in the final stage of painting. In addition, two office tables, one drawer and a set of chairs had been purchased.

3.2 CATCH ASSESSMENT (CAS) IN MASAKA REGION :

The team was also able to examine some of the catch assessment returns from the field. It was discovered that the catch assessment form for the month of June had not been properly done. The problem lay in failure by field assistants and the RFO to interpret raising factor one (RF1) stipulated on summary form 2. For all erroneous entries on CAS Form 2, RF1 which was not supposed to be calculated, had been calculated or the wrong entries had been made.
According to the RFO, this was simply an error of commission which was reflected in a number of reports for the month of June. This was so due to the insufficient explanation given about some items in the catch assessment survey sheets during the refresher course which preceded the CAS.
There is no synchronised handing in of forms to the office by the field staff. Each chooses to come to office at a time of his own choosing.
It was explained to the RFO that in future, the office should visit landings and explain the CAS forms in detail and at the end of the month when field assistants return forms to the office, they must be edited and errors identified. The time limit for handing in of forms needs to be fixed to a specified period to allow the office to do editing and correction.
The RFO finally requested the project to avail the region with more life jackets in addition to the three that were supplied during the Frame Survey.

3.3 KICHWAMBA JOURNEY :

The team left Masaka on the following day at 9 o'clock for Kichwamba and reached the office in the afternoon.
The RFO had left the station and gone to inspect construction works of the uniport at Kasese fish market. The team decided to postpone work at the office and instead wait for the the RFO to return to office. In the meantime, it was decided to transport the platform weighing scale to Katwe fish Landing and also inspect the site where the uniport to house it is being constructed. The team was accompanied to Katwe by Mr. Tibategyeza, FDO. At Katwe the team met the field assistants, who together with the contractor, conducted us around the the site and showed us the progress so far achieved in construction works. Persons met during this trip also appear in Appendix 5.

The uniport to house the scale had already been erected although at a distance from the original weighing shed. Earlier in time, it had been agreed that the uniport would be built very near this old weighing shed built here by the fisheries department.

The contractor contended that the change from the original plans was because at Katwe, during seasons of peak catches, the population of fishmongers increases, and as such, congestion normally occurs around the shed. It was only better not to make an already bad situation worse by again erecting a uniport too near this shed. Increased congestion around the shed would instead inconvenience the statistical data collection at the landing.
The team suggested to the contractor to erect a concrete slab right outside the uniport where the scale will now be put every other sampling day. Substratum sampling in this region is done every second day. The placing of the scale so near the uniport will therefore save on labour.

3.4 VISIT TO BWERA :

The team managed to visit Bwera town where another uniport is supposed to be built for purposes of weighing fish going to the market. The team inspected the site where the uniport will be built. This site is very close to the main road entering Bwera Town. A load of sand was already at the site. However, the uniport panels that had been taken to the site did not match. Twelve triangular roof panels were there picked up and were to be swapped with those already delivered to Mpigi District. On our way back, these were delivered to Mpigi awaiting for the RFO Entebbe who takes this region to sort them out.

The Bwera site was provided by the town council but being located in a spot so near the main road, it will need to erect culverts across the drainage channel in order for vehicles carrying fish to cross over and have their fish weighed.

Upon departure from Bwera, the team returned to Kichwamba office to meet and discuss with the RFO issues on construction/repair works as well as catch assessment and earlier frame survey returns. The repair work on the office was almost complete. The behind wall had the old coat scraped and a new coat of paint applied.
The RFO reported that he had resolved to have the frame survey redone in his region and to bring the results to headquarters very soon. Again the region was not being effectively supervised as some landings were very distant.

3.5 OTHER ISSUES IN THE REGION :

1. Mweya Landing on the Kazinga Channel has now been established to be using only five (5) and not ten (10) as earlier reported during the first trip. Although they have demarcated for themselves a 250 metre exclusive fishing zone in the channel, this is understood to be illegal as it contravenes the present fishing regulations of the channel. More consultation with the chief park warden will still be needed in order to find a lasting solution to the problem.

2. At the time of our visit, the project motor cycle had had an accident and was lying in the garage at the office.

3. On the day of our arrival, we learnt that thee RFO was not in office, because his vehicle had been taken away from him by the military while in Kasese town. The vehicle had not been returned by the time we left to return to Entebbe.

4. DISCUSSION :

The conduct of the refresher course during the first trip was successful. After the course, a follow-up visit to some landings was done. The assistants who were visited at their landings were of one accord that the introduced CAS Form 1 had reduced their workload. It was, overall, easy to understand and therefore to handle.

There still exist many problems both administrative and logistical which will have to be addressed if Catch Assessment in the region is to succeed. In particular, the problem of early payment of PRA was emphasised in addition to finding a lasting solution to early collection of ready forms from the assistants at the end of every month.

In his operational visits to the project regions (Coenen, 1991), and while in Kichwamba, emphasis was laid on the need to hold regular staff meetings and consolidate timely submission of CAS FORMS to the headquarters. These meetings would provide forum to exchange vital information in a complex fishery, particularly in management and monitoring.

CAS will continue to pose a problem in the region until suitable management or socio-economic alternatives are identified and put in place. At present, the population on every landing has increased beyond the carrying capacity of the place. This is so in spite of the restricted fishing on these lakes. Hence the difficulty of trying to enforce management measures in an environment of life and death for the majority of the population.

The present computer program, Ugastat, for analysis of catch data, when finalised, should be able to analyse catch data, incorporating illegal canoe catches on the lakes in the overall estimates. To this end, an illegal activity raising factor will need to be used. The truth is that the total number of illegal boats will never be known. We can only make educated guesses about the number.

During the second trip, a number of issues raised during the first trip were discussed at length with the RFO. It was emphasised to the RFO that it was his duty to supervise the thirteen landings under his administration during the course of the month; to write comprehensive monthly reports to headquarters and to assess the staff performance accordingly. The question of field staff failing to receive their PRA was due to his inconsistent methods of work and he would therefore have to bear the responsibility.

On the question of the in-conclusive FS in the region, the RFO pledged to execute the survey in the region once again. The results would then be communicated to headquarters immediately in order to be entered in the computer. However, at the time of the final compilation of this report, nothing has materialised from the region. This has remained so despite many reminders.

With the exception of the uniport at Bwera which may not be completed on time, all construction work is nearing completion.

From the foregoing explanation about lack of information for the FS, it is proposed that this survey be done anew, possibly with supervision from the headquarters. This data is required to correct the entries now in the computer.

Literature cited :

1. Nyeko, D., 1989 - Report on the Tour of South-western Lakes: George and Edward Landings. BIOSTAT Field Reports No. 7, FISHIN Notes and Records. Fisheries Statistics and Information Systems, FAO/UNDP Project UGA/87/007.

2. Wadanya, L.D.J., 1989 - Report on the Tour of Kichwamba Region: the area of lakes George - Edward and Kazinga Channel Complex. BIOSTAT Field Reports No. 2, FISHIN Notes and Records. Fisheries Statistics and Information Systems, FAO/UNDP Project UGA/87/007.

3. Coenen, E., 1991 - Operational visit to the Project Fisheries Regions of Lakes Edward/George and Albert (14 – 19 Jan. 1991). Account of activities and Observations. BIOSTAT Field Reports No. 17, FISHIN notes and Records. Fisheries Statistics and Information Systems, FAO/UNDP Project UGA/87/007.

Appendix 1 : FIRST TRIP'S ITINERARY TO KICHWAMBA

Appendix 2 : SECOND TRIP'S ITINERARY TO KICHWAMBA

30-7-91 -   Entebbe to Masaka inspect renovation works and regional office; deposit platform scale for Bukakata.

31-7-91 -   Depart to Kichwamba. Hold discussions with RFO and inspect renovation works.

1-8-91   -   Visit field sites at Katwe landing and Bwera fish market and inspect sites for weighing sheds and construction works.

2-8-91   -   Return to Entebbe

Appendix 3 : FORM USED TO LIST ACTUAL CANOE NUMBER IN KICHWANBA REGION.

Appendix 4 : ATTENDANCE LIST FOR THE CAS REFRESHER WORKSHOP AT KATUNGURU.

APPENDIX 5 : LIST OF PERSONS MET ON SECOND TRIP

MASAKA :

KICHWAMBA :

Table 1 : SHORTAGE IN FRAME SURVEY RETURNS IN KICHWAMBA REGION

* 4+2 extra boatcards refers to extra added boat cards outside those declared on the landing information card.
** Missing cards were allegedly lost after they had already been submitted to RFOs office in Kichwamba.
*** There is a total of up to ten (10) canoes at Mweya Safari Lodge which is not accounted for in these survey returns.

Table 2 CAS RETURNS FROM KICHWAMBA REGION EVALUATION & ASSESSMENT