J3_Baseline Survey on Small Pelagic fishing houshold along the Ghana Coast_.pdf

SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

PROJECT (SFMP)

Report on the Baseline Survey of Small Pelagic Fishing Households along the Ghana Coast

June, 2016

Bureau for Integrated Rural Development College of Agriculture and Natural Resources i

This publication is available electronically on the Coastal Resources Center’s website at http://www.crc.uri.edu/projects_page/ghanasfmp/

For more information on the Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project, contact:

USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project Coastal Resources Center Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island 220 South Ferry Rd.

Narragansett, RI 02882 USA Tel: 401-874-6224 Fax: 401-874-6920 Email: info@crc.uri.edu

Citation: Crawford, B., L. Gonzales, D. Amin, B. Nyari-Hardi, & Y.A. Sarpong. (2016)

Report on the Baseline Survey of Small Pelagic Fishing Households along the Ghana Coast. The USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP) Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. GH2014_PGM187_CRC. 122 pp.

Authority/Disclaimer:

Prepared for USAID/Ghana under Cooperative Agreement (AID-641-A-15-00001) awarded on October 22, 2014 to the University of Rhode Island and entitled; the USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP).

This document is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The views expressed and opinions contained in this report are those of the authors and are not intended as statements of policy of either USAID or the cooperating organizations. As such, the contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Cover photo: Person being interviewed for the baseline survey. (Credit: SFMP) http://www.crc.uri.edu/projects_page/ghanasfmp/ mailto:info@crc.uri.edu ii

Detailed Partner Contact Information:

USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP)

10 Obodai St., Mempeasem, East Legon, Accra, Ghana

Brian Crawford Chief of Party brian@crc.uri.edu Najih Lazar Senior Fisheries Advisor nlazar@crc.uri.edu Patricia Mensah Communications Officer patricia.sfmp@crcuri.org Bakari Nyari Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist hardinyari.sfmp@crcuri.org Don Robadue, Jr. Project Manager, CRC don@crc.uri.edu Justice Odoi USAID Administrative Officer Representative Jodoi@usaid.gov

Kofi.Agbogah kagbogah@henmpoano.org Stephen Kankam skankam@henmpoano.org Hen Mpoano 38 J. Cross Cole St. Windy Ridge Takoradi, Ghana 233 312 020 701

Andre de Jager adejager@snvworld.org SNV Netherlands Development Oganization #161, 10 Maseru Road, E. Legon, Accra, Ghana 233 30 701 2440

Donkris Mevuta Kyei Yamoah info@fonghana.org Friends of the Nation Parks and Gardens Adiembra-Sekondi, Ghana 233 312 046 180

Peter Owusu Donkor Spatial Solutions powusu-donkor@spatialdimension.net #3 Third Nautical Close, Nungua, Accra, Ghana 233 020 463 4488

Thomas Buck tom@ssg-advisors.com SSG Advisors 182 Main Street Burlington, VT 05401

(802) 735-1162

Victoria C. Koomson cewefia@gmail.com

CEWEFIA

B342 Bronyibima Estate Elmina, Ghana 233 024 427 8377

Lydia Sasu daawomen@daawomen.org

DAA

Darkuman Junction, Kaneshie Odokor Highway Accra, Ghana 233 302 315894

Gifty Asmah giftyasmah@Daasgift.org Daasgift Quality Foundation Headmaster residence, Sekondi College Sekondi, Western Region, Ghana 233 243 326 178

For additional information on partner activities:

CRC/URI: http://www.crc.uri.edu CEWEFIA: http://cewefia.weebly.com/ DAA: http://womenthrive.org/development-action-association-daa Daasgift: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Daasgift-Quality-Foundation-

FNGO/135372649846101

Friends of the Nation: http://www.fonghana.org Hen Mpoano: http://www.henmpoano.org SNV: http://www.snvworld.org/en/countries/ghana SSG Advisors: http://ssg-advisors.com/ Spatial Solutions: http://www.spatialsolutions.co/id1.htm mailto:brian@crc.uri.edu mailto:nlazar@crc.uri.edu mailto:patricia.sfmp@crcuri.org mailto:hardinyari.sfmp@crcuri.org mailto:don@crc.uri.edu mailto:Jodoi@usaid.gov mailto:kagbogah@henmpoano.org mailto:skankam@henmpoano.org mailto:adejager@snvworld.org mailto:info@fonghana.org mailto:powusu-donkor@spatialdimension.net mailto:tom@ssg-advisors.com mailto:cewefia@gmail.com mailto:daawomen@daawomen.org mailto:giftyasmah@Daasgift.org http://www.crc.uri.edu/ http://cewefia.weebly.com/ http://womenthrive.org/development-action-association-daa https://www.facebook.com/pages/Daasgift-Quality-Foundation-FNGO/135372649846101 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Daasgift-Quality-Foundation-FNGO/135372649846101 http://www.fonghana.org/ http://www.henmpoano.org/ http://www.snvworld.org/en/countries/ghana http://ssg-advisors.com/ http://www.spatialsolutions.co/id1.htm iii

Acknowledgements This report is indebted to efforts of many contributors at various stages. Firstly, let us commend the efforts of the entire enumeration team (Mac Issahaka Billa, Richard Amankwah, Damiana Etsey, Nana Sarfoa, Judith Quaye and Richard Octhewemah) for their tireless commitment during data collection.

We particularly wish to thank District Coordinating Directors and Assemblymen of the survey districts for their immense support and collaboration during our reconnaissance and field visits to the survey communities.

This acknowledgement would not be complete if we failed to acknowledge the technical input and efforts of Najih Lazar, Emmanuel Dolvo and Kofi Agbogah during the initial stage of the survey planning and the training of enumerators.

The Project also acknowledges the invaluable support chief fishermen of the survey communities provided to the survey team during data collection, ensuring that community members were willingly and cooperated with the enumerators during field work.

iv

Acronyms

ANOVA Analysis of Variance BIRD Bureau for Integrated Rural Development CDCS Country Development and Cooperation Strategy CLaT Child Labor and Trafficking CR Central Region DAs District Assemblies DF Degrees of Freedom DO Development Objective FASDP Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector Development Program FtF Feed the Future GIS Geographic Information System GoG Government of Ghana GPS Geographic Positioning System HHScore Household Score ICFGP Integrated Fisheries and Coastal Governance Project of USAID/Ghana IR Intermediate result IT Information Technology IUU Illegal, Unreported or Unregulated KAP Knowledge, Awareness, and Practices KNUST Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology KVIP Kumasi Ventilated Improved Pit (latrine) MOFAD Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NS Not significant PBS Population Based Survey SFMP Sustainable Fisheries Management Project of USAID Ghana SMS Smart Messaging System USAID United States Agency for International Development WARFP West Africa Regional Fisheries Project ZOI Zone of Influence v

Table of Contents Page

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... iii Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................... iv

Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................................v

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. vii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii Executive Summary

Introduction

The Objectives and Scope of the Baseline Survey

Report Layout

Project Overview

The USAID SFMP Results Framework

Theory of Change (Development Hypothesis)

Profile of the Zone of Influence

Methodological Overview

Survey Design

Sampling

Distribution of Small Pelagics Fishermen

Sample Frame Construction

Sampled Communities

Sample Size Calculations

Allocation of Samples

Household Sampling

The survey Instrument

Survey Implementation

Enumerator Recruitment and Training

Pre-testing the Questionnaire

Field Work

Survey Limitations

Findings 24

Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Respondents and their Households25

Household Wealth Indicators

Individual Characteristics of Respondents

Food Security Indicators

Fishing Household Livelihoods

Perceptions on Quality of Life, Fishing Abundance, Catch and Effort vi

Law Enforcement and Regulatory Compliance

Perceptions on Illegal Fishing Practices

Knowledge of Fishing Laws

Perceptions on Deterrence

Perceptions of Legitimacy of the Legal Process

Perceptions of Opinion Leaders in Fisheries

Perceptions of Child Labor and Trafficking

Attitudes

Prevalence

Knowledge

Empowerment Index

Role in Household Decision making

Access to Productive Capital

Access to Credit

Leadership and Influence in the Community

Group Membership

Decision Making

SUMMARY

References

Appendix A: Sample Frame

Appendix B: Map of communities with randomized GPS points selected for sampling

Appendix C: Population of districts in the coastal regions

Appendix D: Background on Power Analysis

Appendix E: Survey Questionnaire

Informed Consent

Material Style of Life

Dwelling Characteristics

Durable Goods

Household Demographics

Fishing Livelihood

Perceptions on Fishing

Fishing Practices

Household Hunger Scale

Women's Dietary Diversity

Empowerment in Agriculture Index (modified)

Role in Household Decision--making around production and income generation

Access to Productive Capital vii

List of Figures Figure 1. Graphical Representation of Relationships between SFMP and FtF Results Figure 2. Theory of Change showing causal links, sequences of interventions, intermediate outcomes and impacts, including linkage to USAID, FtF and DO2 intermediate result 11 Figure 3. Map of the Zone of Influence of the SFMP – the Four Marine Coastal Regions in

Ghana and locations of communities surveyed for the baseline Figure 4. Map of the Zone of Influence of the SFMP showing the 21 coastal districts Figure 5. Plot of fishing villages ordered by size relative to the cumulative percent of total small pelagic fishing gears in those villages Figure 6. Location of communities selected for sampling Figure 8. Training of field enumerators Figure 9. Enumerator interviewing a respondent in the field with the Samsung tablet where responses were recorded and then uploaded to the cloud database Figure 10. Frequency distribution of the age of respondents Figure 11. Number of total livelihood activities per household Figure 12. Number of fisheries livelihood activities per household Figure 13. Number of non-fisheries livelihoods per household Figure 14. Frequency distribution of number of correct responses on fisheries laws Figure 15. Number of motorized canoes owned by those owning fishing boats Figure 16. Distribution of number of smokers owned Figure 17. Power curves for comparison of two population means assuming independence and equality of variances. Ten, 4, and 2.5 standard deviations represent effect sizes of 0.2,

0.5 and 0.8 respectively

Figure 18. Power curves for unidirectional comparisons of two dependent population means, assuming a correlation between populations of 0.5. Ten, 4, and 2.5 standard deviations represent effect sizes of 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 respectively

Figure 19. Power curves for comparison of three population means assuming independence.

Ten, 4, and 2.5 standard deviations (RMSE) represent effect sizes of 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 respectively

Figure 20. Power curves for unidirectional comparisons of two population proportions with a baseline proportion of 50% (p=0.5)

Figure 21. Power curves for unidirectional comparisons of two population proportions with a baseline proportion of 20% (p=0.2)

Figure 22. Power curves for unidirectional differences between two dependent population proportions (x-axis) and power (y-axis) using a fixed sample size of 400 and population correlation of 0.5, as baseline proportion varies between 10% and 50% viii

List of Tables Table 1. Population of coastal and non-coastal districts in the coastal regions Table 2. Number of Fishermen in the Coastal Regions Table 3. Number of fishing villages, landing sites and gear types per coastal region Table 4. Result Areas and Related Impact Assessment Indicators Table 5. Sample Frame for communities sampled Table 6. Number of Fishermen per community sampled Table 7. Number of fishermen per community, target sampling frame and actual numbers sampled Table 8. Gender of respondents Table 9. Frequency distribution of respondent household structure - roof Table 10. Frequency distribution of respondent household structure -walls Table 11. Frequency distribution of respondent household structure - floors Table 12. Frequency distribution of respondent household structure - condition Table 13. Distribution of toilet types among respondent households Table 14. Frequency distribution of household water supply Table 15. Frequency distribution of electrical supply among respondent households Table 16. Frequency distribution of household cooking fuel supply Table 17. Percent distribution of ownership of durable goods among households surveyed Table 18. Percent distribution of ownership of productive assets among households surveyed 29 Table 19. Descriptive statistics for age of respondent (N=716) Table 20. Type of respondents in the household Table 21. Distribution of religion of respondents Table 22. Distribution of Ethnic Group of respondents Table 23. Marital status of respondents Table 24. Literacy: Can read and write in either English or a local language (N=716) Table 25. Can read and write in either English or the local language compared by marital status Table 26. School attendance by gender Table 27. Highest qualification completed by respondent Table 28. Household hunger scale Table 29. Comparing literacy and hunger Table 30. Women’s dietary diversity index Table 31.Women’s Dietary Diversity Score Table 32. Percent of SFMP respondents consuming the Women’s Dietary Diversity Score food groups in a 24hr period Table 33. Percent of SFMP respondents consuming meat and seafood in a 24hr period Table 34: Frequency distribution of livelihood activities per household interviewed Table 35. Most important livelihood activity of household’s surveyed Table 36. Second most important livelihood per household Table 37. Mean values for number of livelihood types per household Table 38. Comparison by region of livelihood activities per household Table 39. Percent of households exploiting different types of fish Table 40. Most important type of fish exploited per regions Table 41. Perception on Quality of Life: Compared to 5 years ago Table 42. Perceptions of change in fish abundance and catch compared to 5 years ago (n=716) Table 43. Perceptions on fish abundance – small pelagic Table 44. Perception of fish abundance, other than small pelagic ix

Table 45. Perceptions of changes in small pelagic fish catch by region Table 46. Perceptions of changes in catch of fish other than small pelagics Table 47. Ease of catching fish near to shore compared to 5 years ago Table 48. Time to catch same amount of fish compared to 5 years ago, Table 49. Amount of fish caught compared to 5 years ago Table 50. Main reasons for the changes mentioned Table 51. Level of illegal light fishing among fishermen compared to 5 years ago Table 52. Level of illegal use of fine mesh nets among fishermen compared to 5 years ago Table 53. Level of illegal bomb fishing among fishermen compared to 5 years ago Table 54. Level of illegal carbide fishing among fishermen compared to 5 years ago Table 55. Awareness of fishing regulations Table 56. Scoring on actual knowledge of fisheries laws Table 57. Frequency distribution of correct responses by region Table 58. Perception of who is conducting illegal fishing practices (N=474) Table 59. Perception of who is the most frequent illegal actor Table 60. Frequency distribution of observing law enforcement officers on the beaches Table 61. Frequency distribution of observing marine patrols at sea Table 62. Frequency of interaction with fisheries enforcement officers Table 63. Frequency distribution of beliefs concerning changes in fish catch if laws obeyed ... 48 Table 64. Likelihood of arrest of a fishermen Table 65. Likelihood if arrested the person will get fined, have gear confiscated or go to jail .. 49 Table 66. Likelihood if arrested will not go to jail due to interventions of politicians Table 67. Frequency that penalties applied for illegal fishing are adequate to serve as a deterrence Table 68. Legitimacy of legal process Moral suasion: what would you do?

Table 69. Who do your respect most?

Table 70. Perceptions as to whether law enforcement officers ever accept payment to not arrest a person for illegal fishing Table 71. If ever asked for input on fisheries laws by fisheries commission Table 72. If ever asked for Input on fishery laws by local government Table 73. If ever asked for Input on fishery laws by chief fishermen or traditional leaders Table 74. Who should be involved in making fishery rules Table 75. Perceptions concerning acceptable labor practices acceptable to allow Table 76. Perceptions of respondents of prevalence of parents allowing children < 15 to go fishing Table 77. Perceptions of respondents of prevalence of parents allowing children < 15 to work during school hours to smoke fish Table 78. Perceptions of respondents of prevalence of parents allowing children < 15 to work during school to sell fish Table 79. Perceptions of respondents of prevalence of parents taking payments from a person to take care of child at location outside the community Table 80. Differences between regions in the perceived prevalence of child labor and trafficking practices Table 81. Knowledge on illegal child labor and trafficking practices Table 82. Individual participation in fishing or aquaculture in the last 12 months by gender ... 57 Table 83. Who makes decisions on fishing in the last 12 months Table 84. Household ownership fishing boats or gear Table 85. Who owns the fishing boats/gear Table 86. Ownership of fish smokers Table 87. Ownership of fish smokers x

Table 88. Ownership of a house reported by gender Table 89. Cellphone ownership by gender Table 90. Type of cellphone service carrier reported Table 91. Household ownership of assets Table 92. Household ownership of assets Table 94. Do you regularly deposit saving into your bank account Table 93. Borrowing money and banking practices of household respondents Table 95. Ownership, borrowing and decision making patterns on loans and bank account Table 96. Comfort level about speaking in public on topics of community concern Table 97. Knowledge, membership and participation in fish producer or processor organizations Table 98. Knowledge, membership and participation in other community associations Table 99. Person in the household who makes decisions on various productive economic activities Table 100. Person in the household who makes decisions on various economic activities and expenditures Table 101. Sample size versus probability response

Executive Summary Purpose The USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project is a five year effort whose goal is to rebuild marine fisheries stocks and catches through adoption of responsible fishing practices. The project contributes to the Government of Ghana’s fisheries development objectives and USAID’s Feed the Future Initiative. This report provides a baseline of the current context and conditions of coastal fishing households as well as their attitudes and perceptions in a number of areas the project is working to change. The baseline also captures a number of comparable indicators that are being collected in the USAID Feed the Future northern zone of influence (ZOI) and reported in the Population Based Survey Report. These include indicators on the prevalence of hunger and dietary diversity and some other measures in relation to household structure, contents and ownership of durable goods, and a selected set of indicators included in the women’s empowerment index. This will allow for some level of comparison of conditions in coastal fishing households versus Northern farming households although this is not a focus of this report.

With respect to fisheries, the baseline captures information on a number of long term trend indicators including perceptions of change in quality of life, status of the fisheries and other factors the project is attempting to influence. These include, awareness and compliance with fishing regulations and perceptions concerning illegal fishing, empowerment of women within the industry, and aspects of child labor and trafficking. As part of the project’s monitoring and evaluation framework, these indicators will be tracked during the project's progression at mid-point and at the conclusion of the project to assess the impact of the

SFMP.

Methodological Overview The sample of 10 communities surveyed was randomly drawn from 29 of the largest coastal fishing villages with a high proportion of small pelagic fishing gears in the four coastal regions of Ghana. This sample frame is consistent with the project focus on small pelagic fisheries and that nine of the ten targeted project villages, being large scale, are included in this frame. It should be noted however that this sample frame means the survey is not representative of all coastal fishing villages as small sized villages and those using primarily other gear to target other species groups such as large pelagics or demersals are excluded.

From this frame 10 villages were randomly selected and included some targeted project villages in the Western and Central regions as well as non-project villages. This will allow for project versus non-project community comparisons during the mid and final assessments.

Target sample size was distributed proportionately among the villages to be sampled. Actual households to be sampled were determined based on assigning a sampling point to a randomly generated geographic point within 200 meters from the shoreline and within the settlement area and finding the closet household to that point that was engaged in one or more types of fishery activities. A paperless tablet-based survey instrument was used to sample a total of 480 households and 716 individuals, 57% being female.

Key findings from the survey include the following:

Socio-economics and Livelihoods

• The Western region has the highest percentages of households with houses in poor or very bad shape (29%), no access to a toilet facility of any kind (60%), no household water supply 95%) and no electrical supply 19%), suggesting that this region may have higher poverty levels among fishing households than the other coastal regions.

• Literacy rates were very low at 23% of respondents and even lower for women at 15 percent. Fifty nine percent of respondents never attended school with lower attendance rates for women. Of those who went to school 42% either completed or did not complete primary level. These findings have implications for designing communications strategies that do not rely on written words in order to reach a majority of people in the fishing communities. Additionally, interventions designed to diversify of livelihoods that require higher educational attainment will not be viable options for most adults in fishing households, making such a strategy to relieve pressure on fish stocks and at a large scale difficult if not impossible.

• Twenty-one percent of fishing households surveyed experienced moderate to severe hunger which is approximately half the rate reported for the Ghana FtF northern zone of influence. Hunger was inversely related to literacy of the respondent. Sixty-two percent of respondents had low dietary diversity compared to 41% in the northern ZOI. While there is less hunger in the costal fishing households compared to norther farming households, dietary diversity is lower and argues for more emphasis on nutritional programs in coastal fishing villages.

• Approximately half of respondents reported ownership of motorized fishing vessels and it is highest in the Greater Accra and Western Regions. Ownership of fish smokers is very high (83%), and is highest in the Volta and Western regions. Almost no one interviewed owns fish ponds or fish cages (<1%), and less than 20 percent own agricultural land.

• Fishing was the most important livelihood reported by respondents and mentioned twice as often as fish processing. The mean number of livelihood activities per household was

2.68 whereas the number of fishery related livelihood activities was 2.16 and the mean for non-fishery activities was 0.52. This suggests very low livelihood diversity or resilience and high dependence on fishing, making these households highly vulnerable to any economic or ecological shocks that may occur in the fishery. The Western and Central regions had the lowest levels of livelihood diversification outside of fishing, making households in these regions even more vulnerable.

• Small pelagic fish was the most frequently reported fish stock exploited (94% of respondents) and was mentioned by 79% as the most economically important stock for the household (over 90% in Greater Accra and Volta regions) followed by large pelagics at 15% and demersals at 6%.

Quality of life and Status of the Fisheries

• Approximately 72 % of respondents said their quality of life was worse off compared to five years ago and only 20% percent said they were better off. This is not surprising as approximately three-quarters of respondents said that their fish catch and the abundance of fish in the sea is less, and that it is harder to catch fish now compared to five years ago.

Illegal fishing and an increased number of fishing canoes are the two most frequently mentioned reasons for the declines in catch and quality of life. These results suggest that fishermen understand that the open access fishery and poor compliance with fisheries regulations is affecting them economically.

Illegal Fishing and Regulatory Compliance

• More than half the respondents stated that illegal light fishing (69%) and use of fine mesh nets (52%) have increased in the last five years whereas less than 10% said bomb and carbide fishing have increased. Inshore vessels and canoes were the most frequent responses as to who is conducting illegal activities and also as the most frequent violators.

Trawlers in both instances were mentioned less frequently. This suggests that law enforcement efforts need to focus much more on the use of fine mesh nets and light fishing as the most pernicious illegal methods used at this time and on the illegal activities of the inshore and canoe vessels as the most pernicious violators.

• If the fisheries laws were obeyed 65% of respondents believe it would increase fish catch and only 13 percent say it will not change catch. This suggests a high degree of understanding and legitimacy that the laws are technically well designed to sustain and rebuild fish stocks. More than a quarter believe penalties are severe enough and slightly less than a quarter say they are not severe enough, but more than half said they do not know. They also believe the likelihood of arrests and sanctions being applied is low and the likelihood of seeing enforcement officers patrolling is low, so these deterrence factors are unlikely to weigh heavily on preventing illegal fishing.

• Very few fishermen said they would report violators to the police (2%) but almost two-thirds would either tell them to stop doing it or report them to the chief fishermen. This suggests that moral suasion may be an important influencing factor on fishermen behavior. Inaddition, while chief fishermen have no legal authority, they are mentioned as the most respected official in the villages by 84% of respondents compared to less than 10% for the Fisheries Commission, local government and police combined. Most respondents said chief fishermen consult with them on fishing laws more frequently than the Fisheries Commission or local government. Chief fishermen (80%) and fishermen themselves (56%) were the most frequently mentioned people who should be involved in making fishery rules compared to only 38% who mentioned traditional leaders, Fisheries Commission, Parliament or local government combined.

Child Labor and Trafficking

• Approximately one-quarter of respondents believe it is acceptable to allow children under 15 or 18 years of age to sell or smoke fish at any time of the day and to go fishing, prohibited labor practices under Ghana law; with almost double the level of acceptance of these practices in the Western Region compared to the other regions. In the Volta Region it is approximately one-third the level compared to the other regions. Less than 3% believe it is acceptable to take payment from someone to take your child away with no significant differences between regions, indicating most do not accept the practice of child trafficking.

• The Western Region, followed by the Central Region, had the highest perceived prevalence of child labor and trafficking practices compared to Volta and Greater Accra regions. More than 39% said parents allow children under the age of 15 to go fishing all the time or frequently and slightly less than a third to allow them to smoke or sell fish at any time of the day. On child trafficking, disturbingly, 12 % of respondents in the Central Region said many parents engage in this practice, 42% said that at least a few, compared to an average for all regions of 7 percent. The Western Region, followed by the Central Region, had the lowest scores concerning knowledge of laws on child labor and trafficking with approximately one sixth not knowing that taking payment for a child to be taken away from the home was illegal.

• The project strategy has a focus on anti-child labor and trafficking campaigns in the Central Region as the premise was that this was where the problem was considered greatest. While that seems accurate with respect to child trafficking, it was surprising to note the high scores for the Western Region as well, especially with respect to allowing children to go fishing. This suggests that the anti-child labor and trafficking behavior change communications strategy should be expanded to the Western region as the project design assumed the problem was most prevalent in the Central Region.

Gender and Empowerment

• Concerning who makes decisions regarding household fishing activities, 100% of women said they make inputs into most decisions and only 55.6% of males said they had input into most or all decisions on fishing.

• Concerning boat and gear ownership, 47 % of men said they owned a boat or gear by themselves whereas only 4.9% of women said they own a boat/gear. Women were more likely to claim ownership with a spouse (32%) or other household member (54%) compared to men. On ownership of fish smokers/processors, 68% of women said they own them and only 5% of men said they own them with men more likely to state they are owned with a spouse or household member. This indicates a significant gender difference.

Men tend to have more direct ownership of fishing assets, and women of smoking/processing assets, women seem to have more say in how both of these types of assets are used.

• For those with assets other than fishing, men are more likely to report ownership of land and transportation assets by themselves and women more likely to report ownership of livestock.

• With respect to access to credit, 32 % of respondents said the owned a bank account with men reporting more frequent ownership (41%) than women (33%). Men were more likely to state that they owned the account themselves (70%) compared to women (40%), with similar percentages for who made the decisions regarding withdrawals. With respect to borrowing money, most loans were reported from relatives (16%) followed by formal lenders (10%) and then micro-finance institutions (6%). There were no gender differences with respect to who was borrowed from or with respect to who made decisions on how the loan funds were used.

• With respect to comfort of speaking in public about topics of community concern including illegal fishing and proposing fishing rules, 52% of the women said they did not feel comfortable at all or with great difficulty, compared to only 22 % of men.

• On membership in organizations, women were less likely to be members of micro-credit or business associations than men.

• With respect to decisions on various economic activities, men tended to state that decisions on use of fishing inputs or type of fishing conduced were made by the male in the household or husband whereas women were more likely by wider margins to state the female or wife made decisions on fish processing, smoking and marketing. These trends on decision making parallel who is the main actor involved in the activity, men in fishing, women in processing and trading. On household expenditures, men are more likely to say decisions on wages and major household expenditures are made by the male in the household or husband whereas the women are more likely to state that the female or wife makes major decisions on minor household expenditures such as on food for daily consumption.

• These findings tend to suggest that women are less empowered and comfortable about speaking in public and do not have equal ownership on productive assets for fishing and land, or levels of bank account ownership, but they still seem to have significant decision making involvement in fishing activities overall, specifically on fish processing and marketing of food purchases in particular, as well as ownership of fish processing and marketing assets. Improvement in women empowerment levels in public involvement and speaking on issues affecting the community including fisheries management issues, ownership of bank accounts, ownership of land and fishing assets other than processing assets and more involvement in decision making concerning major household expenditures are areas the project should focus on as part of the gender strategy.

The summary findings above represent the baseline on the same set of indicators that will be measured at the mid-term and completion of the project where trends can be analyzed to determine to what extent project interventions may have resulted in changes on these indicators of the project goal or intermediate result areas. These include perceptions, as an indirect measure, of an increase in quality of life (project impact), improved status of the fisheries (project goal), improved awareness and perceptions of compliance with fishing regulations and a resulting perceptions of a reduction in illegal fishing. Empowerment of women within the industry is also expected to create stronger constituencies and support for change. While not related to the project goal, the project does hope to increase awareness of the child labor and trafficking laws, and, using perceptions as an indirect indicator, achieve reductions in the prevalence of child labor and trafficking in the Central Region.

Introduction

The Objectives and Scope of the Baseline Survey In order to assess the project impact on the overall goal and intermediate results, the project is undertaking two types of baselines and assessments. The first approach is a survey of households engaged in marine fishing activities to assess their perceptions, attitudes and knowledge concerning the key project goal and selected intermediate result areas. This is the main focus of this baseline report as part of the impact assessment to be conducted over life of the project. The second approach is an assessment of the fish stocks, particularly the small pelagic stocks, which is not covered in this report but is being conducted by the project and documented in other reports.

This report is a status report – a baseline that we intend to use when we are gauging project impact after the survey is conducted at mid-term and end of project. This baseline report has two primary intentions. The first is to capture the current baseline state of small pelagic fishing households within Ghana, including the prevalence of poverty and hunger, awareness and compliance with fishing regulations, empowerment of women within the industry, and aspects of child labor and trafficking. The second is to assess the impact of the SFMP (also referred to as “the project”) with respect to these factors during the project's progression at mid-point and at the conclusion of the project.

The baseline and impact survey was administered to a sampling frame of individuals and households representing the target population of small pelagic fishing-dependent households within coastal communities of Ghana. The household survey was conducted in the four coastal regions adjacent to the marine shoreline. Lake fisheries were not an aim of the project or this survey. Due to cost constraints, the baseline survey and assessment is focusing on the small pelagic fisheries and activities conducted that are national in scope. Impacts of resource management activities carried out in the Western Region Pra and Ankobra estuaries are not part of the scope of this survey. Impacts of value chain improvements are also not captured here due to cost constraints. Targeted project interventions related to Knowledge, Awareness, and Practices (KAP) of child labor and trafficking within the Central Region are covered in this report. The survey will allow for statistically significant comparisons of child labor / trafficking KAP between the Central Region and the whole coastline at the project outset, mid-point, and conclusion.

The survey instruments and sample sizes were designed to allow for statistically significant comparisons between baseline responses and responses drawn at the mid-project and end-of-project timeframes and also for analysis of differences between coastal regions. A subset of Feed The Future (FtF) indicators and indices were used to allow limited comparisons of results between the FtF and SFMP baseline surveys, specifically between farming households in the FTF northern Zone of Influence with fishing households along the coast.

Report Layout This baseline report provides a brief overview of the USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project along with its results framework and theory of change. This helps provide an understanding and rationale for the indicators chosen for the baseline survey and to be monitored at mid and end points of the project. Some basic information on the marine fisheries sector is also provided as this is the “Zone of Influence” for the project. The methodology used is also described. In a number of cases we have selected indicators and used identical methods (and interview questions) of a subset of indicators used for the Feed the Future (FtF) Ghana Population Based Survey in the Northern Zone of Influence. This allows for a limited comparison of a number of poverty and food security indicators between the two zones where USAID is investing FtF resources. Findings are provided on the indicators and in some instances some statistical comparisons with either demographic details of individuals or households or comparisons across regions. In some cases a few comparisons are provided with FtF data in the Northern Zone of Influence where we can view differences between farming households and coastal fishing households. A more detailed comparison and analysis between the coastal zone and northern zone is planned for a future publication. Appendices provide additional information including the survey questionnaire used for the baseline.

Project Overview The USAID /Ghana SFMP will focus efforts on the small pelagics fisheries along the entire coastline as well as the demersal fisheries and essential mangrove fish habitat in the Western Region. Additionally, improvements in the value chain of smoked fish, important to tens of thousands of women fish processors and marketers is being be supported. The project also implements activities aimed at reducing child labor and trafficking in the fisheries sector in the Central Region of Ghana.

Life-of-Project Results expected include the selected highlights below:

• Over-exploitation of small pelagics reduced, overfishing ended, and stocks rebounding with the opportunity to recoup tens of thousands of metric tons of food protein supply lost due to severe overfishing and poor management.

• Yields and profitability returning for 130,000 people including fish monger and fish processors and marketers engaged in marine fisheries.

• 735,241 hectares of natural resources and fish habitat under more effective management.

• Declines in Illegal, Unreported or Unregulated (IUU) fishing due to an increase in arrests and successful prosecutions.

• Improved voluntary compliance and active support of polices and rules by stakeholders.

• Inclusive participation by under-represented groups, women and youth in decision-making.

• Several more climate-resilient fishing communities and strengthened capacity of District Assemblies (DAs) to promote and support resilient community policies and initiatives.

• A decline in child labor and trafficking in fisheries in the Central Region (CR).

• A Fisheries Act that allows co-management and use rights in Ghana’s fisheries to be realized.

The USAID SFMP Results Framework The Results Framework is shown in Figure 1. The SFMP’s integrated results framework include four project intermediate result areas to achieve the ambitious project goal:

IR 1: Improved legal enabling conditions for implementing co-management, use rights, capacity and effort reduction strategies;

IR 2: Improved information systems and science-informed decision-making, and

IR 3 Increased constituencies that provides the political will and public support necessary to make the hard choices and changed behavior needed to rebuild Ghana’s marine fisheries sector. These components feed into

IR 4: Applied management initiatives for several targeted fisheries ecosystems. A set of indicators, described below, will be used to measure progress towards the project goal and intermediate results.

The results framework includes several important cross-cutting themes including capacity development of key government and civil society organizations, social learning, gender mainstreaming and Public-Private-Partnerships.

The results framework and associated indicators conform and contribute to USAID/Ghana’s larger Country Development and Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) and its second Development Objective (DO): sustainable and broadly shared economic growth and the Feed the Future (FtF) results framework. This is depicted in the figure below. The Project will support all four integrated Intermediate results (IRs) under DO2, with a focus on FtF IR 2.1 and 2.4.

2.1: Increased competitiveness of major food chains (FtF IR 1) 2.2: Improved enabling environment for private sector investment (FtF IR 1.3) 2.3: Improved resiliency of vulnerable households and communities and reduced under-nutrition (FtF IR 2) 2.4: Increased government accountability and responsiveness (FtF IR 1.1)

Figure 1. Graphical Representation of Relationships between SFMP and FtF Results

DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 2

Sustainable and Broadly Shared Economic Growth

IR 2.2 Improved enabling environment for private sector investment (FtF IR 1.3)

IR 2.3 Improved resiliency of vulnerable households & communities, reduced under-nutrition (FtF IR 2)

IR 2.4 Increased government accountability, responsiveness

IR 2.1.1 Increased agricultural productivity (FtF IR 1.1)

IR 2.4.2 Improved local community management of natural resources (FtF IR 1.1) e tai ed er m s tl t sunI R e ec t j roP s re a

A ctap mI

IR 2.1 Increased competitiveness of major food chains (FtF IR 1)

• SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES PROJECT PURPOSE

Rebuild targeted fish stocks via adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels

Policy

Strengthened enabling environment for marine resources governance

Science & Research

Increased use of science and applied research to inform decision-making, law enforcement and the implementation of management plans

Constituencies

Constituencies and political will for policy reform & implementation built, supporting & demanding sustainable use and conservation

Applied Management

Improved management of marine resources to conserve bio- diversity & provide other benefits

Theory of Change (Development Hypothesis) The project purpose is to “Rebuild targeted fish stocks through adoption of sustainable practices and exploitation levels.” To achieve sustainable fishing practices and exploitation levels, reduced fishing effort or harvest must occur in order to end overfishing. This, over the longer term, will lead to safeguards of sufficient spawning biomass to produce higher and more sustainable fishing yields. This signals a causal chain and time lag between ending overfishing and improved stock biomass, and ultimately, improved fish yields and profitability (household income). Small pelagics as a short lived and highly fecund species could start to rebound in a few years if proper and sufficient management measures are put in place, so such changes may be possible during life of the project.

IR 3 “constituencies and political will built” is critical to insure that the public is aware of the challenges ahead and becomes supportive of short-term restrictions to reverse the diminishing returns on investment in the fisheries sector.

For targeted stocks, effort control requires a suite of measures such as restrictions on the number of fishing units by limiting the number of licenses issued and restrictions on the amount of fish that units can land. Additional technical measures such as closed seasons, protected areas, fishing gear selectivity, and minimum size must be considered, each with their implications on the biological and socio-economic aspects of the fishery. In the long run, these are designed to ensure exploitation levels are controlled to maximum and sustained yields. However, world experience shows effort controls are a costly and difficult path to sustainability. Determined to be most effective are catch limits —e.g., an annual total allowable catch based on annual stock assessment—coupled with use rights such as collective quotas and transferable licenses. It is unlikely that Ghana will be able to move fully to catch limits over the SFMP Life-of-Project, but some of the capacity needed to implement such a regime will start to be built. In the short-term, Ghana will have to rely more on effort controls and other technical measures.

Consistent with the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector Development Program (FASDP) and West Africa Regional Fisheries Project (WARFP), the project strategy is to support government efforts of both effort-control measures and managed access as first steps towards sustainability. Enabling conditions for effective fisheries management require a legal framework supportive of policy statements made by the Government of Ghana (GoG) on collaborative management and use rights. However, as noted by Martin Tsamenyi, a consultant for the ICFGP, WARFP and MOFAD: “The existing legal framework in Ghana is not capable of supporting a co-management framework without amendment...” Interim advisory groups can be established under the existing legislative framework and once a new legislative framework is in place, these groups can transform into true co-management groups with decision-making authority.

When fishing mortality is reduced via effective management measures (i.e. closed season, closed areas, direct catch and effort reduction...etc.), there could be a rapid improvement in biomass and subsequent fish yields, particularly for short-lived species. However, if the fishery remains open access, increased high fishing mortality will occur and short-term gains will dissipate. Fishing effort and fishing capacity must be measured and taken into account in the context of long-term harvest control. Experience shows that simply limiting the number of vessels (fishing capacity) will prompt fishers to focus on increasing the size and power of vessels and length of gear, all increasing rate of exploitation unless additional harvest control measures are also put in place.

Also needed is improved information for decision-making to help both estimate the optimum fleet sizes for Ghana’s fisheries and to set adequate harvest controls. To this end, the SFMP is also focusing on improving stock assessment capabilities within the Fisheries Commission/Marine Fisheries Statistical Support Division and local universities, emphasizing inclusion of the traditional knowledge of fishermen. SFMP is also promoting innovative technologies to improve data collection on landings and effort and to aid law enforcement in reducing IUU fishing through Public-Private-Partnerships.

An integrated approach also requires a close look at shore-based components of the fisheries sector. All post-harvest fish handling, supply chain from sea to market and the infrastructure support for the fishing industry and fishing households occurs in a very narrow strip of the coastline. Without safe and secure places for men and women to live and work on the shore-based side of the industry, it is difficult to ask people to change behavior concerning unsustainable harvesting practices at sea. Reduction in fishing effort is likely to result in economic sacrifices in the short-term, so interventions are also needed to reduce impacts.

These measures include creating safer, more secure and resilient fishing communities using spatial planning to identify the development needs of fishing communities and the exposure to natural hazards as well as threats to water-dependent fisheries uses.