Socio-economic activities of fishing communities and its effects on the status of fishery resources in Lake Feferuwa Nasarawa State, North Central, Nigeria

A Kigbu, H Y Ibrahim¹, R D Madaki and E Ogezi

Faculty of Agriculture Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Nigeria
hussein464@yahoo.com
¹ Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Faculty of Agriculture Federal University, Dutsin-Ma Katsina State, Nigeria

Abstract

Wild life fishing in Nigeria is still relatively underdeveloped. Nonetheless, communities surrounding water bodies depend a lot on their resources for livelihoods. This high level dependence has brought about significant depletion of the resources of these waters.The study analysed the level to which the socio-economic activities of three fishing communities affected fishery resources of Lake Feferuwa Lafia, Nasarawa State, Nigeria.  A two-stage sampling technique was used to select 99 fisher-folks from the three communities.

Descriptive and inferential analysis of the data collected revealed that 90.9%, 87.9% and 93.9% of the respondents from Tunga-Daudu, Gidan-Zayero and Tunga-Nupawa communities respectively earned over 50% of their incomes from fishing activities. Clarotes was the only fish species with over 50 responses in evidence to its extinction from Lake Fefuruwa and was ranked 1^st in all three communities in terms of extinction. Parachana was ranked 2^nd in Tunga-Daudu and Gidan-Zayero but was ranked 3^rd in Tunga-Nupawa. Fishing outside regulation time was the most serious issue requiring regulation indicated by 90.9%, 75.8% and 60.6% in Tunga-Daudu, Gidan-Zayero and Tunga-Napuwa respectively.

Key words: clarotes, extinction, fishing gear, income, regulation

Introduction

Fishing is a vital source of livelihood in developing nations like Nigeria, particularly for low-income families in rural areas where job opportunities and options are limited. Small-scale commercial and subsistence fishing often provides the employment of last resort when more lucrative labour opportunities cannot be found (Kura et al 2004), this is particularly true for inland fisheries of Nigeria. Fish production and fishery products supply continue to increase over the decade as a result of harvest from capture fisheries. Today numerous fish stocks and species have declined since their historical peaks, and some have even gone extinct while others are being threatened, leading to calls for more stringent management and the establishment of protected areas (Roberts 2003). According to FAO (1999), Hilborn et al (2003), Kura et al (2004) fisheries of inland waters have received only slight consideration within global analyses.

Recently, over-exploitation of aquatic resources has become a serious problem. While aquatic resources have the ability to renew themselves under an appropriate management system, over-fishing and over-exploitation constrain the reproduction capacities of these resources. Silvestre et al (2003) argued that coastal fish stocks have decreased to 30% of their unexploited levels as a result of overexploitation. As a consequence, poor coastal fishers who depend solely on these resources continue to experience poverty. These concerns call for the establishment of an appropriate fisheries management system to promote sustainable utilization of aquatic resources. Fisheries management systems are often evaluated from the viewpoint of their appropriateness at attaining numerical goals based on the ecological characteristics of the target species.

The impacts of physical and biological changes on fishing communities will be as varied as there are changes themselves. Both negative and positive impacts could be foreseen, their strength depending on the vulnerability of each community, their potential impacts (sensitivity and exposure) and adaptive capacity. Impact would be felt through changes in capture, production and marketing costs, changes in sales prices, and possible increases in risk of damage or loss of infrastructure, fishing tool and housing, fishery dependent communities may also face increased vulnerability in terms of less stable livelihood, decrease in availability or quality of fish for food and safety risks due to fishing in harsh weather condition and distance from landing side. Beddington et al (2007) stated that natural resources cannot be sustained without considering socioeconomic factors that directly or indirectly relate to the resources management of a place.

Environmental degradations through pollution of the aquatic environment, flooding and aquatic weed infestation have all tended to reduce the capacities of these natural bodies of water. Fish resources are susceptible to environmental and man induced stresses and can deteriorate rapidly, particularly when environment and man act concurrently to limit production. Multi – species fisheries react to fishing pressure. Welcomme (2001) was of the opinion that increasing effort involves progressive reduction in the size of the species caught. Reduction in size is associated with changes in mortality rates, growth rates, production and number of species comprising the catch. Biomass and catch per unit effort (CPUE) both fall. Eyo (2004) reported a massive poaching of juvenile fishes on Lake Kainji by foreign fishermen who utilize gill net and beach seines (Dala) less than 3 inches as stipulated by the Inland waters decree, he called for a new act, which would regulate the fishing culture on Nigerian freshwaters, which suffered massive over-fishing in recent times. The fishing gear frame survey conducted in Lake Kainji from 1994 to 2001 showed that fishermen used about 43% of the gill nets. 73% drift nets. 20% for cast nets and 100% Beach seine were illegal in accordance with Niger and Kebbi States Fisheries Edicts (Abiodun 2002).

The use of poisons and dynamite for fishing has been prohibited in Nigeria since 1992. But the artisanal fishermen still use explosives and poison from time to time in Nigerian Inland waters to kill, daze or shock fish. The neurotoxic or suffocating effects eventually result in the fish floating where they are collected with scoop nets or clap nets. Most poisons affect gills of the fish and the flesh is not generally safe to eat (Welcomme 2001).

Materials and methods

Study area

Lake Feferuwa is located between longitude 8⁰50’ East and latitude 8⁰40’ North. It is situated about 8km north of Assakio, a town 40km east of Lafia along Shendam road in Lafia Nasarawa State, Nigeria. The lake is approximately 7.5 km long and 1.25 km wide at its widest point during dry season with an estimated surface area of about 4km² during raining season and 5km² during wet season. Feferuwa Lake originated from springs both outside and within Lafia local government area. The water flows through a flood plain area before emptying into Lake Feferuwa through a thickly vegetated inlet channel. The inlet channel of the lake (a continuation of Lake Feferuwa) flows into River Gwayaka, which is a tributary of the River Dep. The River Dep itself flows into the Benue River at the South-eastern corner of the Awe grazing reserve. The dominant tribes in the area are Nupawa, Eggon and Hausa/Fulani.

Study population, sampling technique and sample size

Three fishing communities were purposively sampled on the basis of their fishing capacities and proximity to Lake Feferuwa. These communities were Tunga-Daudu Gidan-Zayero and Tunga-Nupawa. Thirty-three fishermen were randomly selected from each selected community to make a sample size of 99 respondents.

Data collection

Primary data were collected with the aid of a structured questionnaire which was administered to the respondents through focus group discussion. Data were collected over a period of 2 weeks. Data were collected on socio-economic characteristics of the respondents; types, sources and cost of fishing gear and other vessels acquisition; major species of fish caught, currently scarce and probably extinct fish species as well as individual regulations and its impact on fishery exploitation in the study area.

Method of data analysis

Descriptive was used to analyse the data.

Results and discussion

Socio-economic characteristics of respondents

Most respondents in the study area were within the age range of 21 – 31 years with the highest proportions in Gidan-Zayero (60.6%); followed by Tunga-Dauda (39.9%) and Tunga-Nupawa (39.4%). The proportion of married respondents was higher in Tunga-Daudu and Tunga-Nupawa with 72.7% and 54.6% respectively, while it was only 15% in Gidan-Zayero (Table 1). Most respondents had acquired primary education, 42.4%, 30.3% and 27.3% for Tunga-Daudu, Gidan-Zayero and Tunga-Nupawa respectively. Most households had sizes of 1 – 10 individuals, Tunga-Daudu (60.6%), Gidan-Zayero (30.3%) and Tunga-Nupawa (36.4%). Most respondents had 15 – 29 years experience with fishing activities in the order of Tunga-Daudu (60.6%), Gidan-Zayero (45.5%) and Tunga-Nupawa (45.5%). On income sources, majority of the respondents, 75.8%, 69.7 and 75.8%, in Tunga-Daudu, Gidan-Zayero and Tunga-Nupawa respectively were observed to have had alternative income sources other than fishing. Furthermore, majority of the respondents 72.7%, 78.8% and 63.6% respectively for Tunga-Daudu, Gidan-Zayero and Tunga-Nupawa sourced alternative income from arable crop production. Fishing was observed to be the major source of income in the study area as majority of income proportions were acquired from fishing activities; 90.9%, 87.9% and 93.9% of the respondents from Tunga-Daudu, Gidan-Zayero and Tunga-Nupawa respectively earned over 50% of their incomes from fishing activities as shown in Table 1.

The level of domestic consumption of fishery resources in the study area is presented in Figure 1. The graph reveals a low consumption of fishery resources domestically implying that most fishing households were commercially inclined.

Figure 1.  Quantity of harvest consumed at domestic level (%)

Types, source and costs of fishing gears acquisition

The types ,source and cost of fishing gears are presented in Table 2.The result shows that traps, Nets, canoe and Hook & line were all available (100%) in all the three communities. Gill net had higher usage (100%, 79.0% and 91.0% respectively) for the three communities. Trap net had up to 94% usage in Gidan-Zayero and Tunga-Nupawa except for Tunga-Daudu where it was used by 33% of the respondents. Cast net was also in use by respondents in the different communities but was found in low use in all three communities (6.1%), (30%) and (9.1%) respectively. Hook & line was used by 67% and 61% in Gidan-Zayero and Tunga-Daudu respectively with a low (39.4%) in Tunga-Nupawa.

The borrowing rate in these communities was markedly low as it was observed that majority of the respondents, 75.8% for Gidan-Zayero and 72.3% for both Tunga-Daudu and Tunga-Nupawa, sourced for the money for acquiring fishing gear from personal savings. Most respondents acquired fishing gears that cost N 10 – N 10, 999; 54.5% for Gidan- Zayero and 51.5% Tunga-Nupawa except for Tunga-Daudu where 57.6% acquired gears costing N 11, 000 - N21, 999. The frequency of fishing gear replacement is presented in Figure 2. The result show a higher quarterly and yearly replacement of fishing gear in Tunga-Daudu and Tunga-Nupawa, followed by replacements above 1 year in Tunga-daudu and Gidan- Zayero although it was very low in Tunga-Nupawa. Biannual replacement was the highest replacement trend in Gidan- Zayero. This trend was observed only in this community.

Figure 2 . Frequency of fishing gears replacement in fishing communities

Number of fishing vessels available and their average capacities in the communities

The average number of fishing vessels available in the three communities is shown in Table 3. The result revealed that only 1% of the respondents owned 1 – 30 fishing vessels. Most respondents however owned 31 – 61 fishing vessels. Furthermore, most vessels had a capacity of 1 – 5 (56.6%), 38.4% of the vessels had an average capacity of 6 – 11 while only 5.1% had a capacity of 12-17.

Pooled frequency, percentage and ranking of major fish species caught in the study area

The major fish species in Feferuwa lake are presented in Table 4. The result shows that Auchenoglanis, Lates, Clarias, Synodontis, Heterobranchus, Schillbe and Heterotis had greater than 50 responses in evidence of their availability at an average of 71.7%, 62.6%, 58.6%, 58.6%, 57.6%, 53.5% and 53.5% respectively across the three communities. Tilapia, Gymnachus, Alestes, Heperopisus and Hydrocyanus had less than 50 (<50) responses – 45.5%, 43.4%, 31.3%, 31.3% and 17.2% respectively. Alestes was ranked 1^st in Distichodus and Tunga-Nupawa but was ranked 5^th in Gidan-Zayero.Heperopisus was ranked 10^th in Gidan-Zayero and Tunga-Nupawa but was ranked 5^th in Tunga-Daudu. In Tunga-Daudu, Heterobranchus, Tilapia and Hydrocyanus were all eaqually least ranked (10^th). In Gidan-Zayero, Schilbe/Eutripius, Alestes and Heperopisus were all ranked 10^th available fish species. In Tunga-Nupawa, Heperopisus and Hydrocyanus were both ranked 10^th.

On the other hand, no fish species had up to 50 (=50) responses in evidence of their scarcity but Distichodus and Citharinus had 48.5% and 47.5% responses respectively. Parachana and Polypterus had the least responses 24.3% and 8.08% respectively. Distichodus was ranked 1^st in Tunga-Daudu but was least ranked (6^th) in Gidan-Zayero and Tunga-Nupawa. Similarly, Bagrus ranked 1 ^st in Gidan-Zayero but was least ranked in Tunga-Daudu and Tunga-Nupawa. Heterobranchus and Bagrus were jointly least ranked in Tunga-Daudu, while Distichodus and Polypterus were least ranked in Gidan-Zayero. Jointly least ranked in Tunga-Nupawa were Distichodus and Bagrus fish species. Here least ranked infers that the species were not too scarce but highest ranked means they were very scarce.

Clarotes was the only fish specie with over 50 (>50) responses in evidence to its extinction from Lake Fefuruwa and was ranked 1^st in all three communities. Parachana was ranked 2^nd in Tunga-Daudu and Gidan-Zayero but was ranked 3^rd in Tunga-Nupawa. Similar to the scarce fish species, the higher the ranking the more extinct the fish specie appear to be.

The status of fishery regulations in Lake Feferuwa

The extent of fishery regulations is shown in Table 5. The result in the Table reveals that the respondents had moderately efficient levels of fishery regulation 87.9%, 60.6% and 97.0% in Tunga-Daudu, Gidan-Zayero and Tunga-Nupawa respectively. Very efficient regulations were observed only in Tunga-Daudu by 9.09% of the respondents. Fishing outside regulation time was the most serious issue requiring regulation indicated by 90.9%, 75.8% and 60.6% in Tunga-Daudu, Gidan-Zayero and Tunga-Napuwa respectively. This was followed closely by poaching which was indicated by 90.9%, 60.6% and 39.4% in Tunga-Daudu, Gidan-Zayero and Tunga-Napuwa respectively. Harvesting of fingerlings was indicated by 66.6%, 75.8% and 66.7%. There was no community effort targeted at regulation as 100% of the respondents in all three communities indicated absence of community-based regulation systems.

Conclusion

• It is obvious that fishing legislations in Lake Feferuwa are weak and in certain instances non-existent. The issues that remain salient and very alarming are the high levels of harvesting of fingerlings in all three localities sampled and the number of fish species probably extinct as a result of over-exploitation and indiscriminate fishing.
  
  
• As economic situations continue to degrade and populations increase rapidly, locals and fisher-folks will put greater pressure on the water body resulting in different levels of depletion of its resources. To curb this and simultaneously improve the livelihoods of the residents depending on the Lake stronger legislations must be enacted. More importantly, the resources of the Lake must be aided to artificially regenerate. Wild fish feeding as well as capture, reproduction and re-introduction of endangered fish species will come highly recommended.

References

Abiodun J A 2002 Fisheries Statistical Bulletin Kainji Lake, Nigeria, 2001. Nigerian — German Kainji Lake Fisheries Promotion Project Technical Report Series 22: 25p.

Beddington J R, Agnew D J and Clark C W 2007 Current Problems in the Management of Marine Fisheries. Science. Vol. (316): 1713-1716.

Eyo A A 2004 Provost alerts Federal Government over foreign fishermen in take Kainji. The Guardian Newspaper Thursday, October 7, 2004 Vol. 21, No, 9,451 pg.50.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) 1999 Review of the State of World Fishery Resources: Inland Fisheries. Rome: Fisheries Department. Fisheries Circular No. 942.

Hilborn R, Branch T A, Ernst B, Magnusson A, Minte-Vera C V, Scheuerell M D and Valero J L 2003 State of the world’s fisheries. Annual Review of environment and Resources. 28:359 - 399

Kura Y, Revenga C, Hoshino E and Mock G 2004 Fishing for Answers: Making sense of the global fish crisis. Washington (DC): World resources institute.

Roberts C M 2003 Application of ecological criteria in selecting marine reserves and developing reserve networks. Ecological Applications 13: S215 - S228.

Silvestre G T, Garces L R, Stobutzki I, Ahmed M, Santos, R A V, Luna C Z and Zhou W 2003 South and South-East Asian coastal fisheries: their status and directions for improved management: conference synopsis and recommendations. World Fish Center Conference Proceedings. Vol.67. pp. 1-40.

Welcomme R L 2001 Inland Fisheries: Ecology and Management. Blackwell Science pg 38

Received 2 August 2014; Accepted 10 November 2014; Published 1 December 2014

Go to top