PART I. SECTOR REVIEW (Cont.)

ANNEX 2.

1992 FISHING CRAFT TRACER STUDY, MASSAWA-DAHLAK UNITS

On the basis of a sample of 20 different craft landing catches at Massawa fish receiving station from February through August 1992 (data on 186 landings in total), it appears that the average duration of individual fishing trips is 7 days for the inboard motorised sambuks (99 landings) and 6 days for the outboard-powered houris (87 landings). In terms of overall fishing time per month, the global average is 8.64 days, with sambuks averaging around 11 days and houris 6.78. On a yearly basis, this would mean that sambuks presently fish on the average of some 132 days and houris for about 81 days per year.

These figures are surprisingly low, as Eritrean fishers were known to be very active in the past, with monthly sea-time averaging between 15 and 20 days. Their yearly sea-time, under proper craft management conditions, could thus have reached from 180 to 240 days, of which about 75–80% were effective fishing days. The present retarded activity levels may well be due to the fact that many operators have moved more or less permanently to the Yemen, only landing their products in Massawa on an irregular basis. Also, the generally poor state of the remaining fishing units strongly affects their operational capabilities.

The tracer study indicates that crew recruitment and supply requirements vary according to the type of craft and fishing methods being employed. The average crew size per fishing method is of about 5 persons for handlining, 6 persons for gillnetting and 5 for combined gear. Based on the type of fishing craft, however, the average crew size is seven for the sambuks and only 4 for the houris.

Table T1. Average crew size per trip by craft type and gear type^a

^a Values in [ ] represent the number of trips in the sample of 20 vessels traced.

With reference to consumables, the average quantity of fuel taken for a fishing trip by broken down by type of gear and vessel, is shown below. It can be seen that the diesel inboard sambuks are using almost double the amounts of fuel during their operations as the houris, irrespective of the gear used.

Table T2. Average quantity of fuel taken per fishing trip^a

^a Values in liters/fishing operation.

The average quantity of fuel taken per fishing operation amounted to some 284 liters of diesel for the sambuks (99 trips) and 139 liters of benzine for the houris (87 trips), while the average amount of fuel taken per fishing day is 41.43 liters (diesel) for the sambuks and 24.82 liters (benzine) for the houris. When crosstabulated with the gear used, the average number of liters of fuel taken per fishing day is always higher for the sambuks.

Table T3. Average quantity of fuel used per day

The average amount of ice (25 kgs/ice block) purchased per fishing day is 9.21 blocks (= 230.25 kgs) for sambuks and only 4.84 blocs (= 121 kgs) for houris. Figures on ice taken per day according to fishing method employed show that an average 6.86 blocks (= 171.5 kgs) is associated with handlines, 9.88 blocks (= 247 kgs) with gillnets, and 6.91 blocks (= 172.75 kgs) with the combined gear. The average amount of ice purchased per fishing operation is 63 blocks for the sambuks and only 25 for the houris.

Table T4. Average amount of ice blocks per fishing day

With regard to the commercial grade composition of landings, sambuks produce on the average over 77% of first quality and about 19% percent of second quality fish per trip operation. Houris produce some 62% first grade fish but also about 25% third grade fish. Another apparent difference between sambuks and houris concerns the average amount of fish landed per operation --1124 kgs for the former versus only 459 kgs for the latter. The fishing power of a sambuk thus seems to be twice that of a houri, given that they have almost equal average trip durations.

Table T5. Average amount of landed fish per grade

Preliminary findings concerning average commercial grading per type of fishing method and fishing operation are given in following table. Handlines produce around 88% of first grade fish while gillnets produce around 83% of second grade. A combination of handlining and gillnetting produces around 67% of first and 21% of second grade fish. The average landings per type of fishing method and per average fishing operation are thus as follows: 769 kgs for handlines, 1072 kgs for gillnets and 864 kgs for the combined gear fishery.

Table T6. Average landings per gear type and per grade

ANNEX 3.

TENTATIVE FINANCIAL ANALYSES OF FISHING OPERATIONS

Simple and tentative analyses of the financial productivity of a houri and a sambuk (Table B) selling at the Massawa fish landing centre as of (a) October 1992 (pre-December 1992 producer prices) and (b) late December 1992 (post-December 1992 producer prices) provide some further insight into recent conditions within the sector.¹ It is cautioned however that this information should be strengthened and developed through the conduct of more in-depth socio-economic surveys.

As indicated in Table A, under the pre-December 1992 price regime, at the end of year 1 running and maintenance costs of the houri operation are slightly over the gross income. In other words, no money remains available for debt service and replacement. This is clearly an untenable situation.

Conditions are dramatically reversed with the increase of producer prices in December 1992, as shown in Table B. Now the houri unit can apparently be operated at a modest profit. However, debt servicing obligations could easily erode this gain. The margin also would probably not be able to withstand any significant increase in equipment and supply costs, or any significant unforeseen expenses.

Reference to Table C shows that the financial internal rate of return of the sambuk operation is also negative under the pre-December 1992 price conditions, indicating that artisanal fishers in the Semhar area would only be able to survive at very financially stressed levels, if at all. On the face of it, little or no maintainance or renewal of fishing units would be possible under such a price regime, nor could any new investment be expected. Again a dramatic improvement is apparent under the new conditions of the December 1992 producer price adjustment, though as before no account is taken of possible debt servicing or production cost increases.

¹ Prices for supplies and services current 1 October 1992 and 1 December 1992 (before and after producer price adjustments) paid by fishers at Massawa are as follows:

Table A. Houri selling at Massawa landing (pre-December 1992 producer prices)

(a) Hypothesis

- A 15 m houri with a 40 HP outboard engine with six 100 m gillnets and handlines for 4 fishers.
- Sea time: 81 days/year.

(b) Gross income

(c) Running costs

(d) Investment, replacement and maintenance

(e) Financial analysis

^a Includes searching for fish, changing fishing grounds, etc.

^b It is assumed that the crew owns the fishing unit and receives a yearly income of 3 600 E.Birr for the skipper and 2 400 Birr for each crew member, prior to sharing the net balance of the exploitation.

Table B. Houri selling at Massawa landing (post-December 1992 producer prices)

(a) Hypothesis

- A 15 m houri with a 40 HP outboard engine with six 100 m gillnets and handlines for 4 fishers.
- Sea time: 81 days/year.

(b) Gross income

(c) Running costs

(d) Investment, replacement and maintenance

(e) Financial analysis

^a Based on a mix of 13% of former Grade II fish and 25% of the former Grade III.
^b Includes searching for fish, changing fishing grounds, etc.
^c It is assumed that the crew owns the fishing unit and receives a yearly income of 3 600 E.Birr for the skipper and 2 400 Birr for each crew member, prior to sharing the net balance of the exploitation.

Table C. Sambuk selling at Massawa landing (pre-December 1992 producer prices)

(a) Hypothesis

- A 15 m sambuk with a 33 HP outboard engine with six 100 m gillnets and handlines for 7 fishers.
- Sea time: 132 days/year.

(b) Gross income

(c) Running costs

(d) Investment, replacement and maintenance

(e) Financial analysis

^a Includes searching for fish, changing fishing grounds, etc.
^b It is assumed that the crew owns the fishing unit and receives a yearly income of 3 600 E.Birr for the skipper and 2 400 Birr for each crew member, prior to sharing the net balance of the exploitation.

Table D. Sambuk selling at Massawa landing (post-December 1992 producer prices)

(a) Hypothesis

- A 20 m sambuk with a 33 HP inboard engine and six 100 m gillnets and handlines for 7 crew members (handlines major fishing gear).
- Sea time: 132 days/year.

(b) Gross income

(c) Running costs

(d) Investment, replacement and maintenance

(e) Financial analysis

^a Based on a mix of 19% of former Grade II fish and 4% of the former Grade III.
^b Including searching for fish, changing fishing grounds, etc.
^c It is assumed that the crew owns the fishing unit and receives a yearly income of 3 600 E.Birr for the skipper and 2 400 Birr for each crew member, prior to sharing the net balance of the exploitation.

ANNEX 4.

ASMARA FISH MARKETS CUSTOMER SURVEY, 1992

The survey of private customers of Asmara's two fish markets took place over a one month period from late October to late November 1992, and covered over 400 individuals interviewed on an interval basis after a random start. On each day of market operations, records of institutional buyers were also made over the same period. All of the fish-buying restaurants in the city were later surveyed on the basis of the list derived from these records.

Private market customers

The survey data on consumer household composition are not fully analysed, but preliminary tabulations indicate an average family size of 4.9 persons, and an average number of children per family of 2.4. Through simple extrapolation from the sample population¹ it can be suggested very indicatively that there are some 10,000 private household fish consumers in Asmara, or about 2% of the entire city population. All of this is of course based on the situation as surveyed for the one-month October-November 1992 period.

A substantial majority (69%) of the customers interviewed reported making trips to the fish markets at least once per week (Table M1), and over over three-quarters of the sample consumer families are reported usually to purchase Grade I fish (Table M2). Some 20% seem to take either of the two grades that happen to be available at the time of visit,² while only 4% of the consumer families reportedly purchase Grade II fish on a routine basis. On the whole these figures suggest that Asmara fish consumers are rather selective, preferring to take first quality products when at all possible. It can be surmised that those who make a habit of purchasing the cheaper second grade fish do so out of necessity rather than choice.

Table M1. Frequency of market visits

¹ Given roughly 400 sample households with a sampling interval of 5, 400×5 = 2000 fish consuming households citywide; 2000 × roughly 5 persons per household = 10,000 persons.

² At the time of survey, Grade III fish had been abolished and combined with Grade II.

Table M2. Usual grade of fish purchased

Questions concerning the availability of fish at times of market visits elicited the responses shown in Table M3. In most cases fish was reported to be found available at least half of the time.

Table M3. Fish availability at times of market visits

As one measure of the relative socio-economic status of Asmara fish market customers, data were collected on the occupation of family main income earners. Findings are displayed in Table M4.

Table M4. Occupation of family main income earners

It appears that about one quarter of consumer families' main income earners fall into the “Business” category. Also the “skilled labour” category (often representing what are in effect small private business) and the “Civil service” category respectively account for 12% and 19% of all cases. Families with main income earners who are employed abroad (remitting money back to Eritrea) represent another 12% of cases. On the reasonable supposition that these categories collectively represent the more economically advantaged, it can be said that about 68% of the regular clientele of the city's fish markets belong to the higher strata of Asmara society.

A comparison drawn between the occupation of family major income earner and the purchasing behaviour shows that families with major income earners who are “Business” people tend to buy fish more frequently and in greater quantities that those associated with the other occupation categories.

As a further measure of consumer families' socio-economic status, information was collected on their zones of residence in Asmara. These zones are well-known in terms of the respective housing quality and cost factors, and it was thus possible to classify them as either “High-Income”, Middle-Income", or “Low-Income”. Some 49% of the families reside in what were identified as higher income areas of Asmara, while 32% live in medium income and 18% in low income areas. Taken on this measure it would seem that the vast majority of private fish-buyers in the city who were surveyed during October-November 1992 represent families that are rather well off. A much smaller though non-negligable number represent low income families.

Families belonging to the high income group as measured by residential zone tend to purchase fish on the average at least once (33%) or twice (31%) per week. Some 13% are reported to purchase fish at least three times per week. For the middle income (residential) group, 13% are said to purchase fish at least three times a week, 27% at least once a week, and 24% at least twice a week. The majority of the low income (residential) group visit the market at least once (33%) or twice (21%) per week.

Information on the reported usual quantity of fish purchased by income residence area indicates that in all categories about half or more of the sample consumer families are purchasing around 2 kgs per occasion. For the higher income group, greater percentages are purchasing more kilos at a time (24% for 3 kgs as compared to 16% and 7% for the medium and lower income groups respectively).

Sample survey customers were also asked an open-ended question about their views of fish or the fish markets. Amongst the roughly three-quarters who chose to volunteer any comments there seemed to a high level of general satisfaction with market operations. At the same time, however, a strong negative sentiment can also be detected, and should not be overlooked. Complaints that fish supplies are low in volume or variety, or that there are too few retail outlets in the city, or that market hours are too short, collectively make for a strong current of dissatisfaction with regard to fish availability.

Institutional market customers

During the survey period a total 205 instances of fish purchases by 37 separate institutions were recorded, of which 155 (76%) took place at the Red Sea Shop and 50 at the various stalls of the Old Market. Various types of institutions ranging from hospitals and schools to small local restaurants were involved as fish market customers, as indicated in Table M5.

Distribution of separate transactions according to day of the week is displayed in Table M6. As with the case of the private customer purchases, there is the suggestion that Thursdays are especially popular fish-buying days.

Table M5. Institutional buyers, Asmara fish markets

Table M6. Distribution of institutional purchases by days of week

Asmara's top ten institutional buyers shown in Table M7 below are ranked in terms of total quantities purchased over the one month survey period. The University was the largest single institutional customer by a wide margin, recording a total of 897 kgs for nine occasions. The only other public institution that figures in the list is one of the city hospitals, ranked third with a total of 450 kgs purchased. If the university and the hospital are left out, then the list of the city's ten largest fish buyers list includes only restaurants, as shown in Table M8. It is interesting to note that most of these are ones that serve an international in addition to a local clientele. Three are in fact restaurants in Asmara's biggest tourist/business hotels, and the remaining four are restaurants that are popular eating places with international visitors and the city's expatriate community.

Table M7. Purchase characteristics, ten largest institutional buyers

^a Univ. = University; Hospt. = Hospital; R/L = Restaurant, local clientele; R/L+I = Restaurant,local + international clientele.

Table M8. Purchase characteristics ten largest restaurant buyers

^a R/L = Restaurant, local clientele; R/L+I = Restaurant, local +international clientele.

The global quantity of fish purchased by institutions during the survey period amounts to 6395 kgs, of which virtually all was Grade I presented in filleted form. This figure can be compared to that which can be estimated for the 2,000 or so regular fish buying families in Asmara. From 407 sample recording of private transactions it was determined that some 814 kgs of fish were bought during the survey period, which would mean roughly 4,000 kgs as extrapolated to the overall private customer population.

This indicates that in terms of weight purchased private retail customers represent only some 39% of the fish trade in Asmara (Table M9). Recalling the socio-economic characteristics of private fish consuming families reviewed above, and bearing in mind that most of those who patronise restaurants on a regular basis would be the comparatively well-off rather than the poor, the evidence of the institutional data strongly reinforces the impression that buyers and consumers of fish in Asmara are those who belong to the city's most advantaged income strata.

Table M9. Estimated quantity of fish purchased during survey period

Restaurant fish market customers

In early December 1992, after the private customer survey interviews had been wound up and a full list of institutional customers had been complied through the use of the Daily Record Form, visits were made to each of the 31 Asmara restaurants which were known to be routine or occasional buyers of fish. Interviews were conducted with the owners or food managers of each one, with the exception of three large government owned and run hotel restaurants whose cases were enumerated at the same sitting because they share one food manager between them.

As Table M10 indicates, there is nothing new about Asmara restaurants serving fish. In over half of the cases surveyed it has been part of the menu for at least 10 years, and in over a third for at least 20.

Table M10. Distribution of Asmara restaurants by number of years fish offered on menu ^a

^a Data missing for one case.

About half of the eating places now serve fish every day, and nearly all at least three times per week. When queried about how often they would like to serve fish, almost all the owners/food managers said “daily,” indicating that there may be some scope for expanded fish purchases from the restaurant trade.

Many owners and food managers interviewed reported a particular demand for fish on Wednesdays and Fridays, the traditional fast (non-meat) days of the Orthodox Church. Such a pattern was anticipated, though it stands out with regard to the restaurants far more clearly than in the case of the private fish market customers surveyed. From the latter it was expected to find marked increases in purchasing activity on Tuesdays and Thursdays, the days before fast days.

When asked specifically if they had encountered any problems with ordering fish from the markets recently or in the past, it was clear from the answers that ready availability of fish has been a major concern. This point is again brought out by the responses recorded for questions on the availability of fish in general and preferred species of fish when market visits are made. Whether in the case of general or preferred fish, most of the restaurants interviewed reported availability as only fair (about half the time) to poor (most times no).

Finally, the availability theme also runs quite strongly through the miscellaneous comments recorded at the close of each interview with restaurant owners/food managers when they were asked in an open-ended way if they had any other remarks to make about fish or the fish markets in Asmara. In almost all cases concern about fish availability was expressed in terms of such remarks as “Fish should always be available,” “More variety is needed,” “There should be more fish markets,” and so on.

ANNEX 5. PROVISIONAL ORGANISATION OF DMRIF, OCTOBER 1992

ANNEX 6. DMRIF STAFF ESTABLISHMENT AND PHYSICAL FACILITIES (Current December 1992)

1. Asmara Office Staff

2. Massawa Office Staff

3. Assab Office Staff

4. Major Physical Facilities, Equipment, etc.

ANNEX 7. IDEAS FOR FUTURE PROJECTS

1. Development of prototypical fishing communities, Sahel Region (proposed)

A volunteer community development officer working in collaboration with DMRIF in August 1992 elaborated a draft proposal for the development of three prototypical fishing communities to be established along the coast of Sahel Region. The project as originally envisaged would essentially be one in integrated fisheries development at a fairly ambitious scale, met to fit in with a wider national programme for the resettlement of returning refugees. Project component activities were broadly identified as follows:

• Community development, including the establishment of three settlements, together with necessary housing and infrastructure and supportive services and training, each capable of sustaining about 40 fishers and their families;

• Economic development, through training in various modes of fisheries production, and product utilisation and marketing; and

• Nutritional development both within the resettlement communities and across wider areas through education and promotion activities aimed at increasing fishery product consumption and reducing dependence on food aid.

Although this project as an entire package remains in the proposal stage, elements have been taken up by the Urk Interchurch Foundation Red Sea Fisheries Project on a pilot basis as noted above.

2. UNDP/GEF Eritrean Coastal Conservation Project (proposed)

A brief has been prepared by an identification mission team who visited for three weeks in January-February 1993 in support of a proposal for an “Eritrean Coastal Conservation Project” of five years' duration, to be funded through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). Development objectives of this project, which bears the sub-title “Conservation of Biological Diversity associated with Coral Reefs in the Eritrean Red Sea”, can be summarised as:

• integration of ecological security of biodiversity with livelhood security of coastal communities;

• development of adaptive coastal conservation and management plans and a conservation programme and centre; and

• promotion of human development through education and research directed towards the marine environment and people's interaction with it.

Immediate project objectives include:

• mapping and inventory of coral reefs and associated communities;

• determination of the ecological processes responsible for patterns of productivity and biodiversity in coral reefs and associated communities;

• identification of areas where special conservation measures may be necessary (including the establishment of Protected Areas) for the maintenance of Biodiversity, fisheries production, and tourism;

• assessment of direct and indirect impacts of human activity (pollution, deforestation, etc.) including exploitation of marine resources on coral reefs and associated communities;

• enhancement of national capacities to undertake research, education, and training in order to develop an adaptive coastal and conservation management programme, and establishment of a Centre for coastal biodiversity conservation and education to ensure the sustainability of the programme;

• participation of local people in the sustainable utilisation of coastal resources through existing social, cultural, and governmental structures; and

• establishment of the legal and regulatory basis for marine resource use and conservation.

If approved for funding, implementation of the project would require a fully equipped research and education facility (the Coastal Conservation Centre and satellite units), a research vessel and supporting craft and vehicles, provisions for post-graduate training and educational exchange, and mechanisms for dissemination and exchange of information between project personnel and local communities of resource users.

Primary collaboration would be between the UNDP/GEF and DMRIF. The UNDP/GEF would have main responsibility for purchase/ construction of infrastructure and equipment, support for student scholarships and participating international researchers/ consultants, and for general project back-stopping, logistical and administrative support, and monitoring. DMRIF would take responsibility for making available land for the Conservation Centre and necessary operational personnel, the identification of scholarship programme participants, and co-ordination with fisheries co-ops and relevant Government departments.

3. University of Bergen (proposed)

Preliminary contacts between DMRIF and a representative of the Centre for Studies of Environment and Resources, University of Bergen, have led to some ideas for establishing a programme of collaborative work with funding from the Norwegian Government. Of the several project foci so far identified, the one of particular relevance for fisheries research and planning purposes concerns aquatic resources assessment. Such an undertaking would be of long-term (ca. 10 years) duration, and would involve the investigation of coral reefs and shallower inshore zones as well as the periodic use of a research vessel for open waters. An assessment of freshwater resources could also be included as a component activity. At this stage proposals have not really gone beyond the idea stage and it is not known whether any will be followed up and formulated in more detail.

4. Establishment of a Marine Technology Training Centre (proposed)

Recognising the critical need for training personnel to fill various functions within the fisheries administration, and local fisherfolk to upgrade and expand their skills in both harvest, post-harvest, and industry servicing activities, DMRIF has tentatively formulated a proposal to establish a “Marine Technology Training Centre” at Hargigo, some 10 km south of Massawa. Hargigo has also been proposed eventual site for DMRIF national headquarters, though for the time being the central office will remain in Asmara. It is envisaged that the PGE would build the required structures for the training centre, and that equipment, training materials, and a core professional and technical teaching staff would be provided through donor contribution.

The curriculum of the training centre would include courses in:

• fishing and fishing gear technology (gear use and fishing techniques, etc.);

• boat building and repair;

• marine engine service and repair;

• fish technology (quality control, processing techniques, product development and utilisation, etc.);

• processing plant and machinery operation and servicing (freezing and refrigeration systems);

• distribution and marketing; and

• management and administration.

The idea is obviously to develop a fund of national skills within the fisheries administration (extension and service personnel) and fisherfolk communities (fishing operators, processors, traders, artisans) in order to strengthen sectoral performance overall and make it more self-reliant.