•Kenya Fisheries Service was established in 2016 through the enactment of the Fisheries Management and Development Act.
•It began operations and was first subjected to audit at the closure of the financial year which ended June 30, 2021.
Image: GEORGE MURAGE
The Kenya Fisheries Service is in financial distress and unscrupulous fishermen are having a field day, as there is no one to routinely monitor illegal activities.
The service is supposed to enforce policies regarding conservation, management and use of fisheries resources.
However, it suffers staff shortage to the extent some employees play roles they are not trained for.
A new report by Auditor General Nancy Gathungu revealed the service’s seven regional offices were not adequately funded.
“Constraints in budget allocation were affecting the monitoring, control and surveillance activities within the seven regional offices,” the auditor said.
Gathungu said in the review of the agency’s books as of June 30, 2022, there was no money to facilitate monitoring.
“The allocation was not sufficient enough to sustain monitoring and surveillance activities during the entire financial year,” she said.
Regional offices did not have enough boats and facilities to mount frequent patrols, Gathungu's report indicated.
To survive, the service at times had to heavily rely on other state agencies.
“It was not clear why the entity was not allocated funds for the purchase of boats that are vital for MCS activities,” the report said.
“Lack of constant surveillance patrols led to unlicensed fishermen flocking the lakes while at the same time using wrong gear for fishing.”
As the fisheries service is starved of cash, its mother state department is reportedly taking away all its earnings.
“It was also not clear why revenue collected by the entity was still being surrendered to the state department and yet it is a legal entity required to report its revenues,” Gathungu's report said.
The State Department for Fisheries had not handed over functions tied to fisheries to the service as of June 30, 2022, the report said.
Assets owned by the service had also not been handed over.
Kenya Fisheries Service was established in 2016 through the enactment of the Fisheries Management and Development Act.
It was first subjected to audit at the closure of the financial year ending June 30, 2021.
Gathungu said the delayed transfer of the functions may have impacted negatively on services.
“This, therefore, shows a lack of clarity and completeness in the delinking process,” she said.
The audit revealed a protracted conflict between the mandate of Kenya Fisheries Service and county governments.
A case was cited in Nakuru where officials stated a clash on the licensing of fishermen and boats.
Gathungu said the situation has become an obstacle to the smooth flow of operations in the face of interference by county officers.
“Fisheries officers from the service are unable to achieve their objectives due to constant interference by the county officers,” she said.
“In the circumstances, the continuity of conflict may result in the mandate of the service and value for money not being achieved.”
On staffing, an assessment of the service’s approved staff establishment revealed an optimal staff level of 965.
However, only 470 employees were in post, resulting in a variance of 495 staff.
The audit indicated the service does not have sufficient non-technical staff such as accountants, finance officers, procurement officers and drivers.
“Most of these staffs have either been seconded from the State Department of Fisheries or technical staff have been forced to perform the duties of the non-technical staff in addition to their duties,” Gathungu said.
She said the situation of inadequate staff poses a challenge to the attainment of the objectives of the Kenya Fisheries Service.
A lot of errors in record keeping were noted as a result of technical staff performing roles they were not trained for.
“Lack of proper skills led to some errors in record keeping that could easily have been avoided if the staff had been properly trained.”
Also cited was the lack of an IT strategic committee, IT security policy and risk management strategies, putting the institution at risk of intrusion.
The audit also revealed that the service lacked an internal audit department, contrary to the regulations.