{"id":47578,"date":"2021-06-16T20:05:19","date_gmt":"2021-06-16T20:05:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dev6.blazedream.in\/ICSF\/samudra\/participatory-fisheries-management-revisited"},"modified":"2021-08-19T08:53:52","modified_gmt":"2021-08-19T08:53:52","slug":"participatory-fisheries-management-revisited","status":"publish","type":"samudra","link":"https:\/\/www.icsf.net\/samudra\/participatory-fisheries-management-revisited\/","title":{"rendered":"Participatory Fisheries Management Revisited"},"content":{"rendered":"

Malawi : Fisheries Management<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Participatory Fisheries Management Revisited<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

There are several governance reform challenges and prospects for the management of <\/span>fisheries resources in Malawi’s Lake Malombe and Southern Lake Malawi<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

This article is by Friday Njaya <\/b>(njaya@sdnp.org.mw<\/a>), Principal Fisheries Officer, Fisheries Department, P.O. Box 47, Mangochi, Malawi<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/i><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/i><\/p>\n

<\/i><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

<\/i><\/i><\/i><\/p>\n

Participatory fisheries management (PFM), as widely understood in Malawi, is a governance type that entrenches participation of the user community in fish resource management. In PFM, the Department of Fisheries (DoF) and the fishing community are key partners who, in an ideal situation, agree on shared roles and responsibilities, and formulate the goals, objectives and strategies of a particular management regime. Of paramount importance to the process is the point that the government recognizes the rights and responsibilities of the local community to the appropriation of the resource. The local community should also have the ability to make management decisions on which resource to manage, who ought to be involved in the management, and size of the area where the resource is located. The PFM partners should develop a management agreement outlining shared roles and responsibilities between the government and the community. The roles and responsibilities may include the formulation and implementation of plans and rules; imposition of sanctions on illegal fishers; capacity building; policy formulation; and building participatory monitoring and evaluation systems. <\/span><\/p>\n

In Malawi, the PFM strategy involves mobilization of the fishing community into representative user groups called \u0091beach village committees’ (BVCs) that are responsible for controlling all fishing activities on a particular beach. A BVC, as defined in the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (FCMA) of 1997, refers to all people involved in fishing-related activities such as fishing, processing, fish trading and boatbuilding. A BVC subcommittee is composed of office bearers. This is unlike the initial understanding of a BVC, which was like a group of 10-12 elected office bearers on a beach charged with the responsibility of managing a resource. The FCMA provides for empowerment of the BVCs in terms of enforcing regulations, including closed seasons, gear and mesh restrictions, closed areas and licensing of gears; authorizing both small-scale and commercial fishers to land on their beach; and maintaining beach registers containing information about counts on registered fishing vessels, gears, gear owners and fishworkers. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Lake Malombe PFM started on a pilot scale in 1993 after the chambo <\/i>(Oreochromis<\/i> sp.) fishery had collapsed, as reported by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in its Chambo Research Project, which was implemented from 1988 to 1990. <\/span><\/p>\n

Willing participation<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

The fishers also recognized the problem, as evidenced by their willingness to participate in the management of the fisheries when an initial survey was conducted by Bell and Donda in 1993. In its operational guideline, BVCs represent the local fishers. Unlike in other sites, the Lake Malombe PFM has benefited from various donor agencies, including the Department for International Development (DFID) through the Fisheries Research and Management Support Project (FRAMS) from the early 1990s to the late 1990s, the Germany Technical Co-operation (GTZ)-funded Malawi-Germany Fisheries and Aquaculture Development Project (MAGFAD), from 1988 to 1998, and its follow-on, the National Aquatic Resource Management Programme (NARMAP), from 1988 to 2002, and the World Bank-funded Fisheries Development Project, from the 1990s to 2000. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Lake Malawi South PFM started with the formation of \u0091beach management groups’ (BMGs) from 1997 to 2000, which were later transformed into BVCs, between 1999 and 2002, during the NARMAP implementation period. Since then, the Government of Malawi has solely implemented the PFM activities on Lake Malombe and Southern Lake Malawi, with some governance reforms that mainly focus on decentralization. It is envisaged that the establishment of the BVCs demands an enabling operating legal environment, with associated constitutions and bye-laws for proper functioning. It is in view of this requirement that the Mangochi District Assembly, in conjunction with the DoF, set up a fisheries bye-law formulation task force, chaired by a magistrate. The mandate of the task force was to formulate widely agreed-upon fisheries bye-laws through consultations with all affected parties, including the fishing communities in the fisheries sector of Mangochi District. Such efforts that the district assembly spearheaded were necessary, since the final output reflects popular local views and aspirations, thereby setting the stage for legitimacy and ownership for enforcement of the bye-laws. <\/span><\/p>\n

While PFM largely involves the user community and government, what is forgotten is the role of other stakeholders, for example, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or civil society groups. With the advocacy on decentralization and good governance, it is imperative to include other stakeholders in PFM, taking into account participatory democracy, transparency and downward accountability. With respect to this assertion, which is in accordance with the ideology of decentralized fisheries management, the PFM on Lake Malombe and Southern Lake Malawi recognized the need to have the Mangochi District Assembly in the PFM implementation process. <\/span><\/p>\n

This article reviews the progress of PFM on Lake Malombe and Southern Lake Malawi. A major focus is on the review of the implementation of the PFM and an examination of the governance reforms, with particular emphasis on how district assemblies are involved in the management process. This is based on secondary sources, specifically on the ongoing BMZ-GTZ-funded project, Food Security and Poverty Alleviation through Improved Valuation and Governance of River Fisheries in Africa. <\/span><\/p>\n

The capture fisheries subsector provides an economic activity and livelihood for the lakeshore-based segment of Malawi’s population. A recent (2005) survey by DoF showed that nearly 60,000 people are directly dependent on small-scale fishing activities. The majority of them are also engaged in fish trading and other ancillary industries such as boatbuilding and maintenance, net manufacturing and servicing of boat engines while yet others are employed in commercial fishing units. <\/span><\/p>\n

Direct support<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

In Mangochi District, fishing activities on Lake Malombe and Southern Lake Malawi directly support nearly 20,000 small-scale fishers, and over 150,000 household members are involved in fishing, processing and trading activities. The national fish landings, which peaked at over 80,000 tonnes per annum in the late 1980s, are now between 50,000 tonnes and 60,000 tonnes per annum, according to the 2007 analysis of catch trends by the Malawi Fisheries Research Institute (MAFRI). The catches from Lake Malombe and Southern Lake Malawi have, however, declined by over 30 per cent, from 29,000 tonnes in 1989. This is largely due to various reasons such as overfishing, the open-access nature of the fisheries, increased population growth, and weak enforcement capacity. The fish production of 1,900 tonnes from the commercial sector in Southern Lake Malawi dropped by around 50 per cent from the 1976 catch. However, the catch estimates for 2006 and 2007 for both fishing water bodies show a remarkable increase in catches to over 30,000 tonnes. <\/span><\/p>\n

Observations indicate that the increase can be attributed to three main factors, namely, the response of fishers to localized overfishing reported in the shallow waters of the lake; migration; and the promotion of offshore deep-water fishing. On Southern Lake Malawi, the small-scale fishers venture into offshore deep-water fishing with modified fishing gear types like kwandwindwi<\/i> (a form of beach seining by small-scale fishers based on a mechanized trawling technology) and mbuka <\/i>(deep-water gillnetting). The operators have also, in response to the low fish catches, migrated to the eastern side of the southeast arm of the lake, where the numbers of fishers and gears have, in the past, been low due to the distance of markets from the landing centres. The DoF has, in recent years, been promoting offshore deep-water fishing for the small-scale fishery to exploit about 30,000 tonnes of underutilized deep-water fish stocks. Ironically, the catch trends on Lake Malombe alone still do not show any remarkable increase. The catches have, since the 1990s, been fluctuating between 3,000 tonnes and 4,000 tonnes, while, in the late 1970s and 1980s, they were around 8,000 tonnes per annum.<\/span><\/p>\n

To address the problem of declining fish catches, the DoF adopted the PFM approach in the early 1990s. The main reason was to involve the resource users in the formulation and enforcement of fisheries regulations, thereby improving compliance, which was then low. To a certain extent, the management regime would also address the problems of resource ownership, definition of incentives, popular participation principles and clear assignment of roles for various participating groups. The government approved the PFM approach with objectives and roles of the user community as stipulated in the National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy (NFAP) of 2000 and Fisheries Management and Conservation Act of 1997. However, despite the long implementation period of nearly one-and-a-half decades, PFM does not appear to have contributed to fish stock recovery, especially for chambo <\/i>(Oreochromis <\/i>sp.) on Lake Malombe and Southern Lake Malawi.<\/span><\/p>\n

Power struggle<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/p>\n

Previous evaluation studies have shown several setbacks especially in terms of power struggle between user-group representatives (BVCs) or subcommittees and local leaders; unclear roles of various stakeholders; weak capacity to enforce fisheries regulations; and sectoral compartmentalization in the management of fisheries resources. Consequently, a broad-based PFM arrangement that takes into account governance, popular participation and accountability within a decentralized framework, which enables the user community to identify their needs and prioritize solutions, is being advocated. <\/span><\/p>\n

After a decade of implementing the PFM on Lake Malombe and Southern Lake Malawi, questions abound as to whether progress has been registered and whether it is justifiable to continue with the PFM arrangements, and, finally, how the initial design of the PFM fits into the decentralization framework, a governance reform that promotes transfer of administrative and political authority from the central government to local government, introduced in 1998 as part of the government’s decentralization policy. <\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, the DoF called for a stakeholders meeting in 2004, with the participation of the Mangochi District Assembly, including two traditional chiefs and a magistrate. <\/span><\/p>\n

The meeting highlighted the weakness of the DoF in terms of its failure to enforce fishing regulations, as it appeared to have abrogated its enforcement function to the BVCs. The meeting blamed the DoF for its laxity on law enforcement, believing that PFM could address non-compliance problems. The stakeholders identified other specific issues:<\/span><\/p>\n