The establishment of co-management in 1993 facilitated continuous interactions across the activity systems where the government and communities started working together and this led to the establishment of the first locally accepted institutions, the Beach Village Committees
144
(see section 1.5) which, as indicated above, are representative of the fishers. Data generated in the context of the Lake Malombe case study showed the following dimensions of the fishing community activity system (see Figure 5.2) below.
The fishers and crew members form the main subjects in this activity system. Their main
object is co-management of the fisheries resources. They work with fish traders, fish
processors, local leaders, BVC members and extension officers in their community. Their activity is shaped by the following rules: closed season regulations, minimum takeable sizes of fish, recommended mesh sizes of fishing nets and authorised fishing gear in particular fishing areas. There is also a clear division of labour that shows the management of fishing units, marketing of fish after landing, maintenance of fishing gear, payment of fishing licences, gear design and construction, fishing, monitoring of fishing activities and research.
Figure 5.3: An illustration of Lake Malombe fishing community activity system
Changes over time: However, as explained by Engeström and other cultural historical activity theorists, the activity system as it appears today is not static; it is historically formed, and is also continually changing. Interview and focus group data shows evidence of the changing and dynamic nature of this activity system. Since the start of the co-management programme there have been improvements in the way stakeholders have interacted and from the interviews I noted people have appreciated the existing forums where they are able to discuss issues of fisheries management together with government. Other changes and dynamics discussed by the fishers, as shown in the data, are:
Subjects: Fishers and crew members
Rules: Government rules and regulations on closed seasons, minimum takeable size of fish, authorized mesh sizes of fishing nets, authorised fishing areas, by-laws developed by communities with support from government
Community: fish traders, fish
processors, local leaders, BVC members, extension officers, research officers, college lecturers
Division of labour: management of the fishing unit, fishing, marketing fish products, gear maintenance, paying fishing licenses, designing and construction of fishing gears, fishing, research Object: co-management of
the fishery to ensure
good/improved fish catches, food security, good living standards for rural people, earn a living through good fish catches Outcome: Sustainable livelihoods and improved income Mediating artefacts: BVC meetings,
workshops, training sessions, informal meetings; diverse forms of fishing gear, boats, fish processing equipment etc.
Interview with individual IIM: The coming of co-management in Lake Malombe has
changed the way we used to interact when the government was in control of the fisheries activities. As people who have similar interests we are able to sit, discuss and agree on certain issues. We can say with co-management, fishers are able to discuss and agree on better ways of managing the fisheries resources and people share past experiences and map for the future as resource users. However we need to continue interacting as people with the same interest and needs.
Partnership formation: Data also showed that government extension and research officers have, on different occasions, worked with fishing communities through BVC training programmes, awareness campaign meetings, licencing and enforcement programmes, workshops, consultative meetings during evaluation of other programmes and other research programmes conducted in the area. The Government of Malawi (2005) suggested that the participatory fisheries management process should be considered as a cycle of working in partnership, planning, and implementation of monitoring and learning to continuously improve practice and provision of services to improve the well-being of people and the fisheries resources (GoM, 2005). Evidence of such a partnership approach was found in the interviews and focus groups with fishers in Lake Malombe, as shown by the citations below:
Focus Group Data FGM 2: The working relationships that are in existence with the
establishment of fisheries co-management has helped to bring stakeholders from government, us fishers and those who are working with us in the rural areas together to discuss issues of fisheries management. We work together to plan some of the co- management activities.
Interview with individual IIM 4: We used to experience some problems when the
arrangement of co-management started because we were not trained on how to work together. After several training sessions we saw that our relationships with fellow fishers and those from government were getting better. Things are getting clearer and every time we meet we learn new things and everyone strives to improve practices. Cultural influences and power relations: I also found evidence of cultural influences and experiences in the activity system. This related to the way that the fishers were engaging with traditional authority, and also how they were using traditional knowledge, and tacit knowledge experienced and learned through being involved in practices over time. Cultural practices were also related to power relations, as reflected in this citation below.
Focus group data FGM 1: As BVC members we work with our traditional leaders in
the proper management of the fisheries resources. When a fisher is caught doing illegal fishing or fishing during closed season we take him to the chief for trial. Our traditional chiefs have the history of the practices and apart from giving trials they also give advice to the offenders by giving them a picture of the particular practice and how over time they have affected the fishing industry in Lake Malombe. We make sure that the trial is fair. Since the chiefs are the overall custodians of land their
146
judgement is final. Sometimes we as BVC members are not satisfied with the chief’s judgement and when that happens we inform our extension officers to help and talk to the chief.