320
• The lack of access to loans and trainings and the small holding capacity of the
solar dryer tent
The community focus groups prioritised the issues respectively. The service provider scorecard had three indicators, namely, community involvement, adoption,
and infrastructure development. The community identified community involvement, management of facilities, infrastructure development, and capacity building
as their indicators.
Table 2 is a summary of the five scorecards, the community scorecard, and the
consolidated scorecard. The Likert scale was between 1 and 5. The scores represent
5, very good; 4, good; 3, not so bad; 2, bad; and 1, very bad. The data shows that in
all but one of the individual group scorecards and the consolidated scorecard, the
scores remained under 3 (Table 2).
3.2 Community Involvement
The general impression was that the majority of the community were not made
aware of the project. Participants from all four community focus groups reported
that there were no awareness meetings organised by the project to inform the community at large about the project. Similarly, the Area and Village Development
Committee (ADC/VDC) participants stressed the lack of consultation of
development committees in the planning phase of the project. As one participant put
it, the ADC and VDC are regarded as the ‘custodians of rural development’ in their
areas. According to procedure, the ADC and VDC are meant to participate in all
development projects in a targeted area, regardless of the sector, and, in this case,
fisheries.
A related institutional challenge confronting co-management of natural resources
appears to be associated with competing and often overlapping leadership roles at
the local community level. At this level, the roles of different local committees,
as well as chiefs, in co-management arrangements are unclear (Kamoto 2014;
Table 2 Summary of community, service provider, and consolidated scorecards
Indicator
Female Male BVC
ADC/
VDC
Community
Service
providers
Consolidated
scorecard
1. Community
involvement
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
2. Management of
facilities
1
1
1
3
1
1
3. Infrastructure
development
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
4. Capacity
building
2
1
1
2
1
2
5. Adoption
1
F. W. Kayamba-Phiri et al.
• The lack of access to loans and trainings and the small holding capacity of the
solar dryer tent
The community focus groups prioritised the issues respectively. The service provider scorecard had three indicators, namely, community involvement, adoption,
and infrastructure development. The community identified community involvement, management of facilities, infrastructure development, and capacity building
as their indicators.
Table 2 is a summary of the five scorecards, the community scorecard, and the
consolidated scorecard. The Likert scale was between 1 and 5. The scores represent
5, very good; 4, good; 3, not so bad; 2, bad; and 1, very bad. The data shows that in
all but one of the individual group scorecards and the consolidated scorecard, the
scores remained under 3 (Table 2).
3.2 Community Involvement
The general impression was that the majority of the community were not made
aware of the project. Participants from all four community focus groups reported
that there were no awareness meetings organised by the project to inform the community at large about the project. Similarly, the Area and Village Development
Committee (ADC/VDC) participants stressed the lack of consultation of
development committees in the planning phase of the project. As one participant put
it, the ADC and VDC are regarded as the ‘custodians of rural development’ in their
areas. According to procedure, the ADC and VDC are meant to participate in all
development projects in a targeted area, regardless of the sector, and, in this case,
fisheries.
A related institutional challenge confronting co-management of natural resources
appears to be associated with competing and often overlapping leadership roles at
the local community level. At this level, the roles of different local committees,
as well as chiefs, in co-management arrangements are unclear (Kamoto 2014;
Table 2 Summary of community, service provider, and consolidated scorecards
Indicator
Female Male BVC
ADC/
VDC
Community
Service
providers
Consolidated
scorecard
1. Community
involvement
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
2. Management of
facilities
1
1
1
3
1
1
3. Infrastructure
development
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
4. Capacity
building
2
1
1
2
1
2
5. Adoption
1
F. W. Kayamba-Phiri et al.