321
Hara et al. 2014). This is evident from the statements of the project implementers
who stressed that they had followed procedure as instructed by the fisheries extension office in Nkhotakota. Competition for power arises between committees such
as the BVC and development committees as vehicles for user participation in comanagement of natural resources. The confusion arose because the roles of the different committees were not defined on the onset, which affected the management
process and community participation. The BVC assumed all management, and as
the ADC and VDC were not involved, there was no accountability at the local level.
The service providers reported that the project staff conducted an inception
meeting with the fisheries department and the District Executive Committee (DEC),
after which they organised a similar meeting in the community, which was attended
by BVC members who would later manage the facilities. The rest of the community,
however, felt that the inception meeting should have involved others in addition to
the BVC, such as the ADC, VDC, local chiefs, and, most importantly, the fish processors themselves, none of whom are members of the BVC. The argument of the
community members was that if the inception meeting did not involve them as the
main users of the facilities, there was bound to be conflicts around management of
the facilities. This was a learning point for the service providers, as they acknowledged that they could have considered including the ADC/VDC and other community members in the initial meetings. From the advice given from the fisheries
department, it seemed that an inception meeting with the DEC and later the BVC
would suffice.
The fish processors complained that they had not been included in any of the
processes concerned with the planning of the project; they were only informed
about the usage and payment regulations for the facilities. Their further argument
was that the conflict was a result of assumptions made by the BVC about fish processing and, without consultation, setting prices that were too high for fish processors – a top-down approach. Thus, there was no co-management between the BVC
and the fish processors, as intended by the project.
During the FGD, the implementers were of the view that the Chipala community
was a complex community to work with, and this affected community involvement.
They compared Chipala and Vinthenga villages and the level of commitment that
the community members had to construction and management of the tent dryers.
The members of Chipala community did not take part in construction of the tent, to
which the community responded that they were not made aware that they needed to
get involved; they thought it was the responsibility of the BVC. The mediation
session between the fish processors and the BVC confirmed the implementers’ concerns about the community in Chipala having a complex governance structure,
which had adopted a top-down approach with regard to community participation.
The implementers also expressed shock at the fact that the area where the facilities were constructed in Chipala had previously been a busy fish market, and this
was used as justification for constructing the facilities in Chipala. In response, the
community explained that the drastic change was a result of the decision by the
fisheries department to stop all trade on the premises for security reasons.
Of ‘White Elephant’ in Fisheries: A Conflict Resolution Model Around the Usage…
Hara et al. 2014). This is evident from the statements of the project implementers
who stressed that they had followed procedure as instructed by the fisheries extension office in Nkhotakota. Competition for power arises between committees such
as the BVC and development committees as vehicles for user participation in comanagement of natural resources. The confusion arose because the roles of the different committees were not defined on the onset, which affected the management
process and community participation. The BVC assumed all management, and as
the ADC and VDC were not involved, there was no accountability at the local level.
The service providers reported that the project staff conducted an inception
meeting with the fisheries department and the District Executive Committee (DEC),
after which they organised a similar meeting in the community, which was attended
by BVC members who would later manage the facilities. The rest of the community,
however, felt that the inception meeting should have involved others in addition to
the BVC, such as the ADC, VDC, local chiefs, and, most importantly, the fish processors themselves, none of whom are members of the BVC. The argument of the
community members was that if the inception meeting did not involve them as the
main users of the facilities, there was bound to be conflicts around management of
the facilities. This was a learning point for the service providers, as they acknowledged that they could have considered including the ADC/VDC and other community members in the initial meetings. From the advice given from the fisheries
department, it seemed that an inception meeting with the DEC and later the BVC
would suffice.
The fish processors complained that they had not been included in any of the
processes concerned with the planning of the project; they were only informed
about the usage and payment regulations for the facilities. Their further argument
was that the conflict was a result of assumptions made by the BVC about fish processing and, without consultation, setting prices that were too high for fish processors – a top-down approach. Thus, there was no co-management between the BVC
and the fish processors, as intended by the project.
During the FGD, the implementers were of the view that the Chipala community
was a complex community to work with, and this affected community involvement.
They compared Chipala and Vinthenga villages and the level of commitment that
the community members had to construction and management of the tent dryers.
The members of Chipala community did not take part in construction of the tent, to
which the community responded that they were not made aware that they needed to
get involved; they thought it was the responsibility of the BVC. The mediation
session between the fish processors and the BVC confirmed the implementers’ concerns about the community in Chipala having a complex governance structure,
which had adopted a top-down approach with regard to community participation.
The implementers also expressed shock at the fact that the area where the facilities were constructed in Chipala had previously been a busy fish market, and this
was used as justification for constructing the facilities in Chipala. In response, the
community explained that the drastic change was a result of the decision by the
fisheries department to stop all trade on the premises for security reasons.
Of ‘White Elephant’ in Fisheries: A Conflict Resolution Model Around the Usage…