322
A female FP further expressed that the top-down approach used by the project
and the BVC made them assume that the tent was either constructed for the fisheries
department or the BVC and not for the community at large. A female member of the
ADC stated that some of them were not sure of the use of the facilities; some thought
the tent dryer was for storing animals. The community group thought that the tent
was built for the fisheries department, as it was constructed on their premises, rather
than on a site that would have been favourable for the fish processors themselves. As
explained in their focus group, one of the service providers explained to the community that selection of the site was based on technicalities such as the soils and
wind patterns. The implementers endeavoured to explain the technical justification
to the community, but a female member of the BVC responded by stating that they
had potential sites within their village that fit the mentioned site requirements. The
problem was that they had not been asked to suggest options.
Co-management is aimed at increasing user communities’ partnerships in managing resources that they depend on for livelihoods to yield better management
outcomes (Ngochera et al. 2017). This is appropriately aligned to the decentralisation policy and legislation (GoM 1998a, b), based on principles of bottom-up planning, which means that communities decide and prioritise issues and aspects of
development directly impacting their livelihoods in their local areas. The discussions between implementers and the community indicated that the community had
the capacity to understand technicalities of development initiatives based on their
local knowledge and were able to not only contest decisions but also make suggestions that would increase adoption and participation.
3.3 Management of Facilities
The community reported that the project had not monitored progress, which resulted
in reduced commitment to managing the tent. The service providers however
explained that once they had handed over to the BVC, the community assumed ownership and thus management of the facilities. However, conflicts arose in the Chipala
community. First, the fisheries department forbade fish processing activities on their
premises. This did not include the dryer and kilns; but the disagreements between the
BVC and the fish processors made the dryer dysfunctional. The fish processors complained that the prices were too high, compared to the neighbouring project site.
Since there was no revenue, the BVC could not maintain the structure. One of the
female fish processors expressed her willingness to renovate the tent dryer by replacing the sheets and door that was stolen. This was rejected by the BVC, who in turn
claimed that maintenance should have been sponsored by the project.
The BVC also found the price to be fair, noting that the fish processors made
large profits from their business. In response, the fish processors explained the process and the fluctuation of prices on the market. The community interface meeting
was the first time that the BVC and fish processors as well as the implementers and
different local development stakeholders had a formal discussion about the manageF. W. Kayamba-Phiri et al.
A female FP further expressed that the top-down approach used by the project
and the BVC made them assume that the tent was either constructed for the fisheries
department or the BVC and not for the community at large. A female member of the
ADC stated that some of them were not sure of the use of the facilities; some thought
the tent dryer was for storing animals. The community group thought that the tent
was built for the fisheries department, as it was constructed on their premises, rather
than on a site that would have been favourable for the fish processors themselves. As
explained in their focus group, one of the service providers explained to the community that selection of the site was based on technicalities such as the soils and
wind patterns. The implementers endeavoured to explain the technical justification
to the community, but a female member of the BVC responded by stating that they
had potential sites within their village that fit the mentioned site requirements. The
problem was that they had not been asked to suggest options.
Co-management is aimed at increasing user communities’ partnerships in managing resources that they depend on for livelihoods to yield better management
outcomes (Ngochera et al. 2017). This is appropriately aligned to the decentralisation policy and legislation (GoM 1998a, b), based on principles of bottom-up planning, which means that communities decide and prioritise issues and aspects of
development directly impacting their livelihoods in their local areas. The discussions between implementers and the community indicated that the community had
the capacity to understand technicalities of development initiatives based on their
local knowledge and were able to not only contest decisions but also make suggestions that would increase adoption and participation.
3.3 Management of Facilities
The community reported that the project had not monitored progress, which resulted
in reduced commitment to managing the tent. The service providers however
explained that once they had handed over to the BVC, the community assumed ownership and thus management of the facilities. However, conflicts arose in the Chipala
community. First, the fisheries department forbade fish processing activities on their
premises. This did not include the dryer and kilns; but the disagreements between the
BVC and the fish processors made the dryer dysfunctional. The fish processors complained that the prices were too high, compared to the neighbouring project site.
Since there was no revenue, the BVC could not maintain the structure. One of the
female fish processors expressed her willingness to renovate the tent dryer by replacing the sheets and door that was stolen. This was rejected by the BVC, who in turn
claimed that maintenance should have been sponsored by the project.
The BVC also found the price to be fair, noting that the fish processors made
large profits from their business. In response, the fish processors explained the process and the fluctuation of prices on the market. The community interface meeting
was the first time that the BVC and fish processors as well as the implementers and
different local development stakeholders had a formal discussion about the manageF. W. Kayamba-Phiri et al.