323
ment of the tent. All parties agreed that ownership of the facilities was unclear due
to the top-down approach used both by the project staff and the BVC. Issues of
management should have been addressed at the onset of the project, and this would
have ensured that different actors were involved and could be held accountable,
both at local and district level.
3.4 Infrastructure Development
The indicator had the highest score (3) on the consolidated scorecard (Table 2), as
both the service providers and the community members acknowledged that the facilities were a good development in the area. The community viewed the solar drying
method as time efficient and hygienic and produced high-quality dried fish. Thus,
despite the fact that none of the facilities were in use and the tent dryer was dilapidated, the community thought the project made some achievements. All four community focus groups stressed that the facilities were too far from the fish landing site,
which was a negative effect on development. The service providers, however, scored
themselves a 4 (Table 2). To justify the score, they explained that they had succeeded
in conducting an inception meeting and meeting the BVC, to whom they also
explained how the technology worked. Further, they had succeeded in constructing
the tents and handing them over to the community through the BVC. The community
felt that the tent was too small. One of the male fish processors posed a hypothetical
question to the service providers concerning how many fish processors would have
been able to use the tent dryer if management of the tent had been successful. The
service providers explained that the holding capacity of the tent dryer was adequate
as the project was a trial in Nkhotakota. They further explained that the holding
capacity was based on estimations of catches received from the fisheries department.
They could not have constructed bigger tent dryers as in other fishing communities
in Malawi whose catches were large than those in Nkhotakota.
The female fish processors also complained that no toilets had been constructed
at the site, which affected the hygiene of the area. In response, the service providers
explained that construction of toilets should have been the community’s contribution to the project, as a way of reducing dependency on assistance from projects.
This point would have been valid if the community had been involved in the
planning. Participatory planning of the project would have clarified the expectations
and contributions from all parties involved.
3.5 Capacity Building
The community’s main concern was the lack of training on construction and usage
of the facilities. They complained that they were not involved in the construction
and were not trained to maintain the facilities; and the challenge was that they would
Of ‘White Elephant’ in Fisheries: A Conflict Resolution Model Around the Usage…
ment of the tent. All parties agreed that ownership of the facilities was unclear due
to the top-down approach used both by the project staff and the BVC. Issues of
management should have been addressed at the onset of the project, and this would
have ensured that different actors were involved and could be held accountable,
both at local and district level.
3.4 Infrastructure Development
The indicator had the highest score (3) on the consolidated scorecard (Table 2), as
both the service providers and the community members acknowledged that the facilities were a good development in the area. The community viewed the solar drying
method as time efficient and hygienic and produced high-quality dried fish. Thus,
despite the fact that none of the facilities were in use and the tent dryer was dilapidated, the community thought the project made some achievements. All four community focus groups stressed that the facilities were too far from the fish landing site,
which was a negative effect on development. The service providers, however, scored
themselves a 4 (Table 2). To justify the score, they explained that they had succeeded
in conducting an inception meeting and meeting the BVC, to whom they also
explained how the technology worked. Further, they had succeeded in constructing
the tents and handing them over to the community through the BVC. The community
felt that the tent was too small. One of the male fish processors posed a hypothetical
question to the service providers concerning how many fish processors would have
been able to use the tent dryer if management of the tent had been successful. The
service providers explained that the holding capacity of the tent dryer was adequate
as the project was a trial in Nkhotakota. They further explained that the holding
capacity was based on estimations of catches received from the fisheries department.
They could not have constructed bigger tent dryers as in other fishing communities
in Malawi whose catches were large than those in Nkhotakota.
The female fish processors also complained that no toilets had been constructed
at the site, which affected the hygiene of the area. In response, the service providers
explained that construction of toilets should have been the community’s contribution to the project, as a way of reducing dependency on assistance from projects.
This point would have been valid if the community had been involved in the
planning. Participatory planning of the project would have clarified the expectations
and contributions from all parties involved.
3.5 Capacity Building
The community’s main concern was the lack of training on construction and usage
of the facilities. They complained that they were not involved in the construction
and were not trained to maintain the facilities; and the challenge was that they would
Of ‘White Elephant’ in Fisheries: A Conflict Resolution Model Around the Usage…