166
P. Onyango and S. Jentoft
The Fish Processing Establishment (FPE) owners have also designed a strategy
for developing infrastructural facilities such as sanitation and roads, even improving
landing sites as a means of reducing poverty within fi shing communities. In addition to this, some of these FPEs have embarked on digging wells for some fi shing
communities since 2008. These activities have been readily accepted by fi shing
communities and poverty alleviation governors. Although it is too early to measure
the full impact of such initiatives, the rate at which poverty has been growing in
these communities generates a lot of questions with regards to whether they can
yield any tangible or observable changes. In other words, poverty in these communities is broader and requires a more comprehensive approach than just providing
such facilities. As Krishna ( 2010 ) argues, one positive step taken to address poverty
in one direction is affected by several other factors, which serve to pull the poor in
the opposite direction; deeper into poverty. This presents a governability challenge
to poverty alleviation governors. Poverty alleviation approaches must therefore be
sensitive to the many aspects of poor fi shers’ livelihood conditions, an entrenched
feature of broader approaches like the interactive governance perspective.
Governing Interactions
Governing interactions comprise forms of communication, participation and representation between the system-to-governed and the governing system. From our
perspective, it is the nature of the interactions between the governors and the
system-to-be-governed that can shed some light on the stubbornness of poverty in
small-scale fi shing communities. We argue that poverty persists in fi shing communities, because poverty alleviation governors, with good intentions, confront the
poverty problems based on each governor’s image of what the problem is rather
than how poverty is actually experienced within these communities. When determining policy agendas, governing interactions that target poverty alleviation are
guided by interests and power. This generates inadequate and ineffective interactions, where people at the village level have little or any in fl uence on decisions or
strategies directed at the alleviation of poverty.
As we have shown above, there are several institutional poverty alleviation governors in the Lake Victoria fi sheries. Each of these tends to perceive and address
poverty differently. At the regional level, for example, the LVFO confronts poverty
through empowering communities to manage the Lake’s fi sheries. They do this by
undertaking activities that include, among others, capacity-building in business and
management skills, empowering fi shers to participate in management of the fi sheries.
As these governors undertake their activities, they have established working relations and a communication system that is coordinated by the LFVO (Fig. 9.2 ).
As Fig. 9.2 indicates, interactions between the governing system and system-to-begoverned in Lake Victoria fi sheries cover various levels, beginning with fi shers at
P. Onyango and S. Jentoft
The Fish Processing Establishment (FPE) owners have also designed a strategy
for developing infrastructural facilities such as sanitation and roads, even improving
landing sites as a means of reducing poverty within fi shing communities. In addition to this, some of these FPEs have embarked on digging wells for some fi shing
communities since 2008. These activities have been readily accepted by fi shing
communities and poverty alleviation governors. Although it is too early to measure
the full impact of such initiatives, the rate at which poverty has been growing in
these communities generates a lot of questions with regards to whether they can
yield any tangible or observable changes. In other words, poverty in these communities is broader and requires a more comprehensive approach than just providing
such facilities. As Krishna ( 2010 ) argues, one positive step taken to address poverty
in one direction is affected by several other factors, which serve to pull the poor in
the opposite direction; deeper into poverty. This presents a governability challenge
to poverty alleviation governors. Poverty alleviation approaches must therefore be
sensitive to the many aspects of poor fi shers’ livelihood conditions, an entrenched
feature of broader approaches like the interactive governance perspective.
Governing Interactions
Governing interactions comprise forms of communication, participation and representation between the system-to-governed and the governing system. From our
perspective, it is the nature of the interactions between the governors and the
system-to-be-governed that can shed some light on the stubbornness of poverty in
small-scale fi shing communities. We argue that poverty persists in fi shing communities, because poverty alleviation governors, with good intentions, confront the
poverty problems based on each governor’s image of what the problem is rather
than how poverty is actually experienced within these communities. When determining policy agendas, governing interactions that target poverty alleviation are
guided by interests and power. This generates inadequate and ineffective interactions, where people at the village level have little or any in fl uence on decisions or
strategies directed at the alleviation of poverty.
As we have shown above, there are several institutional poverty alleviation governors in the Lake Victoria fi sheries. Each of these tends to perceive and address
poverty differently. At the regional level, for example, the LVFO confronts poverty
through empowering communities to manage the Lake’s fi sheries. They do this by
undertaking activities that include, among others, capacity-building in business and
management skills, empowering fi shers to participate in management of the fi sheries.
As these governors undertake their activities, they have established working relations and a communication system that is coordinated by the LFVO (Fig. 9.2 ).
As Fig. 9.2 indicates, interactions between the governing system and system-to-begoverned in Lake Victoria fi sheries cover various levels, beginning with fi shers at