167
9 Poverty in Lake Victorian Fisheries – Understanding Governability
the beach level where they have formed Beach Management Units (BMUs). BMUs
are a form of co-management regime comprised of fi shers, fi sh traders, gear makers
and menders, women and other residents in a fi shing village. They were formed in
1998 and have since been re-established across the entire Lake. The interactions
here take place between and among the BMU members at the fi shing village and the
district councils. The communication that takes place is focused on reporting activities undertaken by the BMUs in the lower level to upper level institutions like the
Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development, nationally, and the LVFO, regionally. Other agencies and donors also work with the BMUs, the district councils, the
ministry and LVFO, to promote capacity-building, awareness creation and sustainable activities.
Interaction with higher levels has mainly been in two directions. The thematic working groups mentioned above interact with the BMUs through data
collection, which is used to inform management policies. The working groups
pass the same information to the higher-level governors, some of whose responsibilities we discussed in the previous section. Once decisions are made by the
council of ministers, the information fl ows back to the lower levels for
implementation.
The governance interaction in Lake Victoria described here points out to two
main challenges. The fi rst has to do with the time taken to make decisions and
implement them. Whereas fi shers poverty problems involve everyday life experiences, for example, the crocodile attacks in Nyakasenge village, or access to health
services, markets for fi sh products and schools in the case of Kasheno village, the
need to make daily decisions regarding how to address these poverty problems
requires that the interaction process among poverty alleviation governors should be
one that expedites decision-making.
Moreover, governors must address micro-problems like the frequent crocodile
attacks and the dif fi culties with reaching a health facility at night, instead of only
focusing on macro issues like improving access to the export markets for fi sh products (Krishna 2010 ) . As important as the latter is, addressing the former must go
hand in hand.
Secondly, the governance interaction also shows that upper level institutions,
such as the Council of Ministers or the Summit (The Head of the riparian States),
are generally responsible for making decisions. The dif fi culty or challenge with
decisions made at these levels has to do with what poverty means to the decision
makers and the poor, and how to address it. In other words, it depends on whose
knowledge or on what grounds poverty alleviation strategies should be built. In our
estimation, the governability problem would diminish if the knowledge of decision-makers or the poor fi shers regarding what poverty means and what it would
take to bring fi shing people out of it were based on a shared understanding among
both governors and stakeholder. This would require more constructive interactions
than those that currently take place within this complex institutional chain of
decision-making.
9 Poverty in Lake Victorian Fisheries – Understanding Governability
the beach level where they have formed Beach Management Units (BMUs). BMUs
are a form of co-management regime comprised of fi shers, fi sh traders, gear makers
and menders, women and other residents in a fi shing village. They were formed in
1998 and have since been re-established across the entire Lake. The interactions
here take place between and among the BMU members at the fi shing village and the
district councils. The communication that takes place is focused on reporting activities undertaken by the BMUs in the lower level to upper level institutions like the
Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development, nationally, and the LVFO, regionally. Other agencies and donors also work with the BMUs, the district councils, the
ministry and LVFO, to promote capacity-building, awareness creation and sustainable activities.
Interaction with higher levels has mainly been in two directions. The thematic working groups mentioned above interact with the BMUs through data
collection, which is used to inform management policies. The working groups
pass the same information to the higher-level governors, some of whose responsibilities we discussed in the previous section. Once decisions are made by the
council of ministers, the information fl ows back to the lower levels for
implementation.
The governance interaction in Lake Victoria described here points out to two
main challenges. The fi rst has to do with the time taken to make decisions and
implement them. Whereas fi shers poverty problems involve everyday life experiences, for example, the crocodile attacks in Nyakasenge village, or access to health
services, markets for fi sh products and schools in the case of Kasheno village, the
need to make daily decisions regarding how to address these poverty problems
requires that the interaction process among poverty alleviation governors should be
one that expedites decision-making.
Moreover, governors must address micro-problems like the frequent crocodile
attacks and the dif fi culties with reaching a health facility at night, instead of only
focusing on macro issues like improving access to the export markets for fi sh products (Krishna 2010 ) . As important as the latter is, addressing the former must go
hand in hand.
Secondly, the governance interaction also shows that upper level institutions,
such as the Council of Ministers or the Summit (The Head of the riparian States),
are generally responsible for making decisions. The dif fi culty or challenge with
decisions made at these levels has to do with what poverty means to the decision
makers and the poor, and how to address it. In other words, it depends on whose
knowledge or on what grounds poverty alleviation strategies should be built. In our
estimation, the governability problem would diminish if the knowledge of decision-makers or the poor fi shers regarding what poverty means and what it would
take to bring fi shing people out of it were based on a shared understanding among
both governors and stakeholder. This would require more constructive interactions
than those that currently take place within this complex institutional chain of
decision-making.