294
A. Song and R. Chuenpagdee
conservation, protecting fi sh habitats and species, and promoting scienti fi c research
on the lake ecosystem, were ranked comparatively high by both groupings. An
agreement was also found in the mid-ranking of the promotion of small-scale community fi sh cage culturing. Finally, the program that ensures fi shing access to local
fi shers and communities was, in comparison to the other six hypothetical programs,
generally the least preferred one by both groups.
As Fig. 15.3 highlights, the two conservation-oriented programs are positioned
mid-to-high in both groups’ preference ranking scales. This can be loosely interpreted as the respondents valuing conservation in a moderate sense – in other words,
they care about conservation to some degree. Based on this, and together with the
presence of the shared understanding of damaging fi shing activities, which can help
create a common vision for the fi sheries, we can expect moderate potential in
advancing conservation goals in the SEA fi shery. An important challenge must,
however, be noted when looking at the top inclinations of the two groups. While the
managers/scientists group were partial to the program that protects fi sh habitats and
species, the resource-dependent group showed a clear preference for the provision
of loans that would enable the expansion of one’s fi shing work. We believe that this
difference must be duly recognized and reconciled if the conservation potential and
the resolution of the illegal fi shing situation is to be realized.
Discussion: Conservation, Economic Wellbeing and Illegal Fishing
The resource-dependent group’s leading preference was shown to be the expansion
of one’s fi shing work by acquiring capital through loans. In other words, the
resource-dependent group’s preference of economic expansion and development
seems to clearly outpace other inclinations, including conservation. In fact, this
empirical fi nding corresponds to the general, prevailing line of thinking in Malawi,
which, whether it concerns fi sheries or other sectors, revolves around the development agenda. Poverty alleviation and raising the standard of living through development, modernization and rapid economic growth are the main themes that reverberate
in all sectors of government affairs (GoM 2009 ) . According to the 2001 National
Fisheries and Aquaculture policy, the major policy goals in fi sheries are aimed at
“maximizing the sustainable yield…to improve the ef fi ciency of exploitation, processing and marketing…to promote investment in the fi shing industry, rural fi sh
farming units and exploit all opportunities to expand existing and develop new
aquatic resources” (GoM 2001 , 5). Furthermore, persistent attempts to expand
fi sheries further offshore, a production-oriented modernization agenda and examples
of policy support for the industrial sector exemplify the government’s pro-development
position in steering the fi sheries sector. It is worth noting, however, that some inconsistencies and ambivalence have been observed in fi sheries development policy
over the years (Chirwa 1996 ; Allison et al. 2002 ) . The theme of poverty alleviation
and development is also prominent in rural fi shing villages at the community level,
A. Song and R. Chuenpagdee
conservation, protecting fi sh habitats and species, and promoting scienti fi c research
on the lake ecosystem, were ranked comparatively high by both groupings. An
agreement was also found in the mid-ranking of the promotion of small-scale community fi sh cage culturing. Finally, the program that ensures fi shing access to local
fi shers and communities was, in comparison to the other six hypothetical programs,
generally the least preferred one by both groups.
As Fig. 15.3 highlights, the two conservation-oriented programs are positioned
mid-to-high in both groups’ preference ranking scales. This can be loosely interpreted as the respondents valuing conservation in a moderate sense – in other words,
they care about conservation to some degree. Based on this, and together with the
presence of the shared understanding of damaging fi shing activities, which can help
create a common vision for the fi sheries, we can expect moderate potential in
advancing conservation goals in the SEA fi shery. An important challenge must,
however, be noted when looking at the top inclinations of the two groups. While the
managers/scientists group were partial to the program that protects fi sh habitats and
species, the resource-dependent group showed a clear preference for the provision
of loans that would enable the expansion of one’s fi shing work. We believe that this
difference must be duly recognized and reconciled if the conservation potential and
the resolution of the illegal fi shing situation is to be realized.
Discussion: Conservation, Economic Wellbeing and Illegal Fishing
The resource-dependent group’s leading preference was shown to be the expansion
of one’s fi shing work by acquiring capital through loans. In other words, the
resource-dependent group’s preference of economic expansion and development
seems to clearly outpace other inclinations, including conservation. In fact, this
empirical fi nding corresponds to the general, prevailing line of thinking in Malawi,
which, whether it concerns fi sheries or other sectors, revolves around the development agenda. Poverty alleviation and raising the standard of living through development, modernization and rapid economic growth are the main themes that reverberate
in all sectors of government affairs (GoM 2009 ) . According to the 2001 National
Fisheries and Aquaculture policy, the major policy goals in fi sheries are aimed at
“maximizing the sustainable yield…to improve the ef fi ciency of exploitation, processing and marketing…to promote investment in the fi shing industry, rural fi sh
farming units and exploit all opportunities to expand existing and develop new
aquatic resources” (GoM 2001 , 5). Furthermore, persistent attempts to expand
fi sheries further offshore, a production-oriented modernization agenda and examples
of policy support for the industrial sector exemplify the government’s pro-development
position in steering the fi sheries sector. It is worth noting, however, that some inconsistencies and ambivalence have been observed in fi sheries development policy
over the years (Chirwa 1996 ; Allison et al. 2002 ) . The theme of poverty alleviation
and development is also prominent in rural fi shing villages at the community level,