Analysis of social learning interactions in the two case studies

As discussed in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, the introduction of fisheries co-management facilitated interactions among different stakeholders. Nielsen (1997, p. 223) argued that community based management is not simply about community participation in a management or conservation programme. It is about local community authorship and ownership of marine management in which outsiders may be invited to participate. It is based on the premise that local communities have the right and responsibility to manage their own resources and spaces. The data above shows that co-learning within and across activity systems is a central part of this process. The idea that one could generate unequivocal and uncontested knowledge and understanding of a situation as a basis for rational planning has eroded rapidly since the 1980s and has been replaced by the idea that it is essential to deal with multiple realities in social problem solving efforts Leeuwis & van den Ban, 2004). The data presented above shows that this requires an understanding of the activity systems at play in different contexts, their socio-cultural histories, changes over time, and the politics and power relations that shape interactions within and across the activity systems.



7KH GDWD SUHVHQWHG DERYH DOVR VKRZV WKDW WKH PRELOLVDWLRQ RI FRPDQDJHPHQW VWDNHKROGHUV EULQJV SHRSOH ZKR KDYH GLIIHUHQW SHUVSHFWLYHV RQ UHVRXUFH PDQDJHPHQW WRJHWKHU DQG WKHLU GLIIHUHQWYLHZVDQGXQGHUVWDQGLQJRQWKHPDQDJHPHQWRIWKHILVKHULHVUHVRXUFHVFDQIDFLOLWDWH FROHDUQLQJ RI FRQWHQW WKDW LV RI FRPPRQ LQWHUHVW 6XFK FROHDUQLQJ LV DOVR VWUXFWXUHG LQ SDUWLFXODUZD\VWKDWUHVRQDWHZLWKSRZHUUHODWLRQVWKHFRQWH[WDQGKRZSHRSOHDUHLQWHUDFWLQJ LQWKLVFRQWH[W

7KHGDWDRQHQJDJHPHQWZLWKFRPDQDJHPHQWSURFHVVHVWKURXJKYDULRXVIRUPVRIFROHDUQLQJ SUHVHQWHG DERYH DOVR VXJJHVWV WKDW DV ILVKLQJ FRPPXQLWLHV VWULYH WR GHOLEHUDWH FULVLV RI GHFOLQLQJ ILVK FDWFKHV WKH VWDWH VKRXOG DVVLVW WKHP WR EXLOG UREXVW LQVWLWXWLRQV E\ SURYLGLQJ WKHPZLWKPDQDJHPHQWOHJDODXWKRULW\H[SHUWLVHDQGILQDQFLDOPHDQV+HUVRXJHWDO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¶HJFKLHIVYLOODJHKHDGVSROLWLFDO OHDGHUVIURPWKHDUHDSHRSOHIURPGLIIHUHQW ZRUNLQJLQWKHDUHD1*2VDQGFKXUFK OHDGHUVIURPGLIIHUHQWFKXUFKHV 2EMHFW:RUNZLWK WKHHQWLUHILVKLQJ FRPPXQLW\DQGWKH JRYHUQPHQWWR PDQDJHPHQWWKH ILVKHULHVUHVRXUFHV WKURXJKFR PDQDJHPHQW DJUHHPHQW 2XWFRPH ,PSURYHG OLYHOLKRRGV DQGKRXVH LQFRPH

172

Figure 5.9: Application of second generation of CHAT activity theory to fishing communities

(Adapted from Engeström, 1987)

The analysis presented in this chapter aimed to provide a deeper understanding of how different elements of the system function as an activity system and what happens as they interact within and across elements in the activity system. Roth and Lee (2007) claimed that diverse activity systems are the result of continuous historical processes of progressive job diversification and collective division of labour at a societal level. As shown by the data in this chapter, people’s understanding of their common object differs, confirming the possibilities for co-learning, and the noted tensions and contradictions outlined above.

As shown in this section, the existing contradictions which occur when fishing communities interact occur within the elements of an activity system (e.g. amongst fishers or extension officers) or across the elements in the activity system (e.g. between the rules and the mediating tools or the rules and the object).

As shown also by the data in this chapter, fishing communities come from diverse backgrounds and therefore have different views and understandings of co-management. Working together in an activity system brings different perspectives of what co-management is all about and what needs to be done in trying to address the issues of declining fish catches. The deeper way of integrating the existing knowledge gaps by using CHAT helps to work across disciplines where everybody is involved through integration, reflection and collaboration.

Fishing communities in the two case studies have different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds and different histories. Lake Malombe is dominated by Muslim people whose tradition and culture was greatly influenced by the Arabic invasion during the slave trade era (Donda, 2001). Fishing communities in the area are mainly indigenous and have inherited fishing as a way of life from their parents from one generation to the other. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the dominant fishing gear used in Lake Malombe included open seine nets, beach seine nets, gill nets, long lines and fish traps (see section 5.2.1). Fishers in Lake Malombe are mobile and as they go round the lake searching for better catches, they learn other fishing techniques and methods from fellow fishers.

According to the Chambo Project findings (FAO, 1993), the decline and collapse of the fish stocks was due to over capitalisation, increased use of illegal fishing gear/ illegal methods and government’s inability to enforce the existing regulations effectively, indicating tensions between the object and the mediating tools and division of labour. The government hoped that the introduction of the co-management approach in Lake Malombe would satisfy both the government’s and the user community’s objectives of biologically-sustainable

exploitation of the resource for the former and continued economic viability of the resource for the latter (Hara et al., 2007).

The long-term objective was to develop and have in place a management regime that would require inputs from the Fisheries Department, while at the same time ensuring sustainable economic viability of the resource for the fishing communities (Njaya, 2007). In the case of the south-east arm of Lake Malawi, the fishing activities are from a mix of different tribes and cultures because fishers came from all over the lakeshores due to the abundance of fish in the area. The descriptions above provide some indication of the urgency of the engagement with the object as it is closely related to daily livelihoods, and this provides a strong motivation for a) learning from each other, b) accepting and seeking to appreciate different roles and distribution of responsibility, c) on-going respect for certain aspects of traditional leadership, and d) engagement with new structures such as the BVC. All of these are important to co-learning, as outlined above in the data.

At the centre of all of the social engagement and learning related to co-management is the harsh reality that due to high levels of poverty in Malawi, with limited economic opportunities available elsewhere, crop failure and drought, more and more people go fishing, especially in the south-east arm of Lake Malawi. This places further pressure on already vulnerable fish stocks (Kachilonda, 2005). Reflective of the risks people in the two case studies face due to the declining fish catches and the current fishing practices, is the argument of Beck (1992) who suggested that if one is in a risk society, risks are unknown and there are unlimited consequences. In poverty stricken communities the risks are both societal (at a broader macro level) and immediate (at the household survival level) effectively exposing people in poverty to extreme levels of risk. Beck (1992) argued for reflexive learning in such contexts, but he did not provide methodological guidance on how such reflexive learning could be mediated. Engeström’s work however, does provide such guidance (see Chapter 3), and suggests that it is useful to deepen our understanding of contradictions (some of which were alluded to in the data reported above) as these provide for possibilities for expanding learning. However, contradictions are not merely tensions, and they require careful structural and cultural analysis to more fully understand the possibilities for learning. As indicated in this chapter, there is already a vibrant and reflexive learning process going on in the context of fisheries co-management in the two case study sites (these share some similarities, but also some differences). In the next chapter, I will consider the issue of contradictions in more depth, and outline how these can become possibilities for further learning in the two case study sites.

174

5.9 Conclusion

Evidence of people’s social learning processes in co-management of the fisheries resources was traced in the data obtained from the range of research methods (interviews, focus group discussion, observation and workshop data). Through semi-structured questioning and probing, different stakeholders were able to interact and deliberate on issues that influence implementation of fisheries co-management in the two case studies. Their statements are reflective of what they have learned about the object of co-management. As indicated above, the activity systems identified in the two sites are diverse, multi-voiced, and have diverse origins, rules and practices. Some rules, forms of division of labour, mediating tools and relational dynamics are similar (e.g. the government regulations on closed seasons govern both the south-east arm of Lake Malawi and Lake Malombe), even though the actualisation of these may differ in the different contexts. In both contexts, changes over time, partnerships and socio-cultural power relations, especially the role of chiefs, played an important governing role, but their roles and how they were actualised in the two different contexts differed. In both cases, government was being called on to help with resolving core contradictions. Mediating tools also differed, and in some cases were the same. Thus, it is not surprising that different perspectives on co-management were voiced in the two different activity systems, whilst in some cases what was being said seemed similar. These issues of diversity and similarity in activity systems would seem to be an important factor influencing learning.

This chapter discussed learning processes which are taking place among stakeholders in fisheries co-management, emphasising the content and the structuring of co-learning already taking place in the two sites within and between activity systems. The chapter focused on the first question of the study which sought to examine what learning takes place among different stakeholder groups in the context of fisheries co-management that influences their practices. In order to be able to understand the learning in each activity system, I used second generation CHAT to see what elements of the particular activity system interact within it and how they interact. Then I used third generation CHAT to examine interaction across the activity systems and to explore the content of the interactions. I also illuminated historicity and power relations as these influence learning significantly as also shown in the data above. The chapter illuminated what the shared practices are and what learning takes place, as well as how the learning takes place in stakeholder’s historical socio-cultural contexts.

The next chapter surfaces the contradictions within and across activity systems in case study 1. It shares the deliberations on the surfaced contradictions which led to identification of solutions by stakeholders, and provided evidence of expanded learning in the multi-voiced cultural historical activity context of co-management.