Co-learning that takes place across the two activity systems

The sections above have provided detailed insight into the two main activity systems that share the common object of co-management of the fishery as found in the Lake Malombe case study area. I also provided an analysis of those features and processes that appeared to be significant for learning within the activity systems. Looking from a wider perspective, it is easy to see that fishing communities in the Lake Malombe case context are vital for securing the resource, and government is crucial too, as shown by this citation:

Interview with individual IIM5: As a village headman in this area, I always tell

people that the lake belongs to us as people who originally are from this area. We cannot expect someone from uphill to come and manage the lake for us. I tell them we have a responsibility to protect our fish and that the Fisheries Department is there to guide and support us. I tell them that these people come and go because they are employed but we are not. Most of the extension workers you see here in Lake Malombe are from upland areas and they only come here because they were trained but this is our own.

The interaction and active engagement of all stakeholders in the two activity systems allows for a gradual replacement of centralised management of the fisheries resources to a more participatory type of management where there is shared responsibility and creation of new relationships among different stakeholders in the fisheries sector, as can be seen from the citation/s below:

Focus group data FGD2: We are seeing differences in the way we used to interact

with each other when the government was managing the fisheries resources alone. We are now able to contribute to the process unlike years back when everyone was seen as an enemy. No one these days doubts each other and this is what we have benefited as BVC members in this area.

160

In this section, I consider the co-learning that has taken place across the two activity systems in the Lake Malombe case. As shown above, the formation of partnerships is a significant aspect of learning within the activity systems and was reported on above as such. However, this also allows for boundary crossing across activity systems. I share three important dynamics of such co-learning as evident in the data:

1) The content of co-learning as shown by what is allowed by the co-learning process across activity systems

2) How the co-learning interactions are structured

3) How socio-cultural tensions, knowledge, and power relations influence co-learning across activity systems

Each of these is discussed in more detail below.

1) The content of co-learning interactions across activity systems:

A question on what gets discussed when different stakeholders from the different activity systems get together revealed some interesting insights into the contents of the co-learning

process that occurs across activity systems, as indicated in the citations below. These have

been grouped according to some of the main co-learning interactions across activity systems.  Co-learning allows for learning of practices and how to deal with challenges:

Focus group data (FGDM1): When people come to a meeting usually there are a lot of

things which are discussed and every time we meet we discuss new things. I learn a lot from the fellow fishers because I have seen that whatever is discussed touches what we are doing. We learn about some of the practice because we are facing a lot of challenges. People are now using lots of undersized fishing nets and most of the fish they are catching are small.

Focus group data (FGM4): We usually call each other mainly when we have come

across challenges. We call each other to discuss what has been experienced at that particular time. We do not meet as it is required [i.e.] that after every three months or every quarter we should meet, no. This is because some of the BVC members are new and have not been trained [so that they] know their roles and responsibilities. We need to train these new BVC members. What I am saying is that the current BVC members do not know their job, they are just acting because those who were trained are very few and most of them are not BVC members any more. For someone to go and do work that he/she has not been told [how to], fails to do it.

 Co-learning allows for understanding the importance of regulations for sustainability

Focus group data: (FGM3): We teach each other about the importance of observing

closed season and the importance of maintaining the current fish stocks for our children who should also benefit from the same resources.

Interview with individual (IIM1): There are a lot of things which we discuss and learn as

members we have in the area. We look at what people are using for fishing because most of the people now are using illegal fishing nets.

 Co-learning allows for understanding of diverse roles, feedback and reflexivity

Interview with extension officer (GEM1): The learning has no limit because as extension

officers we also learn a lot when we meet fishing communities. They know more about fishing practices and coming together with them helps to understand some of the practices that other fishers are doing in the area. We know how fishers exchange ideas when they interact with each other. Sometimes we also get some feedback on how some of our regulations are perceived by the fishing communities and through interacting with them we know who is not following them and why. Those fishers who are doing illegal fishing don’t often come to our meetings and what we do is we visit them individually to help them with some management ideas.

 Co-learning allows for intergenerational learning and new knowledge acquisition

Interview with individual (IIM3): As fishers, we also learn from each other because

some fishers have been fishing for a long time. There are some crew members who are really experts in both fishing and designing different fishing nets. When we go fishing together with other fishers we actually know that others have more expertise especially the crew members because you will see that in the same area some come with no fish but someone who is able to read the current that comes with fish will catch a lot of fish. We also learn some of the techniques through chatting with fellow fishers on some of the new fishing practices because in most cases we are not sure if we will catch fish or not.  Co-learning allows for dealing with contemporary concerns and/or relevant practices

Interview with individual (IIM2): When we have a meeting with our extension officers

and us as BVCs we already have a list of things to discuss and in most cases the BVC chairman together with our extension officer are the ones who develop the list. The discussions are based on what we are experiencing at that particular time, for example if it is during closed season then our discussions will be based on closed season. We also organise large meetings with all fishers to discuss issues of illegal fishing, closed season, payment of fishing licences and many other things.

From the evidence provided above, stakeholders involved in the activity systems learn a considerable amount from each other when their activity systems interact. Most of what they appear to be learning is focussed on things which affect their day to day business, but there is also evidence that such learning deals with common concerns (e.g. such as how to deal with challenges, or how to implement regulations, or ensure fish stocks for future generations). Their learning ranges from communities learning among themselves (e.g. amongst the Lake Malombe fishing activity system and other fishers) and also learning from the government extension and research officers. It is evident from the data shared above that the government extension officers learn from the fishing communities especially about the fishing practices, and moreover that they are willing to learn from them, and obtain feedback on their practices,

162

and engage reflexively. The data above also shows the importance of the co-learning interactions for learning of new practices, and for solving problems.

Wals (2007) has suggested that successful participation for sustainability involves a wide range of stakeholders to build a shared vision, and to develop a great sense of unified purpose and community identity. As shown in the data above, through the interactions with different stakeholders, fishers across activity systems, fishers and extension officers, BVC committee members, and others involved in the activity systems are able to reflect on their practices and see which ones constrain the proper management of the fisheries resources and also which ones enhance the sustainable management of the fisheries resources.

2) How co-learning across activity systems is structured

In response to a question on ‘what is learned’ when stakeholders come together, further insight was gained into the contents of the co-learning process and how this learning is

structured. Data on this is shared below, mainly in terms of providing insight into how the

learning is structured.

 Co-learning is structured by agreed upon priorities and by the mediating capacity of the

extension services

Interview with extension officer (IEM1): It depends on what the fishers and the

government sees as important to discuss. For example if its towards closing season the extension officer will outline programmes where the emphasis will be on closed season so that the fishers should be aware and should get prepared for the closed season. In most cases the extension officer is seen carrying all the problems from the fishers because on one hand he stands for the fishers and on the other hand stands for the government so that if women fishers for example want to have loans the extension officer has to link them to lending institutions. In some areas the same extension officer has to do a number of things now that we are decentralised the extension worker has a lot of things to do in that if there is no social worker the fisheries extension officer takes all the issues to the district commissioner or village development committee for action and some of the issues do not necessarily relate to fisheries like lack of hospitals, schools and many others. So the extension worker becomes a general player

.

 Co-learning is structured by mobility and interaction with others outside of the

immediate context, and via sharing of new knowledge and experience gained in this way

Interview with extension officer (GEM2): People learn all the time and in fishing, things

are changing all the time. We can learn from our fellow fishers, for example, when we cross the lake to Likulungwa we see other fishing methods and gears which are not here at Chapola. Fishing with them there we learn how they are using the new fishing nets and their methods and when we come back here we start developing ours and they can also learn from us.

 Co-learning is structured by experience, the politics of the fishery and regulations

Interview with extension officer (GEM1): There are times when even extension officers

or government officers learn from fishers for when we are discussing during closed season fishers bring in very important points like the importance of also ensuring a closed season for commercial fishers. Fishers usually complain that as small fishers we accept and follow closed season but commercial fishers who catch lots of fish using illegal fishing methods are allowed to fish throughout the year. Points raised by artisanal fishers gives us ideas to re-look at some of the regulations and find possibilities of reviewing them or think of doing more research to see the impact of commercial fishery during the closed season.

Focus Group data (FGM3):… Fishers also bring what they know from their experiences

for example when we go fishing soon after opening our closed season we observe small sizes of fish in our nets and this why you have heard our fishers and BVC saying we need to review our regulations. All these things are discussed and shared during our BVC meetings.

 Co-learning is structured by new knowledge arising from research findings

Focus Group data (FGM3): There are many things that we learn from each other. The

Department of Fisheries conducts research in many areas and some of the things from the research are shared with us during our meetings. Things like new closed season for fish to breed, new regulations from government, what our friends from other areas are doing…

 Co-learning is structured by opportunities for exchange visits

Focus Group data (FGM3):… Sometimes fisheries take us to see what others are doing. I

remember we have been going to Salima to see what TA Msosa is doing at Mbenji Island.

As can be seen from the above, co-learning across activity systems is and can be structured in different ways. A critical look at what stakeholders learn, and how this learning is and can be structured, is crucial in the study since the learning that is taking place is taking place in the context of everyday activity. As shown above, there are important co-learning processes occurring, structured in diverse ways, and focussing on a range of dynamics of the fishery and the associated shared object of co-management. Understanding how such learning processes are already occurring as shown in this analysis, can be helpful for informing further expansion of such learning. The analysis above also shows that there is a richly interactive co-learning process already in operation both within and across the Lake Malombe co-management activity systems, where people are generating and sharing knowledge that can improve and also constrain fisheries resources management. Engeström (2001) noted that expansive learning offers a framework for understanding forms of learning that do not adhere to standard models of vertical mastery. The insights shared above show that the ‘standard model’ of vertical mastery (i.e. learning from the extension officers or researchers on how to implement the co-management regulations) is not characteristic of how

164

the fishers are learning in the Lake Malombe area. Instead, there is a richly textured

reflexive learning process going on, involving various dimensions and ways of co-learning

as shown above. Thus, considering an expansive learning process in such a context (the next phase of the study) should take account of this, especially when the object is complex, as is the case with co-management in a context where the fisheries resource is so closely associated with direct livelihoods and immediate food security for millions of people. The use of expansive social learning processes where the above stakeholders deliberate the above practices towards expanding their shared object in more systematically constituted ways, is an important paradigm shift in fisheries resources management where the contradictions faced are engaged with through a dialectical process of solution creation through a participatory learning process, and where assumptions of vertical learning are also challenged by existing learning practices, as is shown in the analysis above.

3) Co-learning as influenced by socio-culturally constituted views, tensions, power relations, knowledge and experiences

Additionally, as pointed out in the discussions on learning in the different activity systems,

historical and socio-culturally constituted views, knowledge, power relations and experiences also influence co-learning across the activity systems, as shown by the data

below, organised according to some of the tensions arising.

 Co-learning is shaped by the tensions that exist between no other alternatives, demand

for the resource, and legislative demands

Interview with individual (IFM1): The Fisheries Department knows that we do not have

any other alternative to fishing and that we have been fishing in this area as a source of living. What I do not understand is that we are made to pay high licences for our fishing gears. One depressing thing is that we are not getting good fish catches but the licences keep on getting high. As BVC members when we go to our fellow fishers to remind them about licencing their fish gears we get all sorts of questions and we are not able to answer them. How do we pay high licences when we are coming with no fish from the lake?

 Co-learning is shaped by the time it takes for responsive engagement

Focus group data (FGDM3): Sometimes we do not understand each other with the fellow

fishers because there are a lot of things which are not clear and every time we bring them to the extension officer they take time to get answers. Learning could have been more if we had responses from government.

Focus group data (FGM2): In our discussions we as BVC members, fish traders and other fishers, we sometimes disagree on a number of things and some of them are:

1. Rules and regulations which we are saying we need them so that we tell our friends who are involved in fisheries.

2. Closed season seem to be a challenge to us. We have been discussing with our leaders in this area that we should revisit our regulations especially the closed season one.

3. Some of the fishing gears have been introduced now and we see them as destructive to our lake but our friends fishers do not agree with that point.

Interview with individual II LM2: I always tell people that the fishing practices then

were more sustainable because we were using traditional materials to make nets and they had less damage. Now the lake is full of modern fishing nets and most of them are under meshed. There is more destruction now than when we were using

traditional fishing nets. People have introduced heavy engines and we end up fishing all the fish.

 Co-learning is shaped by power relations, mandates and identity issues

Focus group data (FGM2): We see fishers doing all these but we fail to go to them

and we need fisheries to give us powers and we are ready as BVC members to work with our fellow fishers. We are not been supported by fisheries. We asked them to give us identity cards so that we are known as people working for government but up to