|
Article Excerpt
Introduction
Discussions concerning natural resources in Africa often question the role of the state and nation as suitable institutional and spatial scales for management (e.g., Hulme and Murphree 2001; Adams and Mulligan 2003). Proposed alternatives include community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) and transboundary natural resource management (TBNRM). Support for CBNRM argues that increased local-level involvement leads to more equitable and effective management of natural resources (Agrawal and Gibson 1999; Barrow and Murphree 2001), and that communities have the most at stake in the conservation and sustainable use of locally important resources (Li 2002). By contrast, TBNRM is premised on the idea of the ecosystem being the most appropriate scale at which to manage resources. As such, management should not be restricted by national boundaries, but should cross them as necessary (Wolmer 2003; Duffy 2006).
This article explores questions regarding suitable scales (institutional and spatial) for the management of artisanal fisheries in southern Africa. We consider the promises and challenges of fisheries management at ecosystem and local scales in a floodplain river shared by two countries; thus, in this case, ecosystem management implies transboundary management. In particular, we examine differences in settlements, users, fishing practices and institutions on either side of the political boundary formed by the river. In turn, we consider how these differences may affect the feasibility of a 'hybrid' combination of transboundary and community-based fisheries management being considered for the fishery.
Our case study focuses on the Zambezi River as it flows between Namibia and Zambia. In order to evaluate potential differences in resource use and management norms, we conducted a comprehensive survey of fishing settlements and fishers on the Namibian and Zambian sides of the river to determine: (1) the number, age, and seasonality of settlements; (2) characteristics of fishers in settlements, including their ethnic backgrounds; (3) fishing assets and activity; (4) knowledge of rules concerning what types of fishing are allowed and where, as well as the authorities responsible for setting and implementing these rules; (5) beliefs about forms and causes of fishery-related conflict; and (6) opinions regarding if the fishery should be managed, the rationale for management, and the most appropriate management authority. In doing so, we sought to determine if differences exist between Namibian and Zambian fishing settlements, fishers and fishing practices and how such differences might impact attempts to implement hybrid CBNRM-TBNRM management in the region.
We suggest that attributes of both TBNRM and CBNRM have potential application to biologically and socially dynamic environments such as floodplain fisheries (or drylands, e.g., Haro et al. 2005). However, challenges exist when attempts to fuse transboundary and community-based management carry assumptions of a smooth nesting of homogenous and congruent users, activities and institutions within a broader management area (Young 2006). These challenges, described below, emerge from contradictions in the spatial scales of ecosystem and local-level resources, as well as the institutional scales of transboundary and community-based management.
The first challenge is the potential mismatch between the highly dynamic movement of resources and users at the scale of the ecosystem typifying TBNRM, against the local-scale resources, users, practices and institutions characterizing CBRNM. In our case study, this tension is illustrated by results showing the majority of conflicts occur when fishers from the more populated Zambian side of the river enter Namibian waters to take advantage of the more abundant habitat and fish. In the context of hybrid management, a freer movement of users in the floodplain through transboundary management focused on the ecosystem may conflict with existing locally defined rules of tenure and access to what are considered local resources (e.g., fishing grounds).
The second challenge concerns the contrasting colonial and post-colonial histories of southern African nations. These differing histories in turn affect the degree of contiguity amongst individuals, activities, and institutions brought together under supranational arrangement such as TBNRM. While fishers sharing the floodplain in our case study have similar types of fishing assets and traditional authorities, the proportion of ethnic groups, population densities, and views regarding fisheries management differ significantly (see results). Again, if there is not sufficient common ground amongst users and institutions in Namibia and Zambia, hybrid management risks aggravating the same types of power struggles and access conflicts that have characterized other changes in resource use in Africa (e.g., Neumann 1997). This kind of failed attempt to hybridize management could also undermine any already existing and functioning community-based regimes.
Most studies of CBNRM and TBNRM in Africa focus on terrestrial resources (Schroeder 1999; Hulme and Murphree 2001; Adams and Mulligan 2003), but the rationale for applying these management approaches is relevant for many inland fisheries on the continent. The majority of African inland fisheries are artisanal, characterized by limited and/or local-level management (Jul-Larsen et al. 2003), making CBNRM an appealing option. At the same time, existing boundaries established during Africa's colonial era frequently used rivers as reference points (Sadoff et al. 2002), making many inland fisheries transboundary for at least part of their range. The importance of fish to the region's inhabitants and the potential for a drier regional climate in the future (de Wit and Stankiewicz 2006) suggests that many livelihoods will depend on perennial water sources. The appropriate scale of management or even if management should take place at all (e.g., Jul-Larsen et al. 2003) are therefore important issues to raise in the context of freshwater environments in the region.
Our study adds to a growing body of research concerning appropriate scale in floodplain fisheries management (e.g., Hoggarth et al. 1999; Bene et al. 2003; Castro and McGrath 2003; Thompson et al. 2003; Sneddon and Fox 2006) and the role of communities and traditional authorities in artisanal fisheries management (e.g., Hara 1996; Owino 2000; Berkes et al. 2001; Aswani 2005; Pomeroy and Rivera-Guieb 2006). It may also serve a more practical purpose, by informing ongoing government and NGO efforts to incorporate elements of CBNRM and TBNRM in the region. Examples include the 'Four Corners' and 'Heartlands' projects of the Worldwide Fund for Nature and the African Wildlife Foundation and the recently formalized Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area, described later in this article.
Our article is organized as follows: In the first section, we review the principles of CBNRM and TBNRM in general and their application to fisheries. We also examine some of the critiques of each approach and the challenges associated with hybrid CBNRM-TBNRM management, namely, the potential mismatch between ecosystem and local scales (and associated transboundary and community-based management regimes) and the effect of contrasting colonial and post-colonial influences on settlement patterns, users, activities, and institutions in adjacent countries. In the second section, we describe our research area, highlighting the differences and similarities between Namibians and Zambians living in the area and the institutional environments in which they function. We also describe the floodplain environment and livelihoods, demonstrating the complex historical and biophysical factors existing there. These two sections provide the context for understanding our methods and results that follow. In the discussion and conclusion sections, we situate our results in the present and emerging concepts regarding fisheries management in African floodplains.
CBNRM and TBNRM in Africa: Concepts and Practice
CBNRM in Africa emerged from a perceived failure of conventional natural resource management practiced by government agencies, which relied on prohibiting local populations from using particular resources and excluding them from decision-making processes (Hulme and Murphree 2001). New community-based approaches to management by governments and NGOs (in Africa and elsewhere) seek in principle greater involvement of inhabitants, allowing both increased access to resources and the opportunity to benefit financially from protected resources and areas. In addition, attempts have been made to make resource management itself more participatory, by including local representation and authority in management objectives and processes (Agrawal and Gibson 1999; Hulme and Murphree 2001; Western et al. 1994). In doing so, CBNRM has two goals: (1) to enhance conservation of wildlife, biodiversity and/or the environment; and (2) to provide economic, social, cultural and political benefits to local people participating in conservation (Adams and Hulme 2001).
While the focus of natural resource management in Africa has shifted to the level of community over the past 20 years, the scope of resource management has recently expanded across political boundaries. In southern Africa, 17 areas have been identified as potential sites for TBNRM initiatives (Griffen 1999; cited in McDermott-Hughes 2005). The key principle behind TBNRM is the concept of ecosystems, or bioregionalism, where management is defined primarily by ecological scale and function (Alexander 1990). TBNRM in theory allows for a greater geographical range of protection for certain ecological features (e.g., watersheds, forests) or migratory species (e.g., wildebeest, elephants) (Magome and Murombedzi 2003). However, the rationale for TBRNM, like the rationale for CBNRM, is not just ecological. For example, the economic importance of wildlife-based tourism in southern Africa provides additional incentives for TBNRM as a means of linking tourism 'corridors' that may run through different countries (Ramutsindela 2004).
While the logic of TBNRM argues that some resources cannot be managed at the community level (Barrow and Murphree 2001), the prevalence of 'community' in contemporary thinking about resource use and management in Africa means that proponents of TBNRM cannot overlook it. As a result, TBNRM initiatives also reference local institutions and inhabitants in the region and contain important assumptions about them (discussed later in this article). Several examples exist in southern Africa where conservation goals and means are being defined both at the local and ecosystem scale, such as the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park and the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (Ramutsindela 2004).
CBNRM and TBNRM in fisheries
Community-based management (and the related concept of co-management) is a prevalent theme in artisanal fisheries. However, existing examples of fishery-related CBNRM occur largely in coastal (e.g., Pido et al. 1997; Berkes et al. 2001; Aswani 2005; Pomeroy and Rivera-Guieb 2006) and small lake environments (e.g., McGrath et al. 1993), as opposed to the inland floodplain environment of this study. In contrast to floodplains, marine and lake environments often have discrete and localized fisheries, making their demarcation and enforcement by artisanal fishers and communities less challenging and the potential benefits of management more apparent (e.g., Sanchirico and Wilen 2001).
In southern Africa, attempts to devolve management and/or promote fisher participation have experienced only modest success (e.g., Normann et al. 1998; Wilson et al. 1999; Haroldsdottir 2000; Geheb and Sarch 2002; Bene et al. 2003; Jul-Larsen et al. 2003; Nielsen et al. 2004). Challenges identified as confounding devolution include the variable activity within a fishery (e.g., Allison and Ellis 2001; Jul-Larsen et al. 2003), conflicts with traditional authorities and government institutions (e.g., Hara 1996; Owino 2000), and ambiguity regarding management goals (such as sustainable or equitable use) and what form intervention should take (Haroldsdottir 2000; Geheb and Sarch 2002; Jul-Larsen et al. 2003).
Fisheries policy has also embraced TBNRM through the concept of ecosystem-based management (e.g., Babcock and Pikitch 2004). However, application has been limited to marine environments, where fisheries straddle national and/or international pelagic waters (e.g., Sherman and Duda 1999). These open-ocean settings usually fall outside of typical artisanal fishing activity and management issues are related to commercial fishing. In these instances, TBNRM initiatives in fisheries have not had to consider community-scale institutions or artisanal fishing patterns. In some inland water bodies, such as the African Rift Valley lakes, or the Middle Zambezi River, states have successfully coordinated ecosystem-level research (Gheb and Sarch 2002), but attempts to decentralize fisheries management and/or increase local participation have been limited to activities within states (e.g., Nunan 2006).
Potential for combining CBNRM and TBNRM in floodplain fisheries
New management arrangements combining local and ecosystem scale through CBNRM and TBNRM have considerable potential for floodplain fisheries. Floodplain environments are by nature highly dynamic and diffuse. Fish abundance and catchability varies spatially and temporally (Welcomme 1985), as do the levels of fishing effort and relative tenure that can be asserted (Scudder and Conelly 1985; Welcomme 1985; Thomas and Danjaji 1997). CBNRM offers the institutional flexibility to respond to such variation, for example, to address issues...
|
