Data collection on the past, present and future use of reservoirs was essential, and the RRA approach was considered the most appropriate for the task. Small water bodies tend to be discrete entities with well - defined boundaries and communities. The communication techniques used in RRA make it easy to learn from the villagers about their concerns and priorities. Their knowledge was important in drawing up management objectives for the community.
The approach to community-based management was participatory. Participatory methods encourage dialogue and enable rapport between outsiders and the local community. Information on the use of traditional gear was difficult to obtain without the trust that developed between ALCOM and the local fishermen. Experimental test-fishing using traditional fishing gear would also have been impossible. However, initiating community-based management requires high investment in time and energy in order to develop the required rapport with villagers.
The initial RRA was intended to establish a dialogue and seek the community's commitment to interventions by outsiders. It was hoped that when the community participates in identifying the project activities, it would be motivated to carry out subsequent activities. The community members determined the long term objectives, the expected outputs and activities of the project. ALCOM was convinced that the community had full “ownership” of the objectives and would be motivated to implement the project's activities and ensure success.
While the awareness meetings were well attended, the elections to choose representatives to form the “delegates conference” were not conducted at the scheduled times. On many occasions we had to fetch people from their homes. How well-motivated were the people to implement project activities? Did the community members communicate their true feelings to us, the outsiders? Did they trust the outsiders with their truth? Whose project was it?
Table 5
The fishing gear and the fish species caught in Mwenje Dam
| Fishing Gear | Fish Species Caught |
|---|---|
| Gillnets large mesh size (3"–7") | Oreochromis mossambicus Tilapia rendalli Barbus marequensis Labeo cylindricus Clarias gariepinus |
| Gillnets, small mesh size (1" used as a seine net in shallow waters) | Juveniles of O. mossambicus, T. rendalli, B. marequensis, L. cylindricus, C. gariepinus |
| Gillnets, small mesh size (1" set as a gillnet overnight in deep waters) | Barbus paludinosus Micralestes acutidens |
| Kamukore (scoop net) | O mossambicus, T rendalli B marequensis, L cylindricus and juveniles of the same species |
| Javu (throw net) | As above |
| Uswaswi (Sack cloth) (Shade cloth) (Mosquito nets) | B. lineomaculatus, B unitaeniatus B. trimaculatus, juvenile O mossambicus T. rendalli, C gariepinus and L cylindricus, Tilapia sparmanii |
| Chighubhu (small plastic bottle trap) | As for Uswaswi |
| Duwo (plastic basket trap) | As for Uswaswi |
| Chirauro (rod and line) | All species (fish size depends on hook size |
| Night line | Eels and catfish |
| Long line | Eels and catfish |
| Kamukodobo (feeding depression in shallow water) | As for Uswaswi |
| Kaghagheni (reed enclosure in shallow water) | As for Uswaswi |
Table 6
Distribution of gillnet licences and % shoreline for each VIDCO
| VIDCO | NO OF GILLNET FISHERMEN | % SHORELINE |
| Chemadzimbabwe | 8 | 45% |
| Nyachuru | 8 | 30% |
| Munyengeterwa | 8 | 20% |
| Mufuka | 8 | 5% |
Table 7
The schedule of licence fees and fines ($1 = US$ 0.12)
| Fishing Gear | License Fees | Fines (Possession and Use) |
|---|---|---|
| Gillnet (large mesh sizes) | $20 per month | $300,00 |
| Gillnet (small mesh size) | $20 per month | $300,00 |
| Rod and line (residents) | $ 1 per month | |
| $10 per year | $ 5,00 | |
| Rod and line (non-residents) | 50c per day | $ 5,00 |
| $ 5,00 | ||
| Rod and line (on boat) | $ 5 per day | |
| Long line(10 or more) | $50 per year | $200,00 |
| Throw net (Javu) | - | $300,00 |
| Scoop net (Kamukore) | - | $300,00 |
| Reed Trap (Kaghagheni) | - | $200,00 |
| Bottle trap (Chighubhu) | - | $ 50,00 |
| Basket Trap (Duwo) | - | $ 50,00 |
| Mosquito net | - | $300,00 |
| Sack cloth | - | $300,00 |
| Feeding trough (Kakomba) | - | $300,00 |
| - |
The problems of enforcing rules showed lack of commitment in the Dam Committee itself and in the community. There were two possible reasons for the gillnetters breaking their own rules. Firstly, they had to buy new nets and stop using the old ones with small mesh-sizes. This meant a major expense, and they wanted to postpone it as long as possible. Secondly, they were not totally convinced that the power to manage the dam had been given to them. This seems to be the case even after we had been working with them for a very long time. The time-consuming process for acquiring appropriate authority and the infrequent attendance of District Council officials at meetings made the community doubtful.
In spite of several efforts to involve the community, the Dam Committee meetings were dominated by gillnetters. The women who constituted the majority of the rod and line fisherfolk hardly showed up. The decisions of the Dam Committee tended to favour the gillnet fishermen. Those who are not represented will find it difficult to support the management plans of the Dam Committee. The problems of the Dam Committee during the implementation phase may have been related to the non-representativeness of the Committee.
Possible reasons for the lack of participation from the community:
A gill net is expensive. The gillnet fishermen are usually among the richer and more influential people in the village, and the hook and liners and the trap fisherfolk may feel that they will not be able to influence a committee comprising gillnet fishermen.
The hook and line fishery may be of limited value to participants, and cannot justify participation in a long and time-consuming process. This was, in the Mwenje case, severely aggravated by the long delay in getting the appropriate authority.
Representation for women in the Dam Committee is difficult to achieve in a rural environment where traditional norms are still very strong. Women on the whole are reluctant to take up a position of authority in a community institution because such positions are “reserved” for the men. At a recent meeting to elect the Mufurudzi Fisheries Management Committee the women declined to be elected into the committee because “the man is the head of my home”. Though they cannot take positions within the executive committee, it is possible for them to be active in the larger and general meetings.
The fish stock in a reservoir is invisible, and catches fluctuate throughout the year and from year to year, even with good management. This may make any management gain more difficult to perceive than, for instance, gain from the management of a woodlot or a grazing scheme.
Mwenje Dam is big and many villages are involved in the community management process. A smaller dam with a more closed community may be easier to work with.
An alternative solution for a large reservoir such as Mwenje where you find both gillnetters and rod and liners would be to accept the Dam Committee as a gillnetters committee, and not expect it to represent the community as a whole. However, the committee should not then make rules that affect the rod and liners or trap fisherfolk. Community approval and support would have to be secured though other fora such as District Council. If knowledgable in fisheries biology, such a committee in its own self-interest would try to stop illegal fishing being carried out with “destructive” fishing gear. However where there are only rod and liners or where the reservoir is small and cannot sustain a gillnet fishery the committee should be representative of everybody, with everybody involved in law enforcement.
ALCOM's approach to the issue of community-based management at Mwenje was bottom-up. But this approach is full of frustrations. It means that you start with villagers who through many years of dealing with government and development agents, have become untrustful. Some local village leaders were sceptical. We had to first work at inculcating trust, before we could get meaningful inputs from them to facilitate our assistance. Communities are not homogeneous and their level of absorption of new ideas varies. The development agent fights against the temptation of lecturing to them about what the agent knows and assumes that the communities don't know. Once the development agent gets over this hurdle, he meets with local government officials at the district level and above who believe that community members are ignorant and should be told what to do. At the initial appraisal stage, therefore, the development agent has to work with a multi-level team (e.g. fisherfolk, villagers, administrators) so that its members appreciate and support the bottom-up approach.
The time invested in developing rapport and working with the multi-level teams paid off. ALCOM was able to use the community's indigenous knowledge in assisting the community to develop its management objectives.
ALCOM's learning process, and the absorption rate by community members of the new interventions, could have been speeded up by a more effective partnership between ALCOM and local government workers or leaders. The local leaders are known and trusted within the community and play an important part in the transfer of new ideas, and unless the leaders are our partners in rural development and support the efforts by community members to better the whole community, any efforts by us will be met with resistance.
ALCOM made several efforts to involve local government workers, but with limited success. Though there were two Agritex agricultural extension supervisors, two extension workers, and two community development workers with two supervisors who were trained in RRA methods, there was no official contact point. However, ALCOM knew one of the agricultural extension workers well. He was known and trusted in the area. He also attended most meetings and offered valuable advice. For future intervention it may be better to identify a person who acts as a catalyst in the community. He or she could be formally appointed as “counterpart” and should be given time off from other duties to work with fisheries management. This should be some one whom the community trusts and talks to about community-based management.
ALCOM also tried to involve the traditional leaders but less emphasis was put on this than on the District Council structure, partly because of the antagonism between the District Council and traditional leaders. The elderly and the traditional leaders should have been consulted and their support elicited for the community-based management approach. The committee should have held regular meetings with the traditional leaders to seek their advice.
The commitment of higher-level officials in the relevant government departments such as the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management and the local government is essential and should be sought at an early stage. The appropriate authority, which the District Council applied for, need not have taken over two years to materialize, if DNPWM had been fully committed.
Attendance at monthly meetings of the Mwenje Fisheries Committee by officials of the District Council was low. The District Council offices are inadequately staffed. The Mwenje Fisheries Committee needs the support of the District Council on matters which require the central government's attention and action e.g. gazetting of the fishing by-laws or requests to donors which have to go through local government officials. Without the commitment of the District Council officials and central government support, the communities will feel frustrated and community-based management can fail.
Community-based management of fisheries resources depends on technical inputs from the relevant government departments. While professionals in government have a lot of relevant knowledge, there is much that they have to learn. Their attitude to rural community members needs to change. A sign of respect for the views of the community breaks down barriers and enables effective communication. Once rapport is established between the outsiders and the villagers, transfer of both information and technology is possible. The success of community-based management hinges on honest and effective sharing of technology and information.
