CHAPTER 9: DISCUSSION
9.1 Discussion of results of the interviews
was consequently viewed by some as a quick fix and one-size-fits-all solution, which was unsustainable. This was illustrated by some respondents who argued that the MLRA did not take their unique situations into consideration. There were also some who felt that the system was not entirely bad but that it was more appropriate for the commercial sector. This corresponds with the need to perhaps consider a unique reaction for various situations (Andrews et al. 2008; Grint 2007).
The new system was perceived by some to be a mere continuation of the former system suited for the commercial sector, thereby implying that there had been no transformation. This relates to the concepts of scepticism and cynicism in change described by Stanley et al. (2005). There was scepticism, as some in the fisheries context were doubtful about the likelihood of the change (MLRA) achieving what it was set out to do. There was thus a sense that the MLRA and consequently MCM had failed in transforming the industry. This then also resulted in cynicism, where people had disbelief in the motives of the MCM management. MCM and DEAT were viewed in a negative light by the different stakeholder groups, and also by the media.
The area of balancing stakeholder needs, not only during change processes, but on a continuous basis, was found to be important. Underlying this was the prerequisite of identifying and involving all stakeholders from the pre-implementation stage (Van Tonder 2004). The contention around the demarcation of the subsistence category in the MLRA in particular highlights this point. The process of change was not easy from the beginning, and was as Hamlin et al. (2001) describe, quite literally difficult and costly, physically and emotionally, for all involved.
A variety of events and actions by the different stakeholders over the years, including the use of court proceedings have affected the fisheries system. The notion of a smooth change process was not possible, mainly due to the reality that a static environment did not exist. This corresponds to Ferdig’s (2007) work. The results illustrated the need to expect the unexpected, as stated by Callan et al. (2004). There is a need for continued learning experiences, and real world learning, as highlighted by some authors (Kilgallon & Lampe 2007; Doyle 2002).
The plans, structures and systems of the MLRA, such as the medium-term and long-term rights allocation processes, could not proceed smoothly for a number of reasons. This was also attributed to sense-making processes that people engage in, as documented by certain authors (Bamford & Forester 2003; Balogun 2006).
The notion of a number of unintended consequences that arose from the MLRA is particularly pertinent, as demonstrated by the responses. One of the main problems was the lack of abilities and skills among the fishers and fishing communities, which resulted in them being unable to access credit. This relates to people not possessing the required skills and capabilities to cope with new changes or a new system (Lawson & Price 2003; Tucker et al. 2002). This was mostly the case with the fishers and fishing communities, but was also found with MCM, in for example not being able to deal with the many problems, and thus necessitating inter- collaboration between Government departments. There was resistance to change at a personal level mainly due to anxiety of the unknown, as well as beliefs that existing skills and contributions were inadequate, and that there were feelings of insecurity, powerlessness, insufficient knowledge and involvement. The resistance to change corresponds to work of Cummings and Worley (2001) and Lee and Krayer (2003). The necessity of having change management skills was also demonstrated. Doyle’s (2002) study highlighted the necessity of possessing change management skills.
There was resentment that the system had required the fishers to be businessmen and that they could thus not access the sea, and that people, such as lawyers or teachers, who had the necessary skills qualified. It is interesting to see how the application of complexity theory can assist in better understanding how events unfolded. Initial decisions or seemingly minor inputs resulted in significant outcomes, which could not be controlled for, as is highlighted in literature detailing complexity theory (Beeson & Davis 2002). This was illustrated in the form of the many socio-economic concerns and poaching problems in the fishing communities.
The fact that the respondents tended to highlight their differences and point out faults, may indicate a lack of understanding that they were all part of the whole. There also appears to be some neglect in taking accountability for their contribution towards the problems (Senge 1994).
Utilising systems thinking, one can see how inter-related the parts are and how actions in one part, have effects elsewhere (Van Tonder 2004; Styhre 2002; Montouri 2000). The fact that fishers lacked the necessary training and skills, and hence were exploited, was something that did not only affect them, but everybody in the system. The phenomenon of poaching in particular, illustrated the interconnectedness of the system. Even though the poaching occurred and still mainly does in the fishing communities, it nonetheless had serious repercussions for the whole system.
Comprehending the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ archetype, as described by Braun (2002) is relevant to understanding the desire by some respondents to have had all understand sustainability, and grasp the finiteness of the marine resources. The commons is any resource
that is available to all; in this study context it refers to the marine resources. As various people place increased demands on the commons to achieve their goals, without realising the limits, the commons increasingly comes under pressure, and can eventually become overloaded and depleted. There can be a total collapse, with the result that all will experience decreased benefits.
It is interesting to note how difficult it is to undo the consequences of actions taken, as noted by the advancement of poaching. Even the introduction of the interim relief could not eradicate the poaching problem. The causal loop diagram (Figure 6.3) can provide an overview of the various factors involved in poaching. Change does therefore come about through the complex interaction between people, and the interactions of the various interconnected causes and effects (Styhre 2002; Beeson & Davis 2000). The stipulation to change the MLRA was thus an example of the outcome of the interplay between all the sectors.
It was evident that stakeholder perceptions and mental models came through very strongly. This was demonstrated by opinions for example, regarding the fact that people were greedy, always wanted more, and could hence not be satisfied. Another example was that discriminatory practices from the apartheid era were merely continuing. The acknowledgement of shared mental models was thus particularly relevant, as found by various authors (Montouri 2000; Van Tonder 2004; Balogun 2006; Wedge 2006). It seems that the various stakeholders may have only engaged in single-loop learning, where they had neglected to challenge their current thinking. So despite the introduction of a mechanism, the MLRA to ensure change, there had hardly been any change in the underlying thinking of all involved.
Although there was communication and involvement of some stakeholders about the implementation of the MLRA, it appears though that it was primarily a vision of MCM that was communicated to the stakeholders. This appears to have been more a case of communication efforts to inform people about the impending changes, as described by Harrington (2006). This is contrasted with reflective openness where people get involved in decision-making but also engage in reflection, inquiry and critical questioning (Senge 1994).
As highlighted by the literature, issues of communication and participation were found to be undeniably critical. The debates around the recognition of indigenous knowledge and introduction of co-management, illustrate the desire by people to be included in decision- making. Although many authors including Hayes (2002) highlight the need for stakeholder involvement during change processes, it does appear to be challenging to incorporate everyone, as is the case for example, where people could not understand how modelling aspects work, thus
making it difficult for scientists and on-the-ground fishers to come together. There was however a very clear desire for all parties to work together.
The feelings of non-recognition and powerlessness, described by the fishers, illustrate the importance of acknowledging the emotions of all involved. Thus, overlooking emotions and self-esteem were detrimental (Carnall 2003; Van Tonder 2004; Kirkpatrick 2001). What was also interesting to note was how the system as a whole shaped events, to a point where all stakeholders are now meeting together to discuss the future. Therefore, despite the initial events, the system somehow moved to a point where the option of excluding anyone simply does not make sense. Most stakeholders furthermore have seemed to comprehend the futility and consequent negative reactions that could occur, if they ignored any particular stakeholder group.
The importance of acknowledging the role of organisational culture, structure and processes was also significant. These factors are highlighted in Carnall’s (2003) work. This was demonstrated by the longing for more attention to be cast on issues concerning Government procedures, authority, decision-making and staff changes. Even amongst the fishing communities, leadership issues around the need to involve people on the ground also came to the fore.
Ferdig’s (2007) study highlighting that leaders do not have all the answers, and that each person has a personal responsibility to collaborate with others, is of relevance.