Part 2: The future
6.8 Solutions for the future
6.8.5 Co-management
Mixed views were expressed about co-management. Some felt that this was a solution for the future that could bring the various stakeholders together, as well as be an important joint decision-making tool.
There must be co-management, it’s very important. The different role players… that we sit and discuss. That you don’t just come as Parks Board and then you say, “another road”. You must include us in decision-making and other parties, local Government, MCM and research, all of those who are agents. We must sit and then decide what is the best for us all. (R1)
Some pointed to how co-management could address the poaching problems.
There’s also significant research that’s been done to show that if local coastal communities who have a history of fishing are brought into the governance and management of the resources in their local areas, that they’ll protect the resource, they’ll keep out the outsiders and the poachers. Currently that isn’t happening because the local fishers themselves have no stake, so they’re also poaching. (R10)
One respondent described positive feelings regarding the experience of co-management.
I am very proud of co-management. It’s just wonderful. We now have on our committee the important people – those who have to make important decisions are already part of it. It can now work quicker. Because in the past, we had a committee, the local committee had to go to the local MCM, talk to them, and steps still need to be taken. But now they sit with us, part of co-management, and I recommend that each town takes it on. And it’s wonderful. In the past, you couldn’t even talk about co-management. I’m really excited about it. (R4)
Others were however concerned about aspects around co-management, such as honesty among all involved. This was especially so because of a previous bad experience where some members mismanaged finances and distributed unfairly.
It could only work if people are honest and they report regularly, and there are no jealousies and frictions in the community. The basic concept of co-management is that they let a community manage the resource in their area; there is a board. In other African countries, the community leaders are managing all the money that is coming in and distributing it equally among the people; but there have been many cases when the community leaders actually steal the money from the people and the people are suffering. I think honesty is the key to it. If they can’t get that right, it’s not going to work... (R6)
One respondent described a previous negative encounter that could influence the acceptance of co-management.
These community-based quotas did cause problems in the past. There were such things in place in the past but there were problems. So the challenge is not to have those problems again. The problem is that there were community-based quotas handed out. The structure was that there were co-operatives in the towns, and then there was a mother body, and then there was the top structure. But from the financial side, money was only generated up to a certain point. It didn’t go to the people. And if it went out, then they were the only ones who made decisions about percentages… And now we’re coming with the same thing to the same people and that’s the challenge. To bring a mind-change that it won’t be like that again. (R5)
Issues around accountability therefore came to the fore.
Legally there are challenges for that… whom do you hold accountable should anything go wrong? (R8)
Some had doubts about whether people were ready for co-management. Such respondents did not want co-management to end up being a quick fix and pointed to the realities.
It is a long process to get everybody on the same page in terms of understanding how the science works, how the TACs come about and so on. (R7)
Others were interested in resolving the role that communities would play, and argued that sufficient time had to be dedicated to involvement, empowerment, and training.
We do need to have such an arrangement with communities, because it makes our job easier.
In terms of communicating, engaging with them, and getting information from them. Yes, it is a way forward. But the way in which it is implemented, I don’t think we are ready to do so.
Because communities need to be empowered in terms of understanding their role and involvement… It’s time-consuming to bring the structure on to the level of expectation. But it’s necessary; they need support from the Government’s side. So that they can see that whatever’s being done is a joint decision, a joint effort. (R8)
Some were concerned that individual rights would not be respected. Linked to this was the question about who precisely in the community would benefit.
… communities in the past used to be a lot smaller than they are now. They’ve grown a lot, so who is the community, the whole community, or only those involved with fishing? Do you include those who have building jobs? What is meant by the community? (R7)
So co-management is one of the difficulties, I think it can work. But it all depends on whether all the constitutional rights of the individual are protected… cannot set up any policy that restricts the constitutional rights or the bill of rights of anyone. And this comes down to freedom to access all national lands, and that’s the coastline as well, and the sea. So on restricted access, or the community on a certain part of the sea, there are scenarios where it could work, as long as the constitutional rights of people are protected. (R15)
The role of community leaders in fishing communities was found to be key in achieving success.
…but I’ve discovered that if there isn’t a leader that starts something, then nobody will. There must be leaders. I won’t be able to continue with everything that I started. But I start with it, give them training, and I say, “if you need help, ask me”, but I unfortunately, I can’t do
everything. The leaders hold the fort, things go on, and they make sure that things don’t stagnate and sit still. The leaders need to make it as friendly as possible, so the people can feel that they want to be involved. Not just that there are two or three people, then it’s leaderless and there’s no real interest. It must be leaders who really care and want to do the thing. (R4)
The critical role of responsible leadership and the need to fully represent people on the ground was important. Some pointed to how critical it was that leaders report back to the people on the ground, and avoid making decisions alone. There was a clear need to develop the skills of all, as this would have multiple benefits.
The other problem… we only deal with the community leaders, but what about the people on the ground? Some of the leaders don’t report back to the communities. And it’s the guys who catch the fish, which you would have to inform about a co-operative, about not having a middleman, how you can trade directly with the market. That is the main problem that we will face in the next 6-7 years… we have to inform people. If people own the idea that you are selling, then it’s going to work out well. You can’t go and say, “this is what I want you to do;
you must just do it”. If it’s going to fail, people will blame you. (R11)
Rigour in co-management, as well as stricter measures for the issuing of rights was a precursor for success.
So co-management must have the teeth. You say, “you will be punished for the next three months; you will not put your feet in the sea”… The state gives us permission for the rights, then there’s the permit conditions, ‘you can’t do this or that”. But the state must say, as part of the right we give you, to go on with your life but you must couple it with development, obligatory development. The state has the right to say couple this with your development. That can help us a lot… We unfortunately need to bring a certain degree of force so that people can do good. (R2)