a guide to participatory fisheries management PFM... · 2017-11-01 · A Guide to Participatory...

a guide to participatory fisheries management

Volume i: implementation guidelines

fisheries integration of society and habitats (fish)award number: AID-612-A-14-00004

date:presented by:

February 29, 2016

Pact and Partners

in Malawi

Disclaimer:Prepared under USAID Cooperative Agreement No. AID-612-A-14-00004 awarded on September 9, 2014, entitled Malawi Fisheries Integration for Society and Habitat (FISH) Project.

This report is made possible by the generous support of the American People through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of Pact, Inc. and FISH and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

Recommended citation:Fisheries Integration of Society and Habitats (FISH) 2016. A Guide to Participatory Fisheries Management in Malawi: Volume 1: Implementation Guidelines. Lilongwe, Malawi, and Washington, D.C., United States: Pact.

Front Cover:

Approval dATE:

Pact is a promise of a better tomorrow for all those who are poor and marginalized. Working in partnership to develop local solutions that enable people to own their own future, Pact helps people and communities build their own capacity to generate income, improve access to quality health services, and gain lasting benefit from the sustainable use of the natural resources around them. At work in more than 30 countries, Pact is building local promise with an integrated, adaptive approach that is shaping the future of international development.

Visit us at www.pactworld.org.

Pact1828 L Street NW, Suite 300

Washington, DC 20036+202–466–5666

[email protected]

Pact Malawi1st Floor, Amina House

P.O. Box 1013Lilongwe, Malawi

+265–1751220; +265–1751201

March 28, 2016

A man collects fish from the drying rack in Malembo, on the Southwest arm of Lake Malawi.

authors:

EDITING/LAYOUT:

Stanley MvulaDick KachilondaRichard KachalaGeoffrey KanyerereJohn BalarinDaniel JamuWilliam Chadza

Sandra Fröbe-Kaltenbach

A Guide to Participatory Fisheries Management in Malawi: Implementation Guidelines

Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... ii Foreword ........................................................................................................................ iii Useful Terms and Their Definitions ............................................................................... iv 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Aims and Uses of the Guide ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Structure of the Guide ............................................................................................................... 1 1.3. Why the Guide Focuses on PFM in General and the Six Steps in Particular ......................... 1 1.4. Why Focus on PFM and the Six Steps at the FA Level Rather than the BVC/RVC Level .... 2 1.5. Before Carrying Out the Six Steps ............................................................................................3

2 Participatory Fisheries Management Explained ........................................................... 4 2.1. Background ............................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Brief History .............................................................................................................................. 5 2.3. Current Status .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.4. Policy Framework .................................................................................................................... 8 2.5. The Six Operational Steps to Successfully Establish PFM .................................................... 9

3 Purpose, Roles, and Responsibilities of Local Fisheries Management Authorities .... 12 3.1. Beach/River Village Committees............................................................................................ 12 3.2. Fisheries Association .............................................................................................................. 14 3.3. Institutional Relationship between FAs and BVCs/RVCs .................................................... 14 3.4. Stakeholder Roles in Supporting LFMAs .............................................................................. 15

4 Step 1: Create the Local Fisheries Management Authority and Draft its Constitution 16 4.1. Forming Beach/River Village Committees ............................................................................ 16 4.2. Forming the Fisheries Association ........................................................................................ 18 4.3. Procedures for Forming an FA ............................................................................................... 19

5 Step 2: Establish the Local Fisheries Management Authority’s Formal Boundary of Jurisdiction and Create a Map .................................................................................... 21

5.1. The Complexity of Establishing an LFMA Boundary of Jurisdiction ................................... 21 5.2. Key Considerations when Defining an LFMA Boundary ...................................................... 21 5.3. How to Develop an FA Boundary of Jurisdiction and Resource Map ................................ 22

6 Step 3: Assess Fisheries Resources ............................................................................. 24 6.1. The Importance of Assessing Fisheries Resources ............................................................... 24 6.2. PFM Requirements ................................................................................................................ 24 6.3. Profiling the Ecosystem and its Fishery ............................................................................... 24

7 Step 4: Formulate an Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Plan ......................... 30 7.1. Preparatory Process for Developing an FMP ........................................................................ 30 7.2. Contents of the FMP .............................................................................................................. 30

8 Step 5: Establish Local Fisheries Management Authority By-laws.............................. 32 8.1. Definition of By-Laws ............................................................................................................ 32 8.2. By-Laws in the Context of PFM ............................................................................................ 32 8.3. Formulation of Ecosystem By-Laws ..................................................................................... 32 8.4. The Need to Involve Fishing Communities in Formulating Fisheries By-Laws ................ 34 8.5. Legal Framework Supporting Ecosystem By-Law Formulation ..........................................35

9 Step 6: Secure User Rights through a Fisheries Management Agreement .................. 41 9.1. Policy Background ................................................................................................................... 41 9.2. Relationship between an FMA and an FMP .......................................................................... 41 9.3. Contents of the FMA ............................................................................................................... 41 9.5. Procedure for Securing User Rights ..................................................................................... 42

References ..................................................................................................................... 43

Fisheries Integration of Society and Habitats (FISH) Project

i

Abbreviations and Acronyms ADC Area Development Committee ADP Area Development Plan AFA Area Fisheries Association (outdated term for FA) BMG Beach Management Group (outdated term for BVC) BVC Beach Village Committee CBNRM community-based natural resource management CBO community-based organisation CEPA Centre for Environmental Policy and Advocacy CISER Community Initiative for Self-Reliance cm centimetre(s) CPI Community Performance Index DDP District Development Plans DFO District Fisheries Officer DOF Department of Fisheries EAV emergent aquatic vegetation ETOA Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment FA Fisheries Association FBO faith-based organization FGD focus group discussion FISH Fisheries Integration of Societies and Habitats Project FMA Fisheries Management Agreement FMP Fisheries Management Plan FMU Fisheries Management Units (outdated term for FA) FRU Department of Fisheries Research Unit GGB Good Governance Barometer GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (German

development agency) GVH Group Village Headman IUCN International Union of the Conservation of Nature kg kilogram(s) LFMA Local Fisheries Management Authority LGA Local Government Authority M&E monitoring and evaluation mm millimetre(s) NGO nongovernmental organisation PFM Participatory Fisheries Management PRA Participatory Rapid Assessment RVC River Village Committee SAV submerged aquatic vegetation SEA southeast arm (of Lake Malawi) SWA southwest arm (of Lake Malawi) SWOT strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats TA Traditional Authority USAID U.S. Agency for International Development VDC Village Development Committee VDP Village Development Plan


ii

Acknowledgements This guide was compiled by Fisheries Integration of Society and Habitats (FISH) Project partner the Centre for Environmental Policy and Advocacy (CEPA). Stanley Mvula, FISH Program Manager based at CEPA, led the development process, which took place from April to August 2015 and was supported by a small task force team, including CEPA and FISH project staff.

The following staff contributed chapters: Dr. Dick Kachilonda, FISH Governance and Capacity Development Specialist; Richard Kachala, Project Manager for Community Initiative for Self-Reliance (CISER); and Geoffrey Kanyerere, Head of the Fisheries Research Unit (FRU) of the Department of Fisheries (DOF). The team was backstopped by John Balarin, FISH Chief of Party; Dr. Daniel Jamu, FISH Deputy Chief of Party for Programs; and William Chadza, Executive Director of CEPA.

Rachel Elrom (Pact) edited and restructured the guide, and Maggie Dougherty (Pact) created many of the graphics.

The authors of this guide are indebted to them for their contributions to this guide and thank the many participating parties who contributed during stakeholder consultations and others for providing secondary sources.


iv

Useful Terms and Their Definitions The terms in this list are applicable to Participatory Fisheries Management (PFM) in general. Some terms may not be discussed specifically in this guide.

Term Definition

Act In this guide, denotes the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1997

Assembly In this guide, denotes an urban or district assembly as specified in the Local Government Act

Beach Village Committee (BVC)

The people engaged in the fishing industry in a particular fishing beach or landing site, collectively formed by the fishing community and led by a sub-committee of elected office bearers

Board In this guide, denotes the appointed Fisheries Advisory Board, which advises the Minister of Fisheries

By-laws The rules and regulations pertaining to fisheries and derived from the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1997 and other regulations, generally approved and enforceable at the local government level

Commercial fishermen In the case of an individual, a person who is engaged in fishing for sale throughout or part of the year or season and who relies on this fishing activity for part of his/her income In the case of a corporate body or association, one that has an appreciable investment in the fishing industry, taking fish for sale

Director In this guide, denotes the Director of Fisheries

Fish processing Cleaning, filleting, icing, freezing, canning, salting, smoking, cooking, frying, boiling, pickling, drying, or otherwise preserving or preparing fish

Fisheries Association (FA)

A cluster of BVCs (and/or RVCs) that share the same fishery ecosystem and unite as one body to manage the fishery collectively, with elected office bearers forming the FA sub-committee representing the fishing industry at TA, district and ecosystem level.

Fisheries protection officer

The Director of Fisheries or anyone appointed by him, referred to in Section 3(7) of the Act

Fisheries Sub-Committee

A sub-committee to the district council’s Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, formed in pursuance of Section 14 of the Local Government Act, for sustainable PFM with fishing communities Similar sub-committees exist at the appropriate local authority level, notably within Area Development Committees (ADCs) and Village Development Committees (VDCs)

Fishing industry People who go fishing; own or make fishing gear or boats; or process, transport, market, and/or trade fish (and business men or investors in the industry) and their spouses

Fishing license That issued by the Department of Fisheries (DOF) under the Act

Fishing permit A right to fish in the jurisdiction of a FA, BVC, or RVC, issued to residents of that ecosystem

Fishing vessel Any vessel of any size and propulsion used in the fishing industry

Local Fisheries Manage-ment Authority (LFMA)

Any local community organization, BVC, RVC, or FA established for the purposes of promoting local participation in the conservation and management of fisheries in Malawi

Minister In this guide, denotes the Minister of the prevailing ministry in charge of fisheries

Participatory Fisheries Management (PFM)

An arrangement between the state and the subsistence, artisanal, and small-scale commercial fishing industry, whereby the fishing industry and the state jointly participate in shared responsibility or enforcement and regulation of the fishing

Register A local fishing vessel or local fisher register to be kept in pursuant to Regulation 13 of the Act

Regulations In this guide, denotes the Fisheries Conservation and Management Regulations of 2000, a supplement to the Act

River Village Committee (RVC)

The people engaged in the fishing industry in a particular fishing river that share a landing site, collectively formed by the fishing community, and led by a BVC sub-committee of elected office bearers

Subsistence fishermen People who catch fish for their own/home consumption and do not sell fish for income


1

1 Introduction Participatory Fisheries Management (PFM) is about the exclusive right of the communities living near and working in a particular fishery to participate in making key decisions about how, when, where, how much, and by whom fishing will occur (Donda & Njaya, 2007). This guide, A Guide to Participatory Fisheries Management in Malawi, aims to guide extension workers and fisheries managers to implement PFM in line with Government of Malawi policies by promoting the empowerment and active participation of stakeholders at all levels in fisheries governance.

1.1. Aims and Uses of the Guide The guide was developed to help policy makers and fisheries managers understand the implementation of PFM as part of fisheries resource management activities. The guide aims to assist District-level government agencies, Local Government Authorities (LGAs), and community-based organisations (CBOs) operationalize central government policy on PFM by promoting the empowerment and active participation of stakeholders at all levels of fisheries governance. In particular, the guide seeks to define how, through the creation and development of Fisheries Associations (FAs), the community engaged in the fishing industry can be empowered to manage their own affairs more directly and can collaborate with the government to formulate and implement ecosystem-level fisheries by-laws, management plans, and development plans.

This guide can be used to start new or reactivate dormant Local Fisheries Management Authorities (LFMAs), which are CBOs specifically engaged in fisheries management, including reviving established Beach Village Committees (BVCs) or River Village Committees (RVCs). Or new clusters of BVCs/RVCs can be united under an ecosystem-based approach that creates a collective of BVCs and RVCs that share the same water body, called a Fisheries Association (FA). The process of establishing or reactivating LFMAs follows government institutional hierarchies from the Village Development Committees (VDCs) through to District Councils.

1.2. Structure of the Guide This guide was created around the six principle steps of PFM, as laid out in the 2001 National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy, as well as over two decades of accumulated experience from Lake Malombe, Lake Chilwa, Lake Chiuta, and the Southeast Arm (SEA) of Lake Malawi and lessons learned in PFM implementation in Malawi.

The guide is composed of two documents: The Implementation Guidelines and the companion Templates document. The Implementation Guidelines provide users with the policy background of PFM, an explanation of the six steps to PFM, and systematic instructions on how to carry out the six steps and use the companion templates in the process. The Templates document can be used alongside the Implementation Guidelines or by fisheries stakeholders as a standalone set of templates they can use to establish LFMAs and be part of the PFM process.

All the elements in this guide were developed and used in Malawi by various projects and underwent an extensive review process.

1.3. Why the Guide Focuses on PFM in General and the Six Steps in Particular PFM was introduced as a response to the failure of a centralised system to enforce fisheries regulations. The approach was a means to promote recovery of the declining fish stocks and to reduce enforcement, surveillance, and monitoring costs, while facilitating resource-users’ management of the resource. The assumption was that increased self-regulation, increased acceptance of the regulation, and resource-users’ active involvement would result in improved management of the resources.


2

The introduction of PFM was a shift from a top-down type of management to a participatory process, whereby fishing communities were drawn into decision-making (with a channel of dialogue between the Department of Fisheries [DOF] and the fishing communities). The shift from government-centred management to more community participation was followed by the democratic dispensation in 1994, which created an enabling environment when Malawi moved from one party rule to democracy, promoting voices of the voiceless to be heard in multiple decision-making levels.

The six steps are stipulated in National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy of 2001 as important pillars to PFM because they provide the systematic process to achieve the active participation of local communities in the management of fisheries resources. PFM cannot be discussed or implemented outside of these six steps.

1.4. Why Focus on PFM and the Six Steps at the FA Level Rather than the BVC/RVC Level Earlier PFM interventions, which targeted BVCs/RVCs, were a more village-by-village-based administration approach and exhibited poor levels of performance. Establishing, developing, and supporting PFM in over 300 BVCs/RVCs nationwide was cost-prohibitive and impractical at all levels of government. And, after donor projects phased out, this approach proved unsustainable without external support. Subsequently, established BVCs and RVCs were not well supported or maintained. Not only was this time consuming to develop and cost ineffective, this approach did not take into consideration the need for a more holistic way of managing the ecosystem and fishery.

In addition, BVCs and RVCs, being village based, reported to the VDC, and therefore did not have the support of a higher-level authority (e.g., Traditional Authority [TA], District Council) or the powers they needed to manage the entire fishery, which ecologically would span across several villages and included many BVCs and RVCs. Conflict ensued between migrant fishers and BVCs/RVCs, and BVCs/RVCs were often usurped by the TA. The situation proved unsatisfactory to all involved.

The national fisheries regulations advocate for an ecosystem-level approach to PFM. As most water bodies transcend village boundaries, there is a need to match the ecosystem boundary with the LFMA’s (BVCs/RVCs and FAs) boundary of authority and with the jurisdiction of the appropriate fishery LGA. Smaller water bodies can be managed by the TA, VDC, or Area Development Committee (ADC), but larger fisheries that transcend TA, VDC and ADC authority need to be managed by a district-level authority level, through what the national fisheries regulations refer to as ‘a fishing district’. This fishing district is represented by the FA.

Therefore, FA is a clustering of BVCs/RVCs that share a common water body (or part of a common water body in the case of larger systems like Lake Malawi). This means that the 300 BVCs/RVCs would collectively come together under the administration of about 20 fishing districts, under the umbrella of their FAs. The FAs become the higher-level PFM contact points, and the smaller number of entities to work with makes District Council support more manageable, more cost effective, and less demanding on the government’s limited manpower and resources. And, importantly, the FA aligns the management of the ecological nature of the fishery with the corresponding authoritative administrative jurisdiction of the decentralised LGA.

Regarding the six operational steps to attain PFM, it is apparent that of the 300 BVCs/RVCs that were formed, two decades on less than 50% achieved more than three steps. By clustering BVCs/RVCs to form FAs that correspond to the LGA administrative structure of the water body, each BVC/RVC falls under the umbrella of an FA and as a member of the FA completes one set of the six steps with the rest of the BVCs/RVCs under the FA. All BVCs/RVC abide by one FA constitution that encompasses all the resource boundaries and assets, agree to one universal FA management plan governed by one set of ecosystem-wide FA by-laws all enforced by one FA management agreement. This empowers the FA with the overall authority over its collective of BVC/RVC members and the entire fishery, supported by the TA and/or District Council who co-partner with the FA to enforce by-laws and provide developmental support.


3

1.5. Before Carrying Out the Six Steps Over the past two decades, most water bodies in Malawi have established BVCs or RVCs, as applicable. Therefore, it is important for DOF extension officers to carry out a rapid survey of the characteristics of existing LFMAs and their fisher communities, including determining which LFMAs are active and where those active LFMAs are in the six steps. Further enquiry could look at their functionality, composition, and representation of the various stakeholder groups in the fishing community. Template J in the companion PFM Templates document provides methods and a template for such profiling.


4

2 Participatory Fisheries Management Explained

Chapter 2 outlines the background and history of Participatory Fisheries Management (PFM), provides the foundations of PFM, and describes the six steps that need to be followed for Fisheries Associations (FAs), Beach Village Committees (BVCs), or River Village Committees (RVCs) to be empowered to manage their own fisheries. This chapter further stresses the need to elevate the status of BVCs/RVCs from committees with only local-level authority to partners in a higher-level ecosystem-based partnership.

2.1. Background Nielsen et al. (2004) define PFM ‘as an arrangement whereby authority and management responsibility is equitably shared between government and the fishing community’. Therefore, PFM is a partnership arrangement of shared roles and responsibilities between state and fishing communities, with varying degrees of power-sharing and integrating local and central government bodies into the partnership. Besides Participatory Forestry Management and Participatory Wildlife Management, PFM, is part of the decentralisation of natural resource management from central to local-level government systems, empowering fisheries users to participate in managing their own natural resources.

The aim of PFM is to share responsibilities between the state and community, where the fishing community through a community-based organisation (CBO) has status as a legal entity. In the 2001 National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy, CBOs are called Local Fisheries Management Authorities (LFMAs). LFMAs consist of BVCs or RVCs operating at the village administration level and FAs that encompass the BVCs/RVCs at the ecosystem level, Traditional Authority (TA) or district administration level. (Learn more about BVCs, RVCs, and TAs in Chapter 3.)

As explained in Chapter 1, experience has shown that centralised management of the fishery is costly in terms of both human and financial resources and is demanding given the extensive nature of the fishery and the more than 300 LFMAs formed in Malawi. The earlier, top-down approach to enforcement had failed to regulate the fishery, resulting in an open access fishery fraught with the ‘tragedy of commons’ syndrome, whereby the fishery is exploited based on the fishers’ self-interests without considering the interests of the whole system, resulting in resource depletion. The collapse of the Chambo fishery in the 1990s typifies the tragedy of commons syndrome and acted as a driver for the Government of Malawi to see the need to move to a more structured management system of shared roles and responsibilities with the user community by forming formally constituted groups, or CBOs. Community by-laws them supplemented national laws, and user groups were mandated to take responsibility and ownership of the resource. Therefore, fisheries resource users began actively participating in regulating resource use through agreed management plans and by-laws.

PFM strives to move fisheries management away from a historical 100% state control to a more shared responsibility between the user and the state to create joint ownership of fisheries resources between the two actors. The degree of sharing responsibility between state and community can vary, but ideally an equitable, 50:50 relationship is sought (Figure 21.1.). This relationship is expressed in a Fisheries Management Agreement (FMA) between the state and the fishing community.


5

Figure 2.1. PFM Explained as a Shared Responsibility between State and Community

The diagram above represents gradients of Fisheries Co-Management. Ideally, moving from the left to right on X-Axis means shift in power, authority and responsibilities from Government or State towards the Community. At midpoint on the X-Axis represents equity between Government and the community over responsibility of fisheries management.

2.2. Brief History In 1993, a PFM program was introduced in Lake Malombe as a pilot project and was later replicated in other parts of Lake Malawi, Lake Chilwa, and Lake Chiuta (Njaya, 2007). PFM was introduced as a response to the centralised system that had failed to enforce fisheries legislation and was seen as a means to promote recovery of the declining fish stocks and to reduce enforcement, surveillance, and monitoring costs. The assumption was that increased self-regulation and increased acceptance of the regulation by users would result in improved management of the resources (Bell & Donda, 1993). The introduction of this approach was seen as a shift from a top-down type of management to a participatory process where fishing communities were drawn into decision making (with a channel of dialogue between the Department of Fisheries [DOF] and the fishing communities).

PFM conducted in the mid-1990s by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GTZ) on Lake Chilwa aimed to combat the increased fishing pressure and find a solution to the DOF’s limited capacity. PFM aimed to share decision-making powers and responsibilities between DoF and CBOs. The CBOs were later renamed as LFMAs in the then National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy (NFAP). A collective name referring to (1) a lake-wide collective management body of representation from all BVC leadership, known as the Fisherman’s Association, (2) sub-units were created at the TA level, known as ‘Fisheries Management Units (FMUs or ‘Area Fisheries Associations (AFAs) and (3) sub units created at Village Headman level called Beach Village Committees or River Village Committees’ (BVC/RVCs). The objectives at that time were for the FMU/AFA/ BVCs, and their office bearers, to assume communal management of resources, act as a channel for dialogue, and extension contact points between the DOF and fishing communities.

Later, fishers in other water bodies, such as Lake Chiuta and Lower Shire, took the initiative to copy the approach, and at the same time PFM was introduced in Lake Chilwa to facilitate its recovery after drying in 2005. In addition, the application of PFM to riverine systems contributed to the creation of River Village Committees (RVCs), with their leadership known as ‘RVC Sub-Committees’.

Gold shaded area is community share of co-management roles and responsibilities


6

Since implementation of PFM on a pilot basis began in Malawi in 1993, over 300 BVCs have been instituted with varying degrees of co-partnership established with local-, intermediate-, and higher-level administrative structures. However, the support for developing these BVCs primarily came from donors, mostly GTZ, UNDP, DFID and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In 2004, when these financial streams ran out, DOF became faced with having the sole responsibility of managing 300 BVCs/RVCs, an undertaking that proved to be too demanding for the limited government budgets and district-based manpower. This was compounded by a lack of District Councillors in place for the past decade, as by-laws could not be approved.

2.3. Current Status 2.3.1. Current Status of BVCs/RVCs The status of BVCs/RVCs in the key fisheries of Malawi as of February 2016 is provided in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. BVCs/RVCs by Lake/Waterbody

Lake Management Area Fishing District Area (square km) BVCs RVCs

Lake Malawi (excludes SEA and SWA)

Salima Nkhotakota, NkhataBay, Rumphi and Karonga

25,000.0 109

Lake Malawi (Southeast Arm [SEA])

Mangochi 3,000.0 75

Lake Malawi (Southwest Arm SWA])

Mangochi 1,000.0 12

Lake Malombe Mangochi 390.0 13

Lake Chilwa Zomba, Machinga & Phalombe

2,000.0 32 16

Lake Chiuta Machinga 200.0 14 2

Upper Shire Mangochi 13

Middle Shire Balaka 3

Lower Shire Chikwawa and Nsanje 53

Total: 324 18

Source: FISH Consolidated Baseline Report, September 2016 Despite over 20 years of PFM implementation in Malawi, not all LFMAs are functional. A recent survey suggests that slightly over half are active, but their institutional frameworks are weak and their role in fishery governance is poor. Based on a recent survey, below are some of the reasons for this phenomenon.

• The fishery is ‘open access’, making it difficult to regulate entry into the fishery.

• There is not enough DOF field staff to provide backstopping support to the LFMAs.

• Use of illegal fishing gear and practices by both artisanal and commercial fishers is rampant.

• Governance or PFM reforms that had been adopted since the 1990s have had no support from DOF, district, or TA.

• The BVCs/RVCs do not have legal backing to their by-laws to enforce penalties.

• BVC/RVC composition does not represent the ‘fishing industry’ as defined in the Fisheries Act.

• Licensing, fee collection, and by BVCs/RVCs and DOF does not work.

• Self-policing by BVC/RVC members is fraught with social consequences and vendettas.

• The formulating and implementation of local fisheries by-laws has been delayed for the past decade by the absence of District Councillors.


7

• Ecosystem-wide management plans have been put in place in some water bodies but have not been implemented.

• Fisheries management is not included in district plans or the local development agenda of the Village Development Committee (VDC) and Area Development Committee (ADC).

Despite a somewhat negative outlook, fishing communities have experienced some positive results from PFM, including:

• Greater law enforcement activities

• Facilitation of fishing gear licensing fees collection

• Provision of policy direction on fishery regulations (e.g., proposing changes in the timing of the onset of closed fishing season)

• Exchange visits to other water bodies implementing PFM in and out of the country to provide a platform for sharing and learning experiences

2.3.2. Current Status of Local-Level Responsiveness to PFM Since the mid-1990s, planning starts at village level through consultation with various sector groups, and desired outcomes are included in the Village Development Plans (VDPs), where they are coordinated by the VDC. The VDPs are then consolidated first as Area Development Plans (ADPs), then as District Development Plans (DDPs), and eventually as the national sector development plans. Figure 2.2 shows how this institutional framework looks in the context of fisheries management. Likewise, development funding and legal support for enforcement follows the same structure, and communities have recourse to seek higher-level support in co-partnership with these decentralised institutions for conflict resolution and policing through the same system.

Figure 2.2. Institutional Framework of Participatory Fisheries Governance

National Jurisdiction (Act & Regulations)

Fisheries Advisory Board

Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation & Water Development

Director of Fisheries

FA Sub-Committee

District Jurisdiction Regulation (By-laws)

District Council

BVC

Chairperson/Vice Treasurer

Secretary/Vice 6 Committee Members

District Executive Committee (DEC)

BVC Chair

Fishing District Fisheries Association (FA)

BVC SC

BVC Chair BVC Chair BVC Chair

Beach Village Committee Members

Traditional Authority Trad Court/By-laws

Area Development Committee (ADC)

Group Village Head Trad Court/By-laws

Village Development Committee (VDC)

Community Based Org By-laws

Chairperson/Vice Treasurer

Secretary/Vice 6 Committee Members

BVC Sub-Committee

Groups Groups Groups Groups BVC

Boat Owner

Gear Owner

Processor Trader

Crew Crew Worker Worker

BVC Chair

BVC SC Water Education Agriculture VNRMC

Special Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources


8

The USAID-funded Fisheries Integration of Societies and Habitats (FISH) Project assessed the performance of BVCs/RVCs and the quality of local governance as it relates to fisheries co-management across four focus lake bodies: Lake Chilwa, Lake Chiuta, Lake Malombe, and the SEA and SWA of Lake Malawi. These assessments strongly suggest that PFM has not yet been fully anchored in the Local Government Authority (LGA) planning and support structure. Despite fisheries contribution to village nutrition, food security, and economic importance, it seems that VDCs have not considered fisheries a local priority. Consequently, fisheries management activities have not been included in VDPs.

Likewise, at district level, the inclusion of PFM in the DDP is minimal. As a result, funding allocated to the District Fisheries Office (DFO) for PFM is proportionately low relative to its local importance and value. Funds are insufficient to cover the DFOs’ enforcement and extension services. Equally, the governance support from the DFO to assist BVCs/RVCs and FAs was also inadequate. In some areas the TA had imposed his/her own representatives in the BVCs/RVCs enforcement activities and collected tributes to allow illegal fishing.

2.4. Policy Framework The fisheries legal and policy frameworks are supportive of PFM. Priority Area 4 of the 2016 National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy and its Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy outline the fundamental principles of PFM, which can be summarized into six operational steps (Table 2.2).

Table 2.2. The Six Operational Steps toward Establishment of PFM as aligned with Policy Priority Area 4: Governance of the 2016 National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy

2016 Policy Statement PFM Principle

Policy Objective 1: To strengthen participatory fisheries management regimes

Strategy 1. Promote the formation and sustainability of strong local fisheries management institutions for devolution of fisheries management and enforcement of fisheries regulations

Step 1: Constitute a formal CBO of fishers = LFMA (either a BVC or FA)


Step 2: Establish the formal boundary of the jurisdiction of the CBO (i.e., fishing district)

Strategy 3: Develop local fisheries management plans for different fish stocks and geographic areas where they do not exist already in collaboration with local management institutions.

Step 3: Undertake a fishery resource assessment to develop management plans

Strategy 3: Develop local fisheries management plans for different fish stocks and geographic areas where they do not exist already in collaboration with local management institutions.

Step 4: Formulate an ecosystem based fisheries management plan


Step 5: Establish LFMA By-Laws

Policy Objective 2: To monitor and control fisheries resources

Strategy 2. In collaboration with local fishing communities and their management institutions enlarge the network of lake and riverine protected areas where only controlled fishing is permitted

Step 6: Secure User Rights through Fisheries Management Agreements

The National Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1997 and the 2000 subsidiary legislation on Fisheries Conservation and Management (Local Community Participation) Rules provide a clear guide to establish an institutional hierarchy for PFM, as follows.


9

• A community engaged in the artisanal fishing industry joins together as a BVC/RVC with jurisdiction over the fishing beach (Reg. Rule 3-4).

• A BVC/RVC is managed by an 11-member Sub-Committee of elected office bearers (Reg. Rule 8).

• The BVC/RVC Sub-Committee is also a development sub-committee to the VDC.

• A cluster of BVCs/RVCs join together as an FA that has a Sub-Committee of office bearers elected from the BVC/RVC Sub-Committees (Reg. Rule 18-24).

• An FA’s jurisdiction shall be the corresponding fishing District (or lake ecosystem) (Act Article 59) (Reg. Rule 19).

• The TA supports the FA in enforcing by-laws in their area of jurisdiction.

• The FA or group of FAs (i.e., inter-district FA) represent their BVC/RVC members to the Director DOF Fisheries or the national-level Fisheries Advisory Board (Reg. Rule 22).

• The Director of Fisheries provides or amends FMPs and FA by-laws and signs FMAs (Article 5) (Reg. Rule 20-23).

This implies that each FA should implement an ecosystem-based approach using the six steps of PFM and that one set of the six steps applies to the entire lake or water body and covers all the clustered BVCs/RVCs of that ecosystem, negating the need for each BVC/RVC to go through the six steps entirely on its own. As this concept applies to each of the six steps:

• Step 1: One FA constitution encompasses and applies to all BVCs/RVCs under the same fishing district/lake ecosystem.

• Step 2: One FA fishing district or lake-wide administrative boundary map shows all BVC/RVC member village boundaries and the jurisdiction of the FA.

• Step 3: One FA fisheries resource assessment is conducted for the whole fishery ecosystem, including all BVCs/RVCs in that ecosystem, and any assets therein all come under the FA’s jurisdiction.

• Step 4: One FA ecosystem-based FMP covers all member BVCs/RVCs.

• Step 5: One FA set of by-law embedded in the Fisheries Regulations is applicable to all BVCs/RVCs as users of the same fishery ecosystem.

• Step 6: One FMA for the entire ecosystem is endorsed by and applies to all of the associated BVCs/RVCs.

2.5. The Six Operational Steps to Successfully Establish PFM As BVCs/RVCs are already established in all key water bodies in Malawi and only a few have gone as far as collectively developing into an FA (e.g., Lake Chilwa), this guide describes the process and provides the tools for each FA to complete the six policy steps. This supersedes the tedious and expensive task of ensuring that individual BVCs/RVCs separately complete each of the six steps.

Also, the authors of this guide have translated the six PFM Principles in Table 2.2, which were shared verbatim from the NFAP, into six action steps that are closely aligned with the PFM Policy Principles. These action steps are outlined below and each have their own chapter that describes the background of and processes to complete each step, along with corresponding templates in the companion Templates document to help LFMAs carry out the six steps.

Preliminary Step: Inclusion in the District Development Plan

Where no FA exists, local Fisheries Assistant under the supervision of the District Fisheries Officer should first conduct a resource inventory of BVCs/RVCs that share a common resource (e.g., a single lake or ecosystem) using a preliminary, rapid site appraisal. If the majority of BVCs/RVCs are agreeable, the District Fisheries Officer (DFO) proposes to the Director of Fisheries and the District Assembly that a district-level, lake-wide FA be established. The DFO proposes the FA as part of the District Development Plans (DDP) to secure District-level funding and support to initiate carrying out the six policy steps.


10

Step 1: Create the LFMA and Draft its Constitution

Step 1 provides guidance on how to establish the LFMA and formulate its constitution. The constitution specifies the FA’s mandate as an LFMA, provides the legal basis for PFM authority, and clarifies how BVCs/RVCs collectively form an ecosystem-based FA.

Step 1 is based on PFM Policy Principle ‘Step 1: Constitute a formal CBO of fishers = LFMA (either a BVC or FA)’. See Chapter 4 for instructions on how to carry out Step 1.

Step 2: Establish the LFMA’s Formal Boundary of Jurisdiction and Create a Map

Step 2 describes the necessary steps to demarcate an LFMA’s boundary of jurisdiction: a beach for a BVC, a stretch of river for an RVC, or an ecosystem (or part thereof) for the FA. This chapter also explains how to map the jurisdictional outline, which sets the jurisdiction’s administrative and ecological boundaries (e.g., shallow, breeding, vegetated) and highlights areas of special interest to fisheries (e.g., fish breeding and feeding areas, no take zones, sanctuaries).

Step 2 is based on PFM Policy Principle ‘Step 2: Establish the formal boundary of the jurisdiction of the CBO (i.e., fishing district)’. See Chapter 5 for instructions on how to carry out Step 2.

Step 3: Assess Fishery Resources

Step 3 follows on Step 2 in describing how an LFMA uses Participatory Rapid Assessment (PRA) to determine the resources in the fisheries ecosystem, lake, or water body that will be under its jurisdiction. The LFMA works with the DOF and associated fishing communities that share the same ecosystem, namely BVCs/RVCs, to assess fisheries resources.

Step 3 is based on PFM Policy Principle ‘Step 3: Undertake a fishery resource assessment to develop management plans’. See Chapter 6 for instructions on how to carry out Step 3.

Step 4: Formulate an Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Plan

Step 4 outlines the process of developing a Fisheries Management Plan (FMP). FMPs provide LFMAs and all other stakeholders with technical and operational guidelines for conserving and managing the fishery resources in the water body (ecosystem). The FMP applies to the entire lake ecosystem that is managed by the FA, thereby negating the need for BVCs or RVCs to have their own plans.

Step 4 is based on PFM Policy Principle ‘Step 4: Formulate an ecosystem based fisheries management plan’. See Chapter 7 for instructions on how to carry out Step 4.

Step 5: Establish LFMA By-laws

Step 5 describes the necessary steps to develop FA by-laws for its ecosystem’s area of jurisdiction. By-laws are embedded in the main Fisheries Act and regulations. But, whereas regulations are government enforced, by-laws are jointly enforced by FAs, BVCs, RVCs and government where the district councils set their own levels of penalties, fees, and fines.

Step 5 is based on PFM Policy Principle ‘Step 5: Establish LFMA By-Laws’. See Chapter 8 for instructions on how to carry out Step 5.

Step 6: Secure User Rights through an FMA

Step 6 describes how an LFMA can successfully enter into an FMA with the DOF to guarantee tenure rights of the fishery resources. Creation and signing of the PMA completes the six steps of PFM. An FMA legally formalises the relationship between the LFMA and the state and is a key instrument in the Director of Fisheries assigning his powers to a registered LFMA. The FMA lays down limits to membership, gear, and boats; reiterates the fees and fines prescribed by the by-laws; and bestow authority on the LFMA.


11

Step 6 is based on PFM Policy Principle ‘Step 6: Secure User Rights through Fisheries Management Agreements’. See Chapter 9 for instructions on how to carry out Step 6.

Concluding Step: Implementation of the FMP

Once the FA has completed all six steps, the FA’s constitution, jurisdiction, by-laws, FMP, and FMA now apply to all the BVCs/RVCs signed up under that FA and the FMP should be reflected in the DDP. Through the FA lobbying efforts to the District Council to sign the by-laws, fishing communities can now receive resources to carry out their activities (e.g., operations, surveillance, enforcement, annual frame surveys, catch data collection, members register and annual census, monitoring and evaluation, capacity building) or for investment in wise-use best practice micro-projects (e.g., best practice models, site development, sanctuary establishment, fuel efficient processing) in accordance with annual LGA Development Plans.


12

3 Purpose, Roles, and Responsibilities of Local Fisheries Management Authorities

This chapter provides background information on the Local Fisheries Management Authorities (LFMAs) championed in Participatory Fisheries Management (PFM): The Beach Village Committees (BVCs), River Village Committees (RVCs), and Fisheries Associations (FAs), as well as those government entities that support PFM. Each type of LFMA is important to the PFM process, so becoming familiar with their history, roles, responsibilities, and unique duties is crucial to understanding how to implement PFM.

3.1. Beach/River Village Committees Both BVCs and RVCs are community-based institutions within the PFM framework. BVCs/RVCs assume PFM roles and responsibilities on behalf of the fishing community in collaboration with Department of Fisheries (DOF). The only difference between a BVC and an RVC is that the former form around a particular beach and the latter around a particular river.

The BVC/RVC is actually not a ‘committee’, but a member association made up of all people engaged in the fishing industry of a particular beach/river—the fishing community—and is governed by a Sub-Committee.

Figure 3.1 shows where BVCs/RVCs fit into the local government hierarchy. Note the location of Village Development Committees (VDCs) directly above BVCs (the Group Village Headman [GVH] also sits at this level), Area Development Committees (ADCs) and the Traditional Authority (TA) directly above VDCs, and the District Assembly directly above the ADCs and TA.

Figure 3.1. Decentralised Framework of Local Government


13

3.1.1. BVC/RVC Roles and Responsibilities BVCs/RVCs are responsible to the FA for managing the fishery within the area of jurisdiction of the fishing district or ecosystem. As prescribed by the FA constitution, BVCs/RVCs have the power to:

1. Uphold the regulations and by-laws, specifically: a. Scrutinise applications for registration of fishing vessels of small-scale fishers b. Keep records of vessels registered and licenses issued in respect of its area of jurisdiction c. Enforce fishing regulations pertaining to fish species; fish size; closed season; fish sanctuaries

(closed areas); gear size, type, and storage; and method of fishing d. Enforce conditions specified in licenses e. Seize fishing vessels and fishing gear that are reasonably believed to have been used in

violation of the Fisheries Act, provided that the seized item shall be surrendered to a fisheries protection officer within 48 hours of seizure

f. Monitor status of fish stocks 2. Issue written authority to fish (i.e., fishing permits), without which no person shall fish in fishing

waters falling within the FA’s jurisdiction

3. Provide a forum for dialogue and debate within the fishing community to identify problems, formulate solutions, organize implementation of solutions, evaluate progress, and adjust solutions accordingly

4. Act as a two-way channel of communication between the fishing community and the DOF, other government agencies, and TAs through the FA and its Sub-Committee, including acting as a channel for extension messages to those engaged in the fishing industry and feedback to the DOF

5. Register all fishermen in its area of jurisdiction and issue letters of transfer to members wishing to fish in a different area

6. Account for fishing license fees and levies (BVC/RVC collected) and fines (TA collected)

7. Collaborate with the DOF to collect data for monitoring and better management of the fishery, including maintaining a register of fishermen, licenses, and gear

8. Keep the FA informed of any events of importance to the fishery that occur in their area

9. Collaborate with other community groups in the area, especially the TA and VDC

10. Act as first stage of conflict resolution among fishers/members of the BVC/RVC

11. participate in the development of fisheries management plans and management agreements

The BVC/RVC receives its PFM mandate and ownership of conserving and managing its fishery from the Fisheries Act. Most importantly, the regulations convey legal power to fishers to enforce the regulations under each beach/river jurisdiction.

3.1.2. BVC/RVC Role in Regulating Fishing Permits No person may fish in fishing waters falling within a BVC’s/RVC’s jurisdiction unless he/she is authorized to do so by a permit or the BVC’s/RVC’s written authority, as required by Fishing Regulation Rule 15

The aim of a BVC/RVC fishing permit is to empower BVCs/RVCs to control access to their fishing waters, which is fundamental to participatory fisheries management. The fishing permit fee enables the BVCs/RVCs to generate revenue to fund their operations, which also is crucial to PFM.


14

3.2. Fisheries Association An FA shall encompass several BVCs/RVCs; have an operational area with a well-defined ecosystem boundary, agreed in consultation with local government/local fisheries staff of the district involved; and is the authoritative body of all BVCs/RVCs that share in common the same fishery ecosystem.

3.2.1. FA Roles and Responsibilities As per the FA constitution, the FA Sub-Committee is responsible for:

1. Managing the fishery for the long-term benefit of the members, which implies that management of the fishery should be sustainable; Sustainability implies practices that are self-sustaining economically, socially, and managerially and practices that allow renewal of fish resources

2. Developing Fisheries Management Plans and Agreements (FMAs)

3. Submitting Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) and Fisheries Management Agreements (FMAs) to the District Council and DoF for approval

4. Act as first stage of conflict resolution between BVCs/RVCs

5. Implementing the FMP and reporting back to the members on progress.

6. Managing funds accruing to the FA’s account

7. Holding members legally accountable if they fail to manage the FA’s assets in the best interest of the ecosystem and entire membership

8. Providing a forum for dialogue and debate and coordinating between the various BVCs/RVCs in its jurisdiction

9. Presenting cases of infringement of FA regulations and by-laws to the proper authority for adjudication

10. Imposing penalties according to the regulations and by-laws, which may include fines or confiscation and destruction of illegal fishing gear

11. Ensuring that the BVCs/RVCs are functioning correctly and taking appropriate action in cases of irregularity

12. Representing the interests of the fishing population of the BVCs/RVCs in its jurisdiction

13. Conveying to the Director of Fisheries its recommendations for conserving and managing fisheries resources in a particular water body

3.3. Institutional Relationship between FAs and BVCs/RVCs Figure 3.2 shows the institutional relationship between an FA and its BVCs/RVCs. Note how the BVCs/RVCs elect Sub-Committee office bearers who constitute FA membership, from which the FA Sub-Committee is elected.


15

Figure 3.2. Institutional Relationship between the FA and its BVCs/RVCs

3.4. Stakeholder Roles in Supporting LFMAs 3.4.1. District Councils The role of the District Council in PFM is stipulated in the 1997 Local Government Act and includes: • Taking charge of all decentralised services and activities, including but not limited to fisheries

extension services • Passing District fisheries by-laws • Providing the FA with funds • Financing the Chiefs and providing them with transport • Prosecuting cases through the Magistrate’s court


16

3.4.2. Traditional Authority As the FA’s patron, the TA supports FA/BVC/RVC members in conserving and managing fish resources within his/her area of jurisdiction. In particular, the TA presides over major breaches of the fishery regulations/by-laws brought to the Traditional Court by the FA by;

• Presiding over cases (conflict resolution) • Giving advice to the FAs as appropriate

4 Step 1: Create the Local Fisheries

Management Authority and Draft its Constitution

This chapter provides guidance on how to establish a Local Fisheries Management Authority (LFMA) and formulate its constitution. The constitution specifies the FA’s mandate as an LFMA, provides the legal basis for Participatory Fisheries Management (PFM) authority, details their roles and responsibilities of the various participants in PFM, and clarifies how Beach Village Committees (BVCs) and River Village Committees (RVCs) collectively form an ecosystem-based Fisheries Association (FA).

The 2000 Fisheries Conservation and Management (Local Community Participation) Rules of the 1997 Fisheries Conservation and Management Act states that:

Persons engaged in fishing and related activities at a particular fishing beach (or river) may form a Beach (or River) Village Committee (B/RVC). A Beach/River Village Committee shall consist of persons who are engaged in any aspect of the fishing industry associated with a fishing beach/river, which includes fishing, fish processing, fish marketing and fish trading, and the spouse of such a person.

Membership of BVCs/RVCs should be open to all residents (be it male or female) in the fishing community. In order to ensure that those forming a BVC/RVC are properly identified in the fishing community, BVC/RVC should maintain a register of members with their names, village, and the specific aspect of the fishing industry in which they are engaged (see Template C in the companion Templates document).

4.1. Forming Beach/River Village Committees Formation of BVCs and RVCs require one to spend more time with the fishing communities, create awareness and sensitize the whole community for it to have the true representation of the fishing communities. There are a number of stages in BVC/RVC formation and these include:

Sensitizing traditional leaders

Traditional leaders are owners of the land and important individuals with more decision-maker’s powers. They can considerably influence on the use of Natural Resources in their areas and if well utilized can assist in solving fisheries conservation problems.

Sensitizing fishers and village community


17

When sensitizing the community, the technical assistant should ensure that the importance of managing the fisheries resource, the need for community participation in resource management and the overall objective of forming the BVC/RVC/FA is well understood by the community.

Conducting BVC/RVC elections

Before the elections, the technical assistant will discuss with the fishing community on qualities of a leader by explaining the concept of leadership, leadership styles and the importance of promoting maximum participation in group activities. A person shall qualify for election as BVC/RVC Sub-Committee office bearer if that person:

• Is a citizen of Malawi

• Has been a resident of the beach/river for at least one year

• Is 18 years of age or older

• Is able to read and write

• Is of sound mind

• Has no criminal conviction

The technical assistant will be a neutral facilitator and will therefore guard against influencing the outcome of the elections. The list of elected members at a wider group will be maintained without changes.

4.1.1. BVC/RVC Sub-Committee To properly manage its affairs, each BVC/RVC shall elect a Sub-Committee consisting of the following 11 office bearers, three of whom must be women (Figure 3.1.):

• Chair and Vice Chair

• Secretary and Vice Secretary

• Treasurer

• 6 regular office bearers

4.1.2. BVC/RVC Institutional Framework Remember that the BVC/RVC comprises ALL those engaged in any aspect of the fishing industry associated with a fishing beach or river and does not denote only those office bearers on the BVC Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee members must come from among the total membership of the BVC/RVC and be elected by the total membership, NOT nominated by a higher authority, such as the Group Village Headman (GVH) or District Fisheries Officer (DFO).


18

Figure 4.1. Institutional Framework of a BVC/RVC and its Sub-Committee

4.2. Forming the Fisheries Association 4.2.1. Rules for Forming the FA BVCs and/or RVCs that share the same water body may cluster together and form an umbrella ecosystem-based organization, which is the FA. As stated in Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (Local Community Participation Rules) 2000, ‘A Fishermen’s Association shall consist of people who are engaged in any aspect of a fishing industry associated with the area covered by the association which corresponds with a fishing district.’ It is the (total) BVC/RVC membership (who share in common a particular ecosystem area) who may democratically form an FA. For larger ecosystems with many districts, each fishing district boundary shall have its own FA and above the FA shall be an inter-district FA that transcends the whole ecosystem (the inter-district FA uses the same six step procedures to register members, hold elections, draft by-laws, etc.).

The FA must have a legal personality. This means that the FA should register its constitution with the Registrar General. (See Template A in the companion Templates document.)

4.2.2. FA Sub-Committee To properly manage the affairs of a fishing district, all BVC/RVC can create an FA Sub-Committee to represent them. The FA Sub-Committee office bearers shall be elected by secret ballot by the FA’s (total) membership (i.e., all chairpersons of BVCs/RVCs that form the FA). Sub-Committee members will not be appointed by a higher authority (e.g., the Traditional Authority [TA] or DOF).

Like BVC/RVC Sub-Committees, the FA Sub-Committee consists of the following 11 office bearers, three of whom must be women (Figure 3.2): • Chair and Vice Chair • Secretary Vice Secretary • Treasurer • Vice Treasurer • 5 regular office bearers


19

4.2.3. Institutional Framework Figure 4.2. Institutional Framework of an FA and its Sub-Committee

4.3. Procedures for Forming an FA 4.3.1. Raise awareness of participating in the FA. DOF staff (and supporting partners) sensitise the TAs, BVCs, and RVCs in their respective localities and enlist BVC/RVC Sub-Committee office bearers to explain the formation process to all members. While raising awareness, DOF staff (and partners) seek agreement from the BVCs/RVCs in their localities to join together to form the FA and identify appropriate ecosystem boundaries for the FA’s jurisdiction.

4.3.2. Raise decision maker awareness on the need to form FAs. The DFO announces to the Director of Fisheries and District authorities that the act of forming an FA of a given lake/ecosystem is in accordance with the District Development Plan (DDP). This should help secure funding for the operation, though the effort also may be supported by a project, NGO, or FBO..

4.3.3. Register FA members. The DFO coordinates and provide technical guidance during the registration process. BVC/RVC stakeholders who qualify to be members of the FA (i.e., any BVC/RVC member democratically elected by the BVC/RVC Sub-Committee to join the FA) are registered using a form that contains members’ full name, occupation within the fishing industry, home village, years of residency at the beach, and age (see Template C in the companion Templates document). Once filled out, the form is verified and signed by the TAs, then provided to the District Fisheries Office. The registration form is updated annually and during FA Sub-Committee elections.

Registration must be available for inspection by any stakeholder, TA, BVC/RVC member, or government official upon request.

4.3.8. Elect the FA Sub-Committee office bearers. The FA Sub-Committee will be elected at a meeting of BVC/RVC chairpersons. See the full list of election procedures in Template D in the companion Templates document.

• The DFO may delegate the Fisheries Assistant as proxy to represent him/her when elections are being held in the designated jurisdiction of the FA.

• All elections must be held between 7.00 am and 6.00 pm.


20

• The DFO appoints one polling assistant to supervise elections in each FA stakeholder group.

• Voting will be by secret ballot according to the rules in the template.

• The DFO or his/her delegate stores the voting records and the nomination forms to ensure accountability.

4.3.5. Draft the FA constitution.

Template A in the companion Templates document provides all required elements for the FA constitution. It outlines all the rules and regulations for the FA to exist. All FA members join together to draft the FA constitution in consultation with District Fisheries Office and District Council, but the constitution is only signed by BVC/RVC Sub-Committee Chairs. Once complete and signed, the constitution is registered at the District Fisheries Office and the District Council before submission to the Registrar General. The complete list of BVCs/RVCs that make up the FA, which is included in the constitution, must be ready for inspection upon request at the respective District office.


21

5 Step 2: Establish the Local Fisheries Management Authority’s Formal Boundary of Jurisdiction and Create a Map

This chapter describes the necessary steps to demarcate a Local Fisheries Management Authority (LFMA) boundary of jurisdiction: a beach for a Beach Village Committee (BVC), a stretch of river for a River Village Committee (RVC), or an ecosystem (or part thereof) for the Fisheries Association (FA). This chapter also explains how to map the jurisdictional outline, which sets the jurisdiction’s administrative and ecological boundaries (e.g., shallow, breeding, vegetated) and highlights areas of special interest to fisheries at an ecosystem level (e.g., fish breeding and feeding areas, no take zones, sanctuaries).

5.1. The Complexity of Establishing an LFMA Boundary of Jurisdiction A BVC jurisdiction of authority, for example, is defined as the ‘landing beach’ or village boundary that borders a water body. However, jurisdiction over water is complex, and management of a beach or a village boundary does not necessarily confer the right to manage the fishery. Therefore, despite two decades of Participatory Fisheries Management (PFM) as law, the small-scale fisheries of major lakes in Malawi are still being exploited under an ‘open access regime’.

The legislation has recognized this by noting that FA jurisdiction shall be the corresponding ‘fishing District’ (Act Article 59) (Reg. Rule 19). This implies an ecosystem approach must also be aligned with the administrative boundaries so that the FA can derive power from the respective Local Government Authority (LGA; i.e., Traditional Authority [TA] or District) to manage the water body and its fishery.

Unlike the FA, BVC/RVC boundaries or areas of jurisdiction are determined in close consultation with traditional leaders, DOF staff, BVC/RVC Sub-Committee members, the FA, and others benefitting from the fishing industry. Ideally, the jurisdiction of the BVC/RVC spans from the inshore parts of the ecosystem or water body to the shoreline and village(s) boundaries.

5.2. Key Considerations when Defining an LFMA Boundary • The fishing industry must be willing to sign a memorandum of understanding to respect the

boundary and to agree to the LFMA’s power to both govern the rights of entrance and extraction and to prosecute offenders.

• Clear legal tenure (access) rights must be established to the fishing grounds that can be enforced in a court of law (either traditional or local government).

• Although tenure is a fundamental step toward improved fisheries governance, care has to be taken that access limitations and exclusions do not increase food insecurity. Climate change coping strategies need to be considered to discourage more entrants at times of crop failure.

• The tenure system must recognise and not undermine customary and traditional rights of current resource users, provided this corresponds with laid down by-laws and LFMA constitutions.

• Controlling the number and capacity of entrants to a water body is important because there are too many fishers competing with each other and chasing after the dwindling fisheries resources. Therefore, boundaries must be defined along ecosystem lines to ensure exclusive rights to resident fishing communities.

• Support from the Government of Malawi is needed, especially Ministry of Lands, to address the major policy challenges while establishing the legitimacy of the LFMA’s boundary of jurisdiction.


22

• For the boundary to result in effective governance, the LFMA must have powers of exclusion and prosecution that are socially and culturally adequate, based on human rights principles, and part of the country’s formal legal system. Make sure adequate consultations are undertaken in this carrying out this process.

• Roles and responsibilities of district councils and traditional leaders need to be clear to enable them to support the BVCs/RVCs and FA within their jurisdictions, notably to backstop by-laws.

5.3. How to Develop an FA Boundary of Jurisdiction and Resource Map LFMAs can use a Participatory Rapid Assessment (PRA) process to demarcate the fishery boundary under the jurisdiction of the local government land laws (see Chapter 6 for more on how to determine fisheries’ resources using PRA). The process is outlined below, but see Templates E and F in the companion Templates document for more complete instructions of the entire process.

1. The DOF identifies which fishery is in which fishing district to define broadly the ecosystem-based fishery boundaries and the administrative jurisdictions of the respective districts and local authorities (e.g., TAs, Area Development Committees [ADCs]) (See Table 2.1).

2. The District Fisheries Officer (DFO) leads the PRA process. He/she trains the DOF Fisheries Assistants and Scouts based in the vicinity of the water body in the PRA process and enlists them to develop the FA site maps in consultation with BVC/RVC and FA representatives and the TAs.

3. The first step in the PRA is to convene a focus group discussion (FGD) with members of the fishing community to identify and agree the ecosystem’s boundaries and determine the status of its resources. Sufficient guidance must be provided to ensure that crucial stakeholders to the process like fishers are not left out.

4. There is need to assemble a multidisciplinary team of experts (social scientists, ecologists, forestry etc.) to work as a team in facilitating resource and site boundary mapping.

5. Within the ecosystem boundary, mark the administrative units of the TA, ADC, BVCs, RVCs, Village Development Committees (VDCs), and Group Village Headmen (GVH). Figure 5.1 provides an example of how this could look.

Figure 5.1. Map of Lake Malombe Showing LFMA Jurisdictions

Source: Narmap, 1997


23

6. Mark on the map any known physical features, such as roads, bridges, ports, and landing beaches.

7. Mark on the map ecological features, such as water depths, sandy shores or rocky outcrops, islands, associated rivers, and wetlands.


24

6 Step 3: Assess Fisheries Resources This chapter follows on Chapter 5 (Step 2) in describing how a Local Fisheries Management Authority (FA) uses Participatory Rapid Assessment (PRA) to determine the resources in the fisheries ecosystem, lake, or water body that will be under its jurisdiction. The FA works with the Department of Fisheries (DOF) and associated fishing communities that share the same ecosystem, namely Beach Village Committees (BVCs) and River Village Committees (RVCs), to assess fisheries resources.

6.1. The Importance of Assessing Fisheries Resources Fisheries resource assessment builds on the mapping exercise in Step 2 (Chapter 5) and is carried out primarily to facilitate the numerous decisions that must be made in planning and implementing sustainable fisheries management within a lake ecosystem. The assessment involves gathering and analysing of environmental, ecological, biological, and socio-economic information about the fishery, the nature of the water body, and the anthropogenic pressures on it. The resulting information helps DOF staff and fishing communities understand past, present, and potential future management of the fisheries resources and their habitats. It identifies limits to catches and details opportunities for fisheries resources to contribute to environmentally sustainable economic development of the fishing communities.

6.2. PFM Requirements Participatory Fisheries Management (PFM) requires that a fishing community group:

1. Map their resources 2. Understand the threats to their resources 3. Decide which resource areas will receive focus for improved management efforts 4. Identify management efforts that would reduce threats, thereby increasing resource

productivity 5. Capture local knowledge about species and habitats and verify it through community field

surveys 6. Identify areas to protect (zoning) 7. Seek scientific verification of community-selected zones 8. Finalize zoning maps 9. Develop management plans for those areas, including enforcement considerations, biological

monitoring protocols to track long-term ecosystem health, and community consultation about the proposed managed areas and plans

6.3. Profiling the Ecosystem and its Fishery Profiling the ecosystem is a crucial step that informs the development of the ecosystem management plan, as described in Step 4/Chapter 7.

• Section 6.3.1 describes how to conduct an ecosystem habitat profile using participatory approaches.

• Section 6.3.2 provides an outline of fish species distribution, types, and breeding behaviour to match the profiled habitats with the species distribution pattern.

• Section 6.3.3 describes the methodology to categorise species under threat due to exploitation patterns in the ecosystem.

• Section 6.3.4 describes the historic trends of fish catches over a period of time. • Section 6.3.5 deals with problem analysis of the resources and exploitation in the ecosystem.

And, • Section 6.3.6 outlines the need to identify fragile habitats to be considered for zoning or

protection.


25

6.3.1. Description of the Lake/Water Body The starting point for profiling the ecosystem and its fishery is to;

• Conduct a stakeholder mapping exercise that defines the fishing industry’s stakeholders (e.g., gear owners, crew members, traders, transporters) and how they are linked to one another. This exercise begun in Step 2 using the PRA methodology and can be continued into this step.

• Use the PRA exercise to gather descriptions of fishing methods and practices used to catch individual fish species in the water body. This needs a collaborative effort of a multidisciplinary team of scientists, social researchers etc.

• Map and label landing beaches or existing BVC/RVC locations on the boundary map using the administrative map produced in Step 2 (Chapter 5) that shows shoreline, islands, bathymetry, and topography roads associated with the lake ecosystem. Label key features on the maps. Then, map habitats using coloured pencils to colour code different habitats, as in table 6.1 below.

Table 6.1. Colour Codes used in Fishery Resource Assessment Maps

Habitats Colour Codes

Emergent aquatic vegetation (EAV; grass/reeds) Light green

Beach shoreline Yellow

Rocky areas Brown

Estuary Blue

Figures 6.1 and 6.2 in the templates handbook provide examples of how these coloured maps could look.

• Produce maps depicting habitats and can be produced simply by pinning up a series of A3 sheets of paper onto a wall, with the shoreline and some key landmarks and places identified. Community members are then provided with colour felt pens to add in additional habitat details.

Once communities have a basic outline of the habitat information, A2 coloured map prints are provided, with transparent plastic sheets over the top. Participants can use markers to transfer the habitat information into a more accurate format. Natural resource users, such as fishermen, do not see habitats as existing in isolation. During the habitat mapping part of the PRA, listen to the discussions and you will likely hear information about species found in each habitat, which can be incorporated into the maps at the species profiling stage.

6.3.2. Capturing Local Ecological Knowledge about Fish Species In order to decide which natural resources (fish and other habitats) to protect, in what areas, and effectively plan management measures, it is important to first establish a strong understanding of the species and habitats in the local area and which are the highest priority for management by the local community by;

• Capturing local knowledge through species profiling, this typically involves describing the various fish species that are being caught in that particular ecosystem. For example, this could involve a description that includes local names of the species and locations within the ecosystem where they are normally caught.

• When carrying out a species profile, some more information can be generated by asking the following questions to key informants and the fishing community;

o What is the local name of the three or four key species you harvest? o When do they breed/spawn? o Where do they breed/spawn?


26

o How big/old are then when they start breeding/spawning? o How big do you let them grow before you usually catch/use them? o Which parts of the habitat do they live in? o Which species are commonly found in the same area as them?

• Populating the habitat maps with species distribution data. Once the habitat maps and species profiles are completed, they require verification through field surveys and minor adjustments can be made to finalise the maps.

• Attaching species to habitat maps to generate habitats with fish species distribution data. This task is best handled as a group where the Fisheries Assistants leading the mapping exercise because group consultation leads to better understanding and development of more accurate locations of map elements.

6.3.3. Identifying Species of Fish under Threat in Malawi Malawi is in the unique position of having over 14% of the world’s total biodiversity in fresh water fish species. Therefore, Malawi is charged with a national heritage of global significance and importance that requires protection. According to the International Union of the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red Book, most of Malawian fishery resources are all considered as ‘vulnerable’ because they occur in no other location worldwide. Any threats to the environment of Lake Malawi could contribute to the eradication of these fish with no other way to replenish them.

The Department of Fisheries determined that following 11 species are considered endangered and in need of regulation to curb their unsustainable rate of use:

• Buccochromis spectabilis (Mbaba)

• Corematodus taenatius (Kambuzi)

• Cytocara moori (Mbaba)

• Docimodus johnstonii (Mbaba)

• Labeo mesops (Ntchila)

• Opsaridium microlepis (Mpasa)

• Opsaridium microcephallum (Sanjika)

• Oreochromis shiranus chilwae (Makumba)

• Oreochromis squamipinnis (Chambo)

• Oreochromis karongae (Chambo)

• Oreochromis lidole (Chambo)

The following steps can be taken by FAs/BVCs/RVCs to conserve threatened species: 1. Empower FAs with exclusive fishing rights to lease the fishery from the state and to manage it

sustainably by enforcing by-laws to protect endangered species 2. Declare protected areas to protect breeding or nursery areas or areas of concentration of

endangered species, such as Mpasa 3. Establish sanctuaries to protect threatened stocks 4. Use artificial reefs to protect threatened stocks and as enhancement devices


27

6.3.4. Historic Trends in Fish Exploitation and Habitats Historic trends in fisheries exploitation and number of gears and fishers can be developed using catch assessment survey data and the DOF Annual Frame Survey, respectively. An example of this information is provided in Figure 6.3.

Figure 6.3. Trends in Fish Species Catches in Lake Malombe

6.3.5. Problem Analysis In fishery resource assessment work, potential productive uses are usually revealed in discussions of past practices and productivity. In essence, one of the aims is to understand the ways in which habitats have changed over time, such as over the years the extent in which certain species and reeds as well other EAVs have declined, in this way, communities can better understand the present condition of habitats through;

• Dialogue with local stakeholders about not only what happened in the past, but also why they think it happened the way it did. This often generates insights into the current constraints and potential solutions to improve the situation.

• Compiling the information solicited from the fishing community members and fishers about the threats and opportunities to the ecosystem fishery resources can be presented in a tabular fashion, such as Figure 6.4 in the templates handbook. This helps to facilitate prioritisation of issues affecting fisheries and fish species to consider for management.

Catch By Species: L. Malombe

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

Catc

h (t/

yr)

TilapiinesKambuziCatfishUsipaOthers


28

6.3.6. Identifying Areas to Protect (Zoning) Zoning is an essential tool for successfully managing multiple-use areas of the ecosystem;

• Zoning creates maps that highlight areas for specific activities, such as fishing and tourism, while setting aside other areas for protection of key ecological features and functions, such as for fisheries replenishment.

• Zones must take into account both biological and socio-economic considerations and goals, catering for the needs of the biological systems to be productive and healthy and, consequently, enabling them to produce resources that are important to community members. As such, development of zoning should flow directly from the objectives for the managed areas, as in Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.5. Example of Linkages between Management Objectives and Zoning Decisions

In order to be used as an effective management tool, zones must:

• Be based on the community’s primary management objectives and developed with their participation and support

• Balance ecological requirements and socio-economic needs

• Balance multiple objectives to identify an optimal zoning scheme

• Be clearly mapped and marked

• Have distinct and unambiguous management aims

• Be supported by a management plan

• Be formalised and recognised by legal or other effective means within the BVC/RVC

The design principles for management zones aims to reduce pressures on habitats that are important to the key species. With these parameters in mind, the community can start to define their zones. The protected areas include three types of zones:

1. No-take zones 2. Buffer zones 3. General rules zones

When making zoning decisions, climate change impacts and resiliency should be considered as a crosscutting issue, and zoning decisions made accordingly. There are many steps that can be taken when developing zones that will build the resiliency of the ecosystems in question. Key resiliency principles to keep in mind are as follows.

• Create as large a multiple use protected area as possible/realistic.

• Prohibit destructive activities.

• Ensure that no-take areas include critical sites and are large enough to include the area needs (ranges) of priority species.

• Separate no-take zones by several km, if possible.

• Locate more protection around river mouths to protect migratory species.

• Minimise external threats.

Example Objective for Managed Area

A fishing community wants to increase populations of Chambo and Mpasa fish and maintain the increase of catch of these species in its lake ecosystem.

Zoning Decision

Sufficiently large areas of habitat for Chambo and Mpasa breeding and growth should be protected, while ensuring that adjacent areas are managed to support sustainable fishing for the species in the lake ecosystem.


29

• Include all key habitats and replicate protection of these habitats.

• Include sites which have previously demonstrated resilience.


30

7 Step 4: Formulate an Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management Plan

This chapter outlines the process of developing a Fisheries Management Plan (FMP). FMPs provide Local Fisheries Management Authorities (LFMAs) and all other stakeholders with technical and operational guidelines for conserving and managing the fishery resources in the water body (ecosystem). The FMP applies to the entire lake ecosystem that is managed by the Fisheries Association (FA), thereby negating the need for Beach Village Committees (BVCs) or River Village Committees (RVCs) to have their own fisheries management plans.

7.1. Preparatory Process for Developing an FMP The process for developing an FMP builds on Steps 2 and 3 (Chapters 5 and 6), which outlined the processes of engaging fishing communities in mapping and defining jurisdiction boundaries and of defining fishery resources within the ecosystem. As with the mapping and assessment exercises, using Participatory Rapid Assessment (PRA) methods to engage the fishing community in developing a FMP is critical because it establishes that the resource users have ownership over the plan. During the initial planning stage, using PRA to identify which fish species and habitats to manage. Use the matrix evaluation to help determine the FMP’s strategic objectives and activities, available in Template H in the companion Templates document.

District-level Department of Fisheries (DOF) staff facilitate the process of engaging with the communities through their BVCs/RVCs and other interested stakeholders to define together the commercially important species to consider for management. The DOF, community members, and other stakeholders also jointly define management objectives for the plan, operational approaches to implementing and monitoring the various activities under the management plan, resources required to implement the various activities, and the roles of different stakeholders in implementing the plan, including Traditional Authorities (TAs), DOF staff, BVCs/RVCs, the FA, the District Council, other District-level natural resource management sectors, and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) working in areas around the water body.

7.2. Contents of the FMP Below are brief descriptions of section of the FMP. For more details and instructions on how to complete the FMP, see Template G in the companion Templates document.

Acknowledgements: This section lists and thanks all the contributors and stakeholders who helped determine content for and write this management plan.

Glossary of key terms: In this table, define any important or potentially confusing words or phrases used in the FMP to avoid ambiguity, especially to help with the Chichewa translation.

1. Introduction: This section describes the lake ecosystem location and its physical features and overall profile, types of fish species and their distribution if any, and any related history associated with the lake ecosystem.

2. Background: This section describes the LFMA’s status to achieving the six steps of Participatory Fisheries Management (PFM).

3. Fishery profile: This section builds off Steps 2 and 3 of PFM and includes sub-sections on a map of the lake ecosystem; description of the fish habitat, environment, and catchment; a socio-economic profile of the lake; a graph of historical trends in fishers, BVCs, gears, boats, etc.; stakeholder analysis of the lake’s fishing industry; a graph of historic trends in fish stocks/catches; and a problem analysis, usually using the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis methodology.

4. Strategic objectives: This section lists the fishing communities’ desired objectives for its fishery and some of the ways they can achieve these objectives.


31

5. Logical framework: This section includes a high-level 20-year vision to frame the chosen policy objectives before an extensive table that lists each objective and activity, how progress toward the objective can be verified, and any associated risks and assumptions.

6. Time frame: This section explains how long the FMP is valid for.

7. Annual plan of operation: This action plan lists activities that the BVCs/RVCs and FA will carry out during the year and the time frame during which the activities will be carried out.

8. Annual budget: This table details the anticipated costs for each of the actions in the management plan.

9. FA income: This section lists all the fees, fines, and funding an LFMA may collect to fund its operations.

10. Legal framework: This section lists some of the rules and regulations that give LFMAs the authority to carry out the activities listed in the FMP.

11. Stakeholder roles: This section explains the roles and responsibilities of the DOF, BVCs/RVCs, FA Sub-Committee, TA, Group Village Headman (GVH), and District Assemblies in carrying out the FMP.

12. Operational approach: This section describes how the FA, BVCs/RVCs, and other stakeholders will carry out the activities specified in the FMP.


32

8 Step 5: Establish Local Fisheries Management Authority By-laws

This chapter describes the necessary steps to develop Fisheries Association (FA) by-laws for its ecosystem’s area of jurisdiction. Fisheries by-laws are developed based on the Fisheries Act and other regulations. But, whereas regulations are state enforced, by-laws are locally enforceable by FAs, Beach Village Committees (BVCs), and River Village Committees (RVCs), which set their own levels of penalties, fees, and fines.

8.1. Definition of By-Laws Fisheries by-laws can be defined as rules or regulations enshrined in national fisheries legislation and endorsed by Local Government Authorities (LGAs) at the district, area, or village level. They are applicable to legally constituted community-based organizations (CBOs), including Local Fisheries Management Authorities (LFMAs) such as FAs, BVCs, and RVCs. By-laws steer users toward acceptable social behaviour and allow communities to achieve justice that is transparent, fair, and right. In Malawi, by-laws are made by the District Council and applied at lower local-government levels. By-laws can be upheld either in BVC/RVC or FA domains magistrate courts or Traditional Authorities (Tas), but the latter may not instil penalties that supersede national law or the Fisheries Act.

8.2. By-Laws in the Context of PFM In the context of Participatory Fisheries Management (PFM), fisheries by-laws are local means to help govern the conservation, sustainable management, and development of fisheries and to help local fishing communities implement fisheries management objectives and development policies. By-laws help put the federal-level fisheries legal framework into the local context and put in place mechanisms for actions on use, misuse, and abuse of fisheries resources.

Implementing PFM and formally establishing LFMAs, including with a formally registered constitution, legally affords them the right to enforce fisheries management regulations enacted in the 2000 Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (Local Community Participation) Rules. However, implementation of these regulations has been problematic because of the following.

• The absence of District Councillors for the past decade meant that draft by-laws were not endorsed by the District Councils, thus LFMAs lacked legitimacy.

• PFM was viewed as one way of using the community to enforce regulations. However, without any DOF or LGA support to LFMAs, their legitimacy within the fishing communities was compromised. The draft fisheries by-laws had no legal backing at the district level.

Establishing by-laws at the ecosystem or FA level is a much more cost-effective and practical solution. This means that one set of by-laws is applicable across the fishing district, is enforceable at the ecosystem level, has the backing of both the local and traditional governance systems, and thus can be enforced by every BVC and RVC that shares the same fishery.

8.3. Formulation of Ecosystem By-Laws The legitimacy of any by-law largely depends on the steps followed in their formulation. As such, the by-laws’ framework is derived from the national fisheries legislation and the Local Government Act 1998. While the steps in the formulation process are provided in this chapter before the pertinent national legislation, it is crucial for stakeholders to read through and understand the legislation provided later in this chapter before formulating and finalising their by-laws.

The basis of the framework cannot be changed by the community; however, by-law penalties, fees, and fines are flexible and their formulation allows the community to reflect their aspirations and sincerity of how they plan to enforce the law and punish defaulters.


33

The by-laws shall come into operation on such date as the Minister of Local Government shall publish notice in the Gazette.

8.3.1. From Fisheries Legislation to Ecosystem By-Laws The above legislation makes clear that BVCs/RVCs and FAs have the power to determine fisheries by-laws. And, in pursuance of the National Decentralization Policy, the by-laws confer to the District Assemblies powers, functions, and responsibilities for fisheries conservation and management services and activities. However, to ensure the validity of these by-laws, they need to conform to the both the fisheries regulations and the Local Government Act 1998 and to be recognised, supported, and implemented by the District Assembly. Only with this legitimacy can the LFMAs have power to assist the DOF in implementing PFM to protect, conserve, and sustainably develop the fishery ecosystem under their jurisdiction and have recourse to punish those who break the rules set out in the by-laws.

Therefore, ecosystem by-laws can include:

• Regulations for sharing costs and benefits between the District and the LFMAs with regard to licensing and confiscated fish catches and fishing equipment (gear), according to a budget plan

• Procedures for collecting, using, and administrating license fees

• The allocation and cancellation of licenses

• The right to seize or detain any fish catches and fishing equipment (gear) that the LFMAs suspects have been obtained in violation of the Fisheries Management Agreement (FMA)

• Avenues for financing administrative costs

8.3.2. Important Issues for Consideration

The following need to be taken into account when formulating ecosystem by-laws.

• The fisheries by-laws cannot raise the license fee, penalty, or fine more than what is in the Fisheries Act. Accordingly, when the DOF raises the license fees, penalties, and fines, there must be a corresponding increase of fees in the by-laws.

• Decide who will be collecting the fee (i.e., BVC, RVC, FA, TA, or District) and how the accumulated fees will be used for as per budget plan.

• Ensure there is adequate support for the BVC/RVC/FA to endorse the penalty, based on severity, either through the community police, traditional leaders, District Fisheries Officer (DFO), or DOF Enforcement Unit.

• The by-laws formulation process focuses on the entire water body ecosystem or district rather than on any one BVC/RVC’s jurisdiction.

• Given the sensitive nature of by-laws, the BVCs/RVCs must facilitate widespread, intense stakeholder awareness programs to explain to the communities that the by-laws are in line with national fisheries regulations. During these programs, BVCs/RVCs should only elaborate on what they will do to locally enforce them and explain that serious offences will be handled by the District court or TA.

• There should be a judicial blending of conventional with traditional mechanisms to enforce the by-laws.

• By-laws must be easily understood, not open to misinterpretation, and not ambiguous in regards to the national fisheries regulations.

• At fishing village level, by-laws must be in their local language.

8.3.3. Formulation Process Take the following steps to develop FA by-laws. The framework provided in the companion Templates document has already been approved by the Director of Fisheries and therefore is the foundation on which the FA will base its by-laws.


34

1. The DFO conducts sensitisation meetings with communities and District Environmental Sub Committee (DESC) on the process for developing the ecosystem by-laws.

2. The DFO and/or the Fisheries Assistants and Scouts as well as other stakeholders like environmental NGOs collaborate to collect raw data which will be used to develop ecosystem-based by-laws with BVCs/RVCs/GVHs and TAs and other relevant stakeholders within the community such as Agriculture and Health committees.

3. The raw data collection is at ADC level. The chair persons of all BVCs/RVCs gather at ADC level to provide input into the data collection process based on the stretch of the area under the jurisdiction of the Traditional Authority. In the event of more than one ADC, the data is consolidated at Traditional Authority level.

4. The BVC/RVC Sub-Committee assisted by its FA representative, the Fisheries Assistant and the data collection team reviews the draft by-laws to ensure that they are applicable to its ecosystem and the penalties, fees, and fines are appropriate deterrents. The data collection team makes adjustments to fine tune the draft by-laws as appropriate by consulting BVC/RVC representatives, the Village Development Committee (VDC), Area Development Committee (ADC), and Traditional Authority.

5. Once the BVCs/RVCs and the data collection team agree to the draft by-laws, the consolidated draft bylaws are then presented to the District Executive Committee (DEC) for further technical input and awareness of the contents.

6. The DFO and the data collection team then consolidates the technical input sought from the DEC and presents the draft bylaws to the Agriculture Service Committee chaired by the councillor.

7. The FA Sub-Committee Chair consults with the DFO to take the by-laws to the Director of Fisheries for endorsement.

8. At the same time, the DFO liaises with the Agriculture Service Committee chairperson to have the draft by-laws placed before the District Council for approval, and, if need be, the District Council may consult the district attorney and/or elevate the approval to the Minister of Local Government.

9. Once the DOF and District Council have endorsed the by-laws, the DFO, his/her staff, and the FA Sub-Committee office bearers explain the approved by-laws to the BVC/RVC Sub-Committees, who, in turn, explain them to the BVC/RVC members.

10. The FA Sub-Committee Chair places the by-laws before the VDC, ADC, and TA, who become the local custodians of the by-laws.

8.4. The Need to Involve Fishing Communities in Formulating Fisheries By-Laws The success of the fisheries by-law formulation process is measured by how much the community believes that they by-laws address their problems. To ensure community adoption and ownership of the by-laws, the following steps are important.

• Although the by-laws are based on national law, it is important to explain the biological principles behind the by-laws (e.g., if juvenile fish are removed due to use of illegal undersized mesh there will be no big-sized fish in the future) and how the available strategies can address the problem.

• The fishing community should adopt the fisheries by-laws because it believes the by-laws address their problems. This way, there is a common community agenda for all and a succinct process for identifying the real issues that need to be addressed.

• Train fishing community leaders in how to and build their ability in good governance to uphold the by-laws.

• All members of the fishing industry should be adequately consulted during the development process and may require capacity building and expert advice to do this.

• Have a structure in place made up of champions, such as the TA, to help community members with the process.


35

8.5. Legal Framework Supporting Ecosystem By-Law Formulation By-laws cannot stand alone; they must be based on and supported by federal legislation. This section provides the national legislation establishing a universal set of by-laws that apply to all fisheries country wide, but that sometimes can deviate in the local context, notably in the case of penalties and fines.

8.5.1. Local Government Act 1998 Sections 103 and 104 of this act provide for the formulation and enactment of any local by-laws. As it says, ‘the District Assembly may make by-laws for the good rule and government of the whole or any part of the local government area or, as the case may be for the prevention and suppression of nuisances therein and for any other purpose’. Section 104 Subsection (1) further explains the procedure for by-law formulation by stating that, ‘the by-laws shall be under a common seal of the District Assembly and shall not have effect until they are ratified by the Minister’.

Essentially, for PFM by-laws to have legitimacy, they must be endorsed by the respective fishing district authority and ratified by the Minister of Local Government. Attempting to carry this out for all BVCs/RVCs would be an impractical task. Therefore, this guide advocates for one set of ecosystem level by-laws acceptable to the DOF and approved by the Minister of Local Government. The approved by-laws can be modified to accommodate the deviances of a fishery ecosystem, if necessary. This streamlined process reduces the high number of sub-sets of by-laws at the BVC/RVC level to one at the FA level, a much more manageable number that still ensures BVC/RVC legitimacy in the fisheries legislation.

8.5.2. Fisheries Conservation and Management Act 1997 Section 8(1) of this act provides for the ‘proper management of the fisheries resource through a signed and concluded fisheries management agreement between the Director and local fisheries management authority’. Subsection (1)(a) provides for ‘setting up of management plan’.

Because a management plan includes by-laws, it can be deduced that this act provides for the formulation of by-laws. Also note that this act provides for an FMA, and the FMA between the FA and DOF establishes the legitimacy of the FA/BVCs/RVCs and gives them powers to enforce the law, as prescribed in the by-laws, on behalf of the DOF.

8.5.3. Fisheries Conservation and Management (Local Community Participation) Rules 2000 This legislation forms the legislative basis for ecosystem by-laws. It lays out the procedure whereby LFMAs are recognised as legal entities and are therefore eligible for collective ownership and management of their fishery ecosystem. Section 21 provides for the enactment of subsidiary by-laws to allow for the formulation of LFMA constitutions, Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs), and FMAs, which must be signed between the Director of Fisheries and the FA as the legal framework for PFM.

The rules and regulations from 'Part IX -- Conservation Measures' that guide the formulation of by-laws are provided below. By-laws may not be set lower than that detailed in Schedule 12. Refer to Fig. 8.1 in the templates handbook to guide Bylaw formulation.


36


37

Regulation 33: Restrictions on Net Mesh, Mouth Sizes, Headline Lengths, Depths, and Fishing Times

1. No trawl net or other net along a lake bed shall be carried or used for fishing in the areas set out in the first column of Part I of the Twelfth Schedule unless: a. The meshes forming the cod end of the net have the minimum size b. The net mouth size has the maximum circumference, set out in the second and third columns

of Part l of the Twelfth Schedule

2. No beach seine net shall be carried or used for fishing in the areas set out in the first column of Part 2 of the Twelfth Schedule unless: a. The meshes forming the cod end of the net have the minimum size b. The headline does not exceed the length c. The net does not exceed the depth set out in the second, third and fourth columns of Part 2 of

the Twelfth Schedule

3. No gill net shall be carried or used for fishing in the areas set out in the first column of Part 3 of the Twelfth Schedule unless: a. The meshes forming the cod end of the net have the minimum size b. The net does not exceed the depth, set out in the second and third columns of Part 3 of the

Twelfth Schedule

4. No Chilimila net may be used in the fishing waters with a headline length that exceeds 70 metres.

5. No attachment shall be made to any net except to the underside of the net for the purpose of preventing or reducing damage to the net, provided that the attachment shall only be secured at its forward and lateral sides and if made of netting shall have a mesh size of not less than 75 mm.

6. No cod end shall measure more than half the size of a trawl net or other net towed along the bed of a lake or river.

7. The following rules shall apply to the measurement of the meshes of nets. a. The net shall be wet when measured unless made from man-made fibre b. The opening of the mesh shall be measured by means of a graduated flat wedged gauge 2 mm

thick and having a taper of 2 cm in 8 cm inserted into the mesh and, in cases of doubt, a weight of not more than 1 kg shall be attached to the gauge

c. The mesh size shall be taken as the average of the measurements of any twenty consecutive meshes along the longitudinal axis of the upper side of the net starting from 10 meshes from the after end and clear of the selvages, strengthening ropes, and lacing

Regulation 34: Restrictions on Use of Fishing Gear

1. No trawl net or ring net shall be used: a. Within one mile of any of the shoreline of Lake Malawi b. In waters of a depth of less than 18 metres c. Between the hours of 1700 hours and 0700 hours

2. No bottom trawl net pulled by a vessel powered by an engine or engines above one hundred horsepower shall be used in waters of less than a depth of forty metres in Lake Malawi and no midwater trawl net may be used in Area A.

3. The fishing gear referred to in Part 4 of the Twelfth Schedule shall not be used in the area or areas specified in that part during the periods or times specified therein.

4. No beach seine net may be used at any time on the Upper Shire River.


38

Twelfth Schedule of the Regulations 33 and 34

Part 1. Regulation 33(1). Trawl Net Restrictions

Fishing area Minimum cod end mesh size Maximum net mouth size (Circumference)

Lake Chilwa Prohibited 37 metres (121.4 feet)

Lake Malawi 38 mm

Part 2. Regulation 33(2): Beach Seine Nets Restrictions

Fishing area Minimum cod end mesh size

Maximum headline length Maximum net depth

1. All waters No restriction 3 metres (9.8 feet) 1.5 metres (4.9 feet) (Mosquito nets)

2. Lake Malawi 19 mm (0.75 inches) 150 metres (492 feet) 10 metres (32.8 feet) (Kambuzi seine)

3. Lake Malawi (Usipa net)

No restriction 100 metres (328 feet) 6 metres (19.7 feet)

4. Lake Malawi (Chambo seine)

95 mm (3.5 inches) No restriction 18 metres (59 feet)

5. Lake Malombe (Nkacha)

19 mm (0.75 inches) 100 metres (328 feet) 10 metres (32.8 feet)

6. Lake Malombe (Kambuzi seine)

19 mm (0.75inches) 500 metres (1,640 feet) Not applicable

7. Lake Malombe (Chambo seine)

90 mm (3.5 inches) 1,000 metres (3,280 feet) Not applicable

8. Lake Chilwa 12.7 mm (0.5 inches) 300 metres (984 feet) 5 metres (16.4 feet)

9. Lower Shire 19 mm (0.75 inches) 200 metres (656 feet) 15 metres (49.5 feet)

10. Lake Chiuta Prohibited

11. Chia lagoon 25.4 mm (1 inch) 200 metres (656 feet) 6 metres (19.7 feet)

Part 3. Regulation 33(3): Gillnet Restrictions

Fishing area Minimum mesh size Maximum net depth

Southeast Arm (SEA) of Lake Malawi 95 mm (3.75 inches) No restriction

Remainder of Lake Malawi south of latitude 12 15˝ 95 mm (3.5 inches) No restriction

Upper Shire River 76 mm (3.0 inches) Not applicable

Lower Shire River 64 mm (2.5 inches) 3 metres (9.8 feet)

Lake Malombe 90 mm (3.5 inches) Not applicable

Lake Chilwa 70 mm (2.75 inches) 3 metres (9.8 feet)

Lake Chiuta 63 mm (2.5 inches) 3 metres (9.8 feet)

Part 4. Regulation 34(3): Prohibited Fishing Periods and Times (Waters of Malawi)

1. The beach seine nets numbered 2, 3, and 4 in Part 2 of this Schedule and permitted for use in Lake Malawi shall not be used between the 1st November and the 31st December (inclusive).

2. The usipa beach seine net numbered 3 in Part 2 of this Schedule and permitted for use in Lake Malombe shall not be used between the hours of 600 hours and 1800 hours in any day.


39

3. The beach seine net numbered 5 in Part 2 of this Schedule and permitted for use in Lake Malombe shall not be used between the 1st October and the 31st December (inclusive).

4. The beach seine net numbered 6 in Part 2 of this Schedule and permitted for use in Lake Malombe shall not be used between the 1st October and the 31st December.

5. The beach seine net numbered 5 in Part 2 of this Schedule shall not be used between the hours of 600 and 1800 hours in any period of 24 hours.

6. The beach seine net numbered 8 in Part 2 of this schedule and permitted for user in Lake Chilwa shall not be used between the hours of 600 hours and 1800 hours in any period of 24 hours and 1st January to 30th April.

Part 5. Regulation 34: Prohibited Fishing Gears

Fishing Areas Restricted Fishing Gear

All waters Chalira

Lake Chiuta Nkacha nets and beach seine nets

Lake Chilwa Fishing while staying on floating island (Chimbowela)

Lake Malawi shallow waters Bottom trawls pulled by more than 100 hp.

Lake Malawi Areas A, D, and E Kambuzi beach seine

Lake Malawi Kauni for Chambo and Nkacha

Lake Malawi Area A Mid-water trawls

Lake Malombe Mosquito nets

Upper Shire River Nkacha

Lower Shire River Mosquito net

Part 6. Regulation 34: Nkacha Net Restrictions

Where used

Minimum headline length Mesh size

Maximum depth

Prohibited fishing time

Annual registration fees

Lake Malombe

250 metres (820 feet)

19 mm (0.75 inches)

No restriction

From 600 hours to 1800 hours in October, November, and December

MK150 for every 50 metres of length or part thereof

Part 7: Open Water Nets Restrictions

Gear type Headline length not exceeding Minimum mesh size Gear depth

Chilimila 70 metres (230 feet) Not applicable No restriction

Nkacha (Lake Malombe) 250 metres (feet) 19 mm (0.75 inches) No restriction

Part 8: Prohibited Fishing Methods

• Explosive substances

• Poisonous or noxious substances (e.g., Katupe)

• Transferring of fish species not indigenous to the waters of Malawi

Regulation 36: Size Limits of Fish

No person shall kill, take, sell, or offer or expose for sale any of fish listed in the first column of the Fifteenth Schedule of less than the lengths set out in the second column measured, in each case, from the point of the snout to the end of the tail fin when the fish is laid out.


40

Schedule 15: Minimum Off-Take Size of Fish

Species of fish Size limit

All species of Chambo 150 mm (6 inches)

All species of Opsaridium microlepis (mpasa) 300 mm (12 inches)

All species of the genera Oreochromis 100 mm (4 inches)

Regulation 37: Closed Fishing Seasons

The Director of Fisheries may by notice published in the Gazette declare that during such period and within such area of the fishing waters as may be specified in the notice fishing for such species of fish as shall be specified in the notice shall be unlawful notwithstanding the issue of any licenses or permits for the catching of such species of fish.

Where Used Gear Type Target Species Closed Period

All waters Mosquito nets Usipa No restriction

Lake Malawi

Kambuzi seine

Chambo 1st November to 31st December Usipa seine

Chambo seine

Ring nets

Upper Shire River Kambuzi seine

Chambo 1st October to 31st December Chambo seine

Lake Malombe

Kambuzi seine Kambuzi and Chambo

1st October to 31st December Nkacha nets Kambuzi and Chambo

Chambo Seine Chambo

Lake Chilwa Beach Seine and Matemba Chambo and Matemba

1st December to end of February

Banned at river mouths 1st May to 31st

Lower Shire Beach Seines Chambo No restriction

8.5.4. National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy (2016) Under Priority area 4, Objectives 1, 2 and 3 of this policy mandates that the DOF ‘provide for legal instruments and procedures for the participation of LFMAs in the management of the fish resources’. This includes supporting LFMAs to develop Ecosystem Fisheries Management Plans and by-laws constantly reviewing them to investigate their effectiveness.

In addition, DoF ensures that it maintains up to date fisheries regulations and appropriate revisions are correspondingly made to the ecosystem bylaws. This entails involvement of LFMAs in the process and establishing ecosystem wide FAs to facilitate devolution of fisheries management and enforcement of fisheries regulations at the local level. This implies that the Director of Fisheries DOF provides the legal framework for PFM by-laws, whose legitimacy comes from national legislation, and there can be no deviation from this without the Director of Fisheries’ endorsement

Furthermore, DoF provides a platform and incentives incentives for participation of local government, fishing communities, civil society and NGOs in resource management as well conflict resolution systems.

.


41

9 Step 6: Secure User Rights through a Fisheries Management Agreement

This chapter describes how a Local Fisheries Management Authority (LFMA) can successfully enter into a Fisheries Management Agreement (FMA) with the Department of Fisheries (DOF) to guarantee tenure rights of the fishery resources. Creation and signing of the FMA completes the six steps of Participatory Fisheries Management (PFM).

An FMA legally formalises the relationship between the LFMA and the state and is a key instrument in the Director of Fisheries assigning his powers to a registered LFMA. The FMA lays down limits to membership, gear, and boats; reiterates the fees and fines prescribed by the by-laws; and bestow authority on the LFMAs.

9.1. Policy Background Section 3.3 of the 2001 National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy lays out PFM, which progresses establishing effective local fishing community institutions that will work jointly with the government to sustainably and effectively manage fish resources. The aim for the DOF and key stakeholders (i.e., local fishing communities and Traditional Authorities [TAs]) is to share responsibility for and authority over the fishery by forming an LFMA with powers and procedures to enforce the law that are derived from Section 3.2 of the policy. One way this is achieved, as prescribed in Section 3.2.1, is by creating agreements between the DOF and LFMAs to abide by the Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs).

The 1997 Fisheries Conservation and Management Act allows for the creation of FMAs under the following conditions.

• To properly manage the fisheries, the Director of Fisheries may enter into an FMA with an LFMA to create an FMP and so that the DOF may provide assistance to the LFMA to implement the FMP.

• An FMA may be terminated by either party should either party fail to fulfil its obligations under the FMA.

• In the event of any dispute arising under an FMA, the matter shall be referred to the Minister of Agriculture, Water, and Irrigation. Any party aggrieved with the decision of the Minister may apply to the High Court for review of the decision.

9.2. Relationship between an FMA and an FMP Generally, an FMP is created at the ecosystem level, so specific regulations for managing the water body are supervised by the Fisheries Association (FA), which is the lawfully designated LFMA of the entire water body. This implies that the FMA is based on the FMP, which has already been created with full input of the individual Beach Village Committees (BVCs) and River Village Committees (RVS) under the FA’s jurisdiction and with the full support of district authorities (i.e., the District Council, Councillors, and TAs). The DOF supervises annual reviews of the FMP to ensure compliance and to agree the roles and responsibilities needed to make the FMP workable. The FMA may be adjusted as needed to reflect changes in the FMP.

9.3. Contents of the FMA The FMA shall include the following sections. See Template K in the companion Templates document for a full description of the FMA and how to complete it. Much of the language in the FMA is standardised; ecosystem- and FA-specific information will mainly be submitted using the required appendices.

Note about the FMA:

• Its contents closely align with the outputs of the six steps of PFM


42

• The FMA is the only template to have the official seal of the Government of Malawi

• In the FMA the FA is referred to as the ‘Authority’

Preamble: This section provides a brief policy background for the FMA.

Terminology: In this table, define any important or potentially confusing words or phrases used in the FMA to avoid ambiguity, especially to help with the Chichewa translation.

Objective: This section explains the FMA’s objective, as stated at the beginning of this chapter.

1. Introduction: This section lists all the BVCs/RVCs that fall under the agreement and lists all the appendices that must be attached to the FMA. Many of the appendices will all have been developed during the first five steps of PFM.

2. Rights and obligations of the Authority: This section lists the major rules and regulations found in the LFMA’s by-laws, including roles and responsibilities of BVCs/RVCs and the FA, fees, and funding.

3. Rights and obligations of the Director: This section lists the major rules and regulations that the Director of Fisheries must follow as part of the FMA.

4. Duration of the agreement: This section explains how long the FMA is valid for.

5. Termination of the agreement: This section provides the terms upon which the FMA may be terminated and legal obligations once the FMA is terminated.

6. Fees payable by the Authority: This section prescribes the fee structure the FA is required to pay the Government of Malawi and Local Government Authorities (LGAs) in return for the right to manage and collect fees from the fishery

7. Modification of this agreement: This section outlines how the LMA may be modified.

8. Settlement of disputes: This section explains how disputes between the DOF and LFMA are handled.

9. Agreement to implement: This section provides space for stakeholders to sign the FMA.

9.5. Procedure for Securing User Rights Once all six operational steps of PFM have been carried out and the FMA is complete (with appendices), the FA Sub-Committee Chair, any applicable TA representatives, the Director of Fisheries, and the District Council (witness) sign under section 9 of the FMA. Then the DoF can endorse authority to the FA.


43

References Bell, R., and S.J. Donda, 1993. Community Participation Consultancy Report Vol. I. Lilongwe,

Malawi: Department of Fisheries.

Community Partnerships for Sustainable Resource Management in Malawi (COMPASS). 2004. Legal Toolbox for Participatory Fisheries Management: User Manual and Templates.

Donda, S.J., and F. Njaya. 2007. Fisheries co-management policy analysis in Malawi. Penang, Malaysia: WorldFish Centre.

Hummel, M., D. Kachilonda, F.E. Mauwa, and J. Phiri. 2000. Guidelines for the formation and training of Beach Village Committees. Narmap project.

International Union of the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2015. International Union of the Conservation of Nature Red List.

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Department of Fisheries. 1997. Fisheries Conservation and Management Act 1997.

---. 2000. Fisheries Conservation and Management Regulations 2000.

---. 2000. Fisheries Conservation and Management (Local Community Participation) Rules 2000.

---. 2001. National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy 2001.

Nielsen, J.R., P. Degnbol, K. Viswanathan, M. Ahmed, M. Hara, and N. Raja, N. 2004. Fisheries co-management: An institutional innovation? Lessons from South East Asia and Southern Africa. Marine Policy 28: 151–160.

Njaya, F.J. 2007. Governance challenges for the implementation of fisheries co-management: experiences from Malawi. International Journal of the Commons 1(1).

a guide to participatory fisheries management PFM... · 2017-11-01 · A Guide to Participatory...

Documents

Transcript of a guide to participatory fisheries management PFM... · 2017-11-01 · A Guide to Participatory...