Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T17:18:42.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RESEARCH ARTICLE: The Changing Dynamics of Local Institutions in Fishing Communities in Mozambique: Responses to Policy—Public Participation and Decision Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2009

Ana Menezes ,
Richard Smardon  and
Tenreiro de Almeida
Ana Menezes*
Affiliation:
Environmental and Natural Resources Policy, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY–ESF), Syracuse, New York
Richard Smardon*
Affiliation:
Environmental and Natural Resources Policy, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY–ESF), Syracuse, New York
Tenreiro de Almeida*
Affiliation:
Fisheries planning and management consultant, Maputo-Mozambique
*
Address correspondence to: Ana Menezes, SUNY–ESF, Syracuse, NY 13210; (email)great_antelope@hotmail.com
Address correspondence to: Richard Smardon, SUNY–ESF, Syracuse, NY 13210; (email)rsmardon@esf.edu
Address correspondence to: Tenreiro de Almeida, Maputo-Mozambique, (email)yangula@tdm.co.mz
Get access

Abstract

This study analyzes local institutions plus the practice of participatory decision making for promoting community development in fishing communities in Mozambique. This study covers the evolution of institutions and its impact at the household and community level particularly after the structural adjustments of 1987, which promoted new institutions at central and local levels, as well as the practice of participatory decision making. We combined participatory appraisals, focus-group discussions, and participant observation methods with quantitative data from structured surveys of representative samples for data gathered. Assisted by mode-of-regulation model and community power theory, our results demonstrated that since the policy shift in 1990, and particularly after 1994 (when public participation and decision making were introduced), central and local institutions were created, with some communities showing better results than others. By working together and depending on each other as social support networks, as well as by working with the government, people within fishing communities are generating secondary benefits by jointly building social infrastructure and community consensus to better cope with the impacts of adverse social and economic stresses that often occur in coastal regions of Mozambique. Specific stakeholder perspectives are accessed and analyzed for four time periods from 1987 to 2006.

Environmental Practice 11:32–51 (2009)

Type
FEATURES
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 32 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © National Association of Environmental Professionals 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adger, W. N. 2003. Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change. Economic Geography 79(4):387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Anonymous]. 1994. Sector Report for the Formulation of the Master Plan. State Secretariat of Fisheries, Maputo, Mozambique, 44 pp.Google Scholar
Baland, J. M., and Platteau, J. P., eds. 2000. Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities? FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and Oxford University Press, New York, 440 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baloi, A., de Premegi, N., Van Der Elst, R., Masquine, Z., and Govender, A.. 2000. Towards Sustainable Development. The Artisanal Fisheries of Southern Part of Nampula Province. Part 4: results for 1999.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. 1994. Co-management: Bridging the Two Solitudes. Northern Perspectives 22(2–3):18–19.Google Scholar
Berkes, F., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Pollnac, R. C., and Pomeroy, R. S.. 2001. Managing Small-Scale Fisheries: Alternative Directions and Methods. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 250 pp.Google Scholar
Bianco, W. T., and Bates, R.. 1990. Cooperation by Design: Leadership, Structure, and Collective Dilemmas. American Political Science Review 84(1):133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, R. 1990. The Regulation School: A Critical Introduction, trans. Charney, C.. Columbia University Press, New York, 150 pp.Google Scholar
Brokensha, D., and Castro, A. H. P.. 1988. Common Property Resources. Paper presented at the FAO Expert Consultation on Forestry and Food Security15–20 FebruaryFAO (Food and Agriculture Organization)Rome.Google Scholar
Burke, E. M. 1968. Citizen Participation Strategies. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 34(5):287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, E.M. 1979. A Participatory Approach to Urban Planning. New York: Human Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, R. 1994. The Origins and Practice of PRA. World Development 22(7):953–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, R. 1997. Editorial: Responsible Well-Being—A Personal Agenda for Development. World Development 25(11):1743–1754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, H. 1998. Living Up to the Empowerment Claim? The Potential for PRA. In The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development, ed. Gujit, I., and Shah, M. K.. Intermediate Technology, London24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creighton, J. L. 1981. The Public Involvement Manual. Abt Books/University Press, Cambridge, MA, 344 pp.Google Scholar
Creighton, J. L. 2005. The Public Participation Handbook: Making Better Decisions through Citizen Involvement. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 288 pp.Google Scholar
Creighton, J. L., Delli Priscoli, J., and Dunning, C. M., eds. 1983. Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute of Water Resources. IWR Report 82-R1. US Army Institute for Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, VA, 470 pp.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. 1961. Who Governs? Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 355 pp.Google Scholar
Fischer, F. 1995. Evaluating Public Policy. Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 308 pp.Google Scholar
[FFP and UDPPE] Fisheries Development Fund and Directorate of Small Scale Fisheries. 2000. Evolução Historica dos Combinados Pesqueiros 1979/1989. FFP and UDPPE, Maputo, Mozambique.Google Scholar
Fraga, J. 2006. Local Perspectives in Conservation Politics: The Case of Ría Lagartos Biosphere Reserve, Yucatân, México. Landscape and Urban Planning 74(3–4):285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganapin, D. J. 1987. Integrated Environmental Planning in the Philippines: A Case Study of the Palawan Integrated Environmental Program (unpublished PhD dissertation). SUNY–ESF, Syracuse, NY, 389 pp.Google Scholar
Gervasio, H. 1997. As causas dos conflitos entre os Pescadores artesanais e frota industrial na zona costeira de Angoche. Um estudo de caso. IDPPE, Maputo.Google Scholar
Gupta, A. K. 1986. Socio-ecology of Stress: Why Do Common Property Resource Management Projects Fail? A Case Study of Sheep and Pasture Development Project in Rajasthan, India. In Proceedings of the Conference on Common Property Resource Management, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 305–322.Google Scholar
Hunter, F. 1969. Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 314 pp.Google Scholar
[IDPPE] Institute for the Development of Small-Scale Fisheries. 1998. Pesca Artesanal em Moçambique: Relatorios da comissao de Co-Gestao [Artisanal Fisheries in Mozambique: Reports of the Comanagement Commission]. IDPPE, Nampula, Mozambique.Google Scholar
[IDPPE] Institute for the Development of Small-Scale Fisheries. 2002. Projecto de Pesca Artesanal em Nampula (distritos de Angoche, Moma e Mogincual): Relatório de Actividates—1999 [Nampula Artisanal Fisheries Project (Angoche, Moma, and Mongicual Districts) Activity Reports–1999]. IDPPE, Maputo, Mozambique.Google Scholar
[IDPPE] Institute for the Development of Small-Scale Fisheries. 2003. Censo Nacional da Pesca Artesanal [National Census for Artisanal Fisheries], 2002–2003. IDPPE, Maputo, Mozambique.Google Scholar
[IDPPE] Institute for the Development of Small-Scale Fisheries. 2007. Plano Estratégico do Sub-Sector da Pesca Artesanal Maputo (PESPA) [Strategic Plan for the Artisanal Fisheries Sub-Sector Maputo (PESPA)]. IDPPE, Maputo, Mozambique.Google Scholar
[INE] Instituto Nacional de Estatística [National Statistics Institute]. 2002. Questionário de indicadores básicos de bem-estar —Quadros definitivos—QUIBB. INE, Maputo, Mozambique.Google Scholar
Jentoft, S. 1989. Fisheries Co-management: Delegating Government Responsibilities to Fishermen's Organizations. Marine Policy 13(2):137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessop, B. 1997. Survey Article: The Regulation Approach. The Journal of Political Philosophy 5(3): 287–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, J. W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd edition. Addison-Wesley, New York, 254 pp.Google Scholar
Krishna, A. 2004. Escaping Poverty and Becoming Poor: Who Gains, Who Loses, and Why? World Development 32(1):121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusi Lda, [IDPPE] Institute for the Development of Small-Scale Fisheries. 2003. Projecto de Pesca Artesanal em Nampula [Nampula Artisanal Fisheries Project]. IDPPE, Maputo, Mozambique.Google Scholar
Lenselink, N.M. 2002. Participation in artisanal fisheries management for improved livelihoods in West Africa. A synthesis of interviews and cases from Mauritania, Senegal, Guinea and Ghana. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 432. 2002 Rome, 72 pp.Google Scholar
Lopes, S. 1999. Programa de co-gestao das pescarias artesanais em Moçambique: Sintese dos seminarios distritais e inter-provincais realizados no ambito do PPAN. Maputo.Google Scholar
[MAP] Ministério de Agricultura e Pecsas. 1995. Land Policy. Maputo, Mozambique.Google Scholar
Menezes, A. M. 2008. Governance of Natural Resources in Mozambique: The Artisanal Fishery (unpublished PhD dissertation). SUNY–ESF, Syracuse, NY.Google Scholar
[MoF] Ministry of Fisheries. 1995. Fisheries Master Plan. DNP (Direcção Nacional de Administracao Pesqueira), MoF, Maputo, Mozambique.Google Scholar
[MoF] Ministry of Fisheries. 1996. Fisheries Policy. Decree n 16/96, May 28. Boletim da Republica, 1st ser., n 21.Google Scholar
[MoF] Ministry of Fisheries. 1997. Marine Fisheries Regulations. Resolution 16/96, May 28. Boletim da Republica, 1st ser., n 21.Google Scholar
Muchave, P. 2003. Estudo Sócio-económico de Base na Zona Costeira das Províncias de Nampula, Zambézia e Sofala. Preparado no âmbito da definição da situação de referência na área do projecto,” versão preliminar, Unidade de Coordenação do Projecto (PPABAS, Projecto de Pesca Artesanal no Banco de Sofala).Google Scholar
Narayan, D., ed. 2002. Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: A Sourcebook. World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
[OECD] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2001. Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making. OECD, Paris, 116 pp.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, 298 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. 1998. A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action. American Political Science Review 92(1):1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkerton, E., ed. 1989. Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries: New Directions for Improved Management and Community Development. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, 312 pp.Google Scholar
[RoM] Republic of Mozambique. 1997. Land Law No. 19/97. Boletim da Republica.Google Scholar
[RoM] Republic of Mozambique. 1997. Mozambique National Policy and Strategy for Wildlife and Forestry Development. RoM, Maputo, Mozambique.Google Scholar
[RoM] Republic of Mozambique. 1999. Lei No. 10/99 Principios e Normas Basicas para a Conservação e Utilização Sustentavel de Recursos Florestais e Faunisticos. In Boletim da Republica.Google Scholar
Ribot, J. 2002. African Decentralization: Local Actors, Powers and Accountability. UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) Program on Democracy, Governance and Human Rights, Paper no. 8. UNRISD, Geneva, 89 pp.Google Scholar
Seshia, S. 2002. Decentralization and Rural Livelihoods. Unpublished discussion paper, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UK.Google Scholar
Smardon, R. 2006. Public Participation and Decision-making Theory and Application (class notes).Google Scholar
Stone, P. 2003. Is sustainability for development anthropologists? Human Organization 62(2):93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, G., and Malik, A.. 2003. Poverty and Livelihoods. In Lessons in Development: The AKRSP Experience. Aga Khan Rural Support Program, Islamabad. Available at http://www.akrsplessons.org.Google Scholar