Rivers as resources, rivers as borders: community and transboundary management of fisheries in the Upper Zambezi River floodplains.(Report)

Introduction

Discussions concerning natural resources in Africa often question the role of the state and nation as suitable institutional and spatial scales for management (e.g., Hulme and Murphree 2001; Adams and Mulligan 2003). Proposed alternatives include community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) and transboundary natural resource management (TBNRM). Support for CBNRM argues that increased local-level involvement leads to more equitable and effective management of natural resources (Agrawal and Gibson 1999; Barrow and Murphree 2001), and that communities have the most at stake in the conservation and sustainable use of locally important resources (Li 2002). By contrast, TBNRM is premised on the idea of the ecosystem being the most appropriate scale at which to manage resources. As such, management should not be restricted by national boundaries, but should cross them as necessary (Wolmer 2003; Duffy 2006).

This article explores questions regarding suitable scales (institutional and spatial) for the management of artisanal fisheries in southern Africa. We consider the promises and challenges of fisheries management at ecosystem and local scales in a floodplain river shared by two countries; thus, in this case, ecosystem management implies transboundary management. In particular, we examine differences in settlements, users, fishing practices and institutions on either side of the political boundary formed by the river. In turn, we consider how these differences may affect the feasibility of a 'hybrid' combination of transboundary and community-based fisheries management being considered for the fishery.

Our case study focuses on the Zambezi River as it flows between Namibia and Zambia. In order to evaluate potential differences in resource use and management norms, we conducted a comprehensive survey of fishing settlements and fishers on the Namibian and Zambian sides of the river to determine: (1) the number, age, and seasonality of settlements; (2) characteristics of fishers in settlements, including their ethnic backgrounds; (3) fishing assets and activity; (4) knowledge of rules concerning what types of fishing are allowed and where, as well as the authorities responsible for setting and implementing these rules; (5) beliefs about forms and causes of fishery-related conflict; and (6) opinions regarding if the fishery should be managed, the rationale for management, and the most appropriate management authority. In doing so, we sought to determine if differences exist between Namibian and Zambian fishing settlements, fishers and fishing practices and how such differences might impact attempts to implement hybrid CBNRM-TBNRM management in the region.

We suggest that attributes of both TBNRM and CBNRM have potential application to biologically and socially dynamic environments such as floodplain fisheries (or drylands, e.g., Haro et al. 2005). However, challenges exist when attempts to fuse transboundary and community-based management carry assumptions of a smooth nesting of homogenous and congruent users, activities and institutions within a broader management area (Young 2006). These challenges, described below, emerge from contradictions in the spatial scales of ecosystem and local-level resources, as well as the institutional scales of transboundary and community-based management.

The first challenge is the potential mismatch between the highly dynamic movement of resources and users at the scale of the ecosystem typifying TBNRM, against the local-scale resources, users, practices and institutions characterizing CBRNM. In our case study, this tension is illustrated by results showing the majority of conflicts occur when fishers from the more populated Zambian side of the river enter Namibian waters to take advantage of the more abundant habitat and fish. In the context of hybrid management, a freer movement of users in the floodplain through transboundary management focused on the ecosystem may conflict with existing locally defined rules of tenure and access to what are considered local resources (e.g., fishing grounds).

The second challenge concerns the contrasting colonial and post-colonial histories of southern African nations. These differing histories in turn affect the degree of contiguity amongst individuals, activities, and institutions brought together under supranational arrangement such as TBNRM. While fishers sharing the floodplain in our case study have similar types of fishing assets and traditional authorities, the proportion of ethnic groups, population densities, and views regarding fisheries management differ significantly (see results). Again, if there is not sufficient common ground amongst users and institutions in Namibia and Zambia, hybrid management risks aggravating the same types of power struggles and access conflicts that have characterized other changes in resource use in Africa (e.g., Neumann 1997). This kind of failed attempt to hybridize management could also undermine any already existing and functioning community-based regimes.