David Wilson , Elias Chirwa , Bryson Nkhoma , Milo Gough , Charles W. Knapp , Tracy Morse , Wapulumuka Mulwafu
{"title":"Fishing (in) the past to inform the future: Lessons from the histories of fisheries management in Lake Malawi and Mbenji Island","authors":"David Wilson , Elias Chirwa , Bryson Nkhoma , Milo Gough , Charles W. Knapp , Tracy Morse , Wapulumuka Mulwafu","doi":"10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Without historical interrogation of past and present fisheries management, governors and their sponsors often fall into the trap of replicating and reproducing failed approaches. Even when aimed at community empowerment, a lack of historical awareness can lead to underappreciation of the institutional, economic, and socio-ecological contexts that resource users navigate. In this article, we explore the history of fisheries management in Lake Malawi through comparative investigation of two enduring management regimes that developed in the mid-twentieth century: centralised fisheries management and the chief-led regime at Mbenji Island. We argue that the long-term successes of Mbenji Island fisheries in comparison to under-resourced and patchy governmental management has resulted from targeted technical regulations combined with robust leadership, proactive enforcement, sustained ecological and economic benefits, transparent processes, and embeddedness in existing institutions and beliefs. Yet, this regime has not existed in isolation from centralised management but, instead, has been directly and indirectly impacted by it. Pairing comparative historical analysis with analysis of fish specimens and water quality, we consider the underlying principles, long-term outcomes, and entanglements of these two regimes. Such an approach offers important insights into questions of governance legitimacy, the feedback between management regimes, and the role of science within management. Ultimately, the findings reported in this paper agree with recent surveys emphasising the need to focus on processes centred on participation and capacity building rather than set ecological outcomes within small-scale fisheries management. However, we argue that this requires deep historical awareness and reflection that is too often neglected.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48427,"journal":{"name":"Marine Policy","volume":"173 ","pages":"Article 106589"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marine Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X25000041","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Without historical interrogation of past and present fisheries management, governors and their sponsors often fall into the trap of replicating and reproducing failed approaches. Even when aimed at community empowerment, a lack of historical awareness can lead to underappreciation of the institutional, economic, and socio-ecological contexts that resource users navigate. In this article, we explore the history of fisheries management in Lake Malawi through comparative investigation of two enduring management regimes that developed in the mid-twentieth century: centralised fisheries management and the chief-led regime at Mbenji Island. We argue that the long-term successes of Mbenji Island fisheries in comparison to under-resourced and patchy governmental management has resulted from targeted technical regulations combined with robust leadership, proactive enforcement, sustained ecological and economic benefits, transparent processes, and embeddedness in existing institutions and beliefs. Yet, this regime has not existed in isolation from centralised management but, instead, has been directly and indirectly impacted by it. Pairing comparative historical analysis with analysis of fish specimens and water quality, we consider the underlying principles, long-term outcomes, and entanglements of these two regimes. Such an approach offers important insights into questions of governance legitimacy, the feedback between management regimes, and the role of science within management. Ultimately, the findings reported in this paper agree with recent surveys emphasising the need to focus on processes centred on participation and capacity building rather than set ecological outcomes within small-scale fisheries management. However, we argue that this requires deep historical awareness and reflection that is too often neglected.
期刊介绍:
Marine Policy is the leading journal of ocean policy studies. It offers researchers, analysts and policy makers a unique combination of analyses in the principal social science disciplines relevant to the formulation of marine policy. Major articles are contributed by specialists in marine affairs, including marine economists and marine resource managers, political scientists, marine scientists, international lawyers, geographers and anthropologists. Drawing on their expertise and research, the journal covers: international, regional and national marine policies; institutional arrangements for the management and regulation of marine activities, including fisheries and shipping; conflict resolution; marine pollution and environment; conservation and use of marine resources. Regular features of Marine Policy include research reports, conference reports and reports on current developments to keep readers up-to-date with the latest developments and research in ocean affairs.