Composition of co-management committees and in-house democracy

Regarding the above mentioned concern of tuning the co-management committees toward democratic principles, it is of interest to explore how co-management committee members had been selected in the first place. The members were either boat- or gear-owners or held a high social position in the communities, such as the traditional authorities called régulos. Or they had good relations with government institutions, or other useful connections and skills.

In Larde, only a few boat owners had been involved in appointing co-management committee members. In Inguri, a group of community leaders had seen the need for and the opportunity to create an institution, and taking the initiative to establish a co-management committee, they installed themselves as co-management committee members. None of the co-management committees had systems of re-elections of members. This was distressing for some, as discussed at the workshop previously mentioned.

In practice, the criteria for being co-management committee members ruled out those who did not own boats or gear. The Kwirikwidge co-management committee consisted of ten

members, and a formal criterion for becoming a member of the committee was to own boat and gear. The committee members were in general either influential community members already before the co-management committees were established, or they were related to the leader of the co-management committees. As an example, the chairman of the Kwirikwidge co-management committee, Sr. V, was already a prominent community member. In

Quelelene, the co-management committee leader, Sr. AB, was referred to as the community leader by informants and by the IDPPE. When the co-management committee was set up, the IDPPE publicly approved Sr. AB as the co-management committee leader of Quelelene.

The Kwirikwidge co-management committee members had been nominated and elected at a meeting where the IDPPE, the Maritime Administration and 40 fisher owners were present.

This means that of the approximately 700 fishers in Kwirikwidge, less than six per cent participated in the election meeting. The Kwirikwidge co-management committee members had not considered broader participation. The argument for not involving the marinheiros was that the owners were the ones who experienced the problems, and that the marinheiros did not have problems. Therefore, the marinheiros had nothing to contribute to in cases of for

instance conflict resolution, as they did not make investments or have ownership

161 responsibility. Hence, while owners’ interests would be self-evident issues in the

co-management committees, one could not assume that they would take care of the marinheiros’

interests, and marinheiros had no influence on decision-making. This was despite that the marinheiros were in touch with day-to-day challenges related to the fishing operations. This way, the composition of the co-management committees was not representative of the fisher constituencies, and a large share of those who derived their income from the fishing industry was not eligible for participating. This had an impact on the role of the co-management committees as being the link and information conveyor between the small-scale fishers and the state. An IDPPE representative reflected on this, realising that the IDPPE had given the co-management committees few, if any, guidelines and advice in this respect. Now that the IDPPE had become aware of this, it opted for challenging the co-management committee members, and encouraged them to include marinheiros in decision-making.

The marinheiros expressed concerns about their relation to the owners of fishing gear and boats. The following quotes from Kwirikwidge marinheiros illustrate that contrary to what the co-management committee members seemed to believe, marinheiros were attentive towards the processes going on, and were interested in participating:

“The marinheiros should also be allowed to participate in the meetings because they also have their problems, for instance with their relations to the owners. Some owners treat their marinheiros in a bad manner, and the co-management committee should be aware of that.”⁸⁴

“I know about the co-management committee. It controls the sea, and advises on how to avoid problems. The members are capable of solving problems… I have seen them on the beach, and I know who they are… I was never invited to a meeting, but I get the information given there anyway, I ask around… Why? Because of interest.”⁸⁵

The marinheiros were not in the position to insist on being invited to the co-management committee meetings. They were excluded from all the co-management committees we visited in Moma and Angoche, and thus from important local decision-making arenas. This was not unnoticed by external actors. In an evaluation of the PPAN, Awale et al. (1999) commented that most of the issues that were of relevance to local co-management committees also

84 Interview, fisher Kwirikwidge, non-owner.

85 Interview, fisher Kwirikwidge, non-owner.

162 concerned the marinheiros. Furthermore, they suggested that the inclusion of the marinheiros in co-management committees should serve the purposes of information sharing, and in the long term basis, economic and social empowerment. This, in turn, could contribute to the successful future implementation of community development projects of various types. In other words, including marinheiros in co-management committees would clearly improve the democratic prospects of the fisheries management decision-making procedures:

“For the co-management process to be fully representative, it is crucial that the marinheiros have an allocated number of seats in each local committee.” (Awale et al. 1999: 3)

In a long-term perspective, this would be important for training purposes, as some marinheiros were future gear-owners. ⁸⁶

In Quelelene, a co-management committee member we interviewed was a relative of Sr. AB, who was the community leader and the co-management committee leader. He said that Sr. AB had recruited him to the committee because of his qualifications. However, he claimed that he did not have power or influence in the co-management committee. The tradition was that the elderly had more power and should not be contested. Therefore, he never gave his opinion at co-management committee meetings, because he was one of the youngest members, and “one must respect the elder”. This way, his membership of the co-management committee did not entail a voice in decision-making matters. Despite of this, he was of the opinion that the co-management committee worked in a democratic manner, basing its decisions on consensus.

Other informants in Quelelene, who were not members of the committees, did not agree with this, and doubted that a group of family members could work for the benefit of the rest of the fishers:

“Most committee members are in the same family. The problem is that they only solve problems for certain persons…and the eventual benefits will stay within the family…As it is now, I am not prepared to trust the co-management committee.”⁸⁷

86 This topic deserves further research: Have the crewmembers been accepted as worthy of being represented in the co-management committees in Mozambique as a result of the state’s encouragement of this? And if they have, what impact have they had?

87 Interview, fisher from Quelelene, non-owner.

163 Some informants saw Sr. AB as authoritarian; others did not, or were indifferent. They all agreed that one of the roles of Sr. AB was to solve problems of the community. It had been like that for many years, he had “always” had power. One Quelelene informant had much to say on this:

“I don’t know how Sr. AB was elected into the co-management committee. I don’t think there was an election, he is just the “chefe” who decides over other persons. He takes the decisions, sometimes on meetings, other times it is imposed on people. Most of the time it is imposed, I would call it dictatorship… I have doubts about the work of the co-management committee… No problems have been discussed with the fishers after the committee was officialised… I am a bit afraid of the members, and I do not approach them to participate in their meetings… One thing is sure, it is Sr. AB who knows how to handle problems, he has many roles in our place.”⁸⁸

Lopes (1999) later reported that the fishers of Quelelene refused to meet with the local co-management committee, as the small-scale fishers did not regard them as serving their interests. This was related to a controversial issue: Who were to benefit from the ten nets that the PPAN project distributed in each fishing centre? The fishers in Quelelene did not approve of the fact that only the co-management members received the nets that the PPAN project distributed in Quelelene, and thus opted for non-interaction with the local co-management committee.

The ways decisions are made are reflected in adherence to democratic principles. Some fishers contested the decision resulting in the ban of the mosquito nets in fishing gear, as illustrated by this Quelelene informant:

“I know there was an agreement in Larde. The problem is that the fishers are not yet prepared to stop the use. The “chefe” here does it because he already has a net; the nets were distributed to the committee that is composed of family and friends of the

“chefe”. The committee did not discuss with the people about abandoning the use of mosquito nets”.⁸⁹

With respect to participation, it should not be neglected that not everybody is interested in

88 Interview, fisher from Quelelene, owner.

89 Interview, fisher from Quelelene, owner.

164 participating in decision-making bodies. In Pilivili, the co-management committee members said that “only a few” of the 82 invited gear owners participated in co-management committee meetings. Furthermore, this co-management committee experienced a problem with non-compliance with the decisions and regulations it made. These problems were common also in other co-management committees. Of the 85 owners who were encouraged to attend the meetings in Kwirikwidge, 30-35 attended, and the co-management committee members regarded this attendance as low.