Advertisement

The Damage Schedule Approach

  • Andrew Song
  • Ratana Chuenpagdee
Chapter
Part of the MARE Publication Series book series (MARE, volume 7)

Abstract

Illegal fishing is a problem widely observed in fisheries around the world and Lake Malawi is no exception. The long alleviation attempts of the central government of Malawi based on the strategy of enforcement and sanctions have proved largely ineffective leading to the persistence of this governability challenge. An alternate perspective is sought in this chapter by emphasizing people’s fundamental notions such as values, images and principles. In order to better understand what they look like and how they may differ amongst stakeholders, the damage schedule was employed. The results display a significant disparity in what governors and resource users regard as a value priority, with the former group judging conservation to be a top concern, while the latter strongly favors the advancement of economic wellbeing. This finding demonstrates socio-economic diversity in people’s underlying views about the fishery, which provides partial but important insights towards the alleviation of illegal fishing in Lake Malawi. Such diversity poses a certain limit to the governability of this fisheries system, and must be made aware and genuinely acted upon by all those involved in governance.

Keywords

Governability Diversity Values-images-principles Illegal fishing Lake Malawi Damage schedules 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Support for this research was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and a partnership between the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) (Project No. S61268-528/I). Authors would like to acknowledge numerous in-kind support of the Marine Institute (MI) and the Department of Fisheries (DoF) of Malawi.

References

  1. Agnew, D.J., Pearce, J., Ganapathiraju, P., Peatman, T., Watson, R., Beddington, J.R., Pitcher, T.J. (2009). Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing. PLoS One, 4(2), e4570. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0004570.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, E.H., Mvula, P.M., & Ellis, F. (2002). Conflicting agendas in the development and management of fisheries in Lake Malawi. In K. Geheb, M.-T. Sarch (Eds.), Africa’s inland fisheries: the management challenge (pp. 49–73). Kampala: Fountain Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Banda, M.C., Kanyeree, G.Z., Rusuwa, B.B. (2005). The status of the chambo in Malawi: Fisheries and biology. In M. Banda, D. Jamu, F. Njaya, M. Makuwila, A. Maluwa (Eds.), The chambo restoration strategic plan. Proceedings of the national workshop, Mangochi, Malawi, 13–16 May 2003. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 71 (pp. 1–7). Penang: WorldFish Center.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, G.S. (1968). Crime and punishment: an economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bose, S., & Crees-Morris, A. (2009). Stakeholder’s views on fisheries compliance: An Australian case study. Marine Policy, 33, 248–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bulirani, A. (2005). Observations on the factors behind the decline of the chambo in Lake Malawi and Lake Malombe. In M. Banda, D. Jamu, F. Njaya, M. Makuwila, A. Maluwa (Eds.), The chambo restoration strategic plan. Proceedings of the national workshop, Mangochi, Malawi, 13–16 May 2003. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 71 (pp. 8–11). Penang: WorldFish Center.Google Scholar
  7. Bundy, A., & Fanning, L.P. (2005). Can Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) recover? Exploring trophic explanations for the non-recovery of the cod stock on the eastern Scotian Shelf, Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 62, 1474–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castro, R., Tattenbach, F., Gamez, L., Olson, N. (2000). The Costa Rican experience with market instruments to mitigate climate change and conserve biodiversity. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 61, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charles, A.T., Mazany, R.L., Cross, M.L. (1999). The economics of illegal fishing: a behavioral model. Marine Resource Economics, 14, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chirwa, W.C. (1996). Fishing rights, ecology and conservation along southern Lake Malawi, 1920–1964. African Affairs, 95, 351–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chuenpagdee, R., Knetsch, J.L., & Brown, T.C. (2001). Coastal management using public judgments, importance scales, and predetermined schedule. Coastal Management, 29, 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chuenpagdee, R., Fraga, J., Euán-Avila, J.I. (2002). Community perspectives toward a marine reserve: a case study of San Felipe, Yucatán, México. Coastal Management, 30, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chuenpagdee, R., Morgan, L.E., Maxwell, S.M., Norse, E.A., Pauly, D. (2003). Shifting gears: Assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1, 517–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Costanza, R., Andrade, F., Antunes, P., van den Belt, M., Boersma, D., Boesch, D.F., Catarino, F., Hanna, S., Limburg, K., Low, B., Molitor, M., Pereira, J.G., Rayner, S., Santos, R., Wilson, J., Young, M. (1998). Principles for sustainable governance of the oceans. Science, 281, 198–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crawford, B.R., Siahainenia, A., Rotinsulu, C., Sukmara, A. (2004). Compliance and enforcement community-based coastal resource management regulations in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Coastal Management, 32, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cudney-Bueno, R., & Basurto, X. (2009). Lack of cross-scale linkages reduces robustness of community-based fisheries management. PLoS ONE, 4(7), e6253. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006253.
  17. David, H.A. (1988). The method of paired comparisons. London: Charles Griffin & Company.Google Scholar
  18. Elster, J. (1990). Selfishness and altruism. In J.J. Mansbridge (Ed.), Beyond self-interest (pp. 44–52). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. FAO. (2001). International plan of action to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  20. Ferraro, P.J. (2001). Global habitat protection: Limitations of development interventions and a role for conservation performance payments. Conservation Biology, 15, 990–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferraro, P.J., & Simpson, R.D. (2002). The cost-effectiveness of conservation payments. Land Economics, 78, 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flewwelling, P., Cullinan, C., Balton, D., Sautter, R.P., Reynolds, J.E. (2002). Recent trends in monitoring, control and surveillance systems for capture fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, No. 415. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  23. Furlong, W.J. (1991). The deterrent effect of regulatory enforcement in the fishery. Land Economics, 67, 116–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. GoM (Government of Malawi). (2001). National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy. Government Printer, Lilongwe, Malawi.Google Scholar
  25. GoM (Government of Malawi). (2009). The Government of Malawi, Lilongwe, Malawi. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://www.malawi.gov.mw
  26. Gregory, R. (1999). Identifying environmental values. In V.H. Dale & M.R. English (Eds.), Tools to aid environmental decision making (pp. 32–58). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gregory, R., Brown, T., Knetch, J. (1996). Valuing risks to the environment. In H. Kunreuther & P. Slovic (Eds.), The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Vol. 545, pp. 54–63). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  28. Hara, M.M. (2001). Could co-management provide a solution to the problem of artisanal fisheries management on the Southeast Arm of Lake Malawi? Dissertation, PhD thesis, University of Western Cape.Google Scholar
  29. Hara, M.M. (2006a). Restoring the chambo in Southern Malawi: Learning from the past or re-inventing the wheel? Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management, 9, 419–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hara, M.M. (2006b). Nesting participatory fisheries management within district decentralisation: Case of Mangochi district, Malawi. (Paper presented at the Eleventh Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Bali, Indonesia).Google Scholar
  31. Hatcher, A. Jaffry, S., Thébaud, O., Bennett, E. (2000). Normative and social influences affecting compliance with fishery regulations. Land Economics, 76, 448–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hauck, M., & Kroese, M. (2006). Fisheries compliance in South Africa: a decade of challenges and reform 1994–2004. Marine Policy, 30, 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hønneland, G. (1999). A model of compliance in fisheries: Theoretical foundations and practical application. Ocean & Coastal Management, 42, 699–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jentoft, S. (2007). Limits of governability: institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance. Marine Policy, 31, 360–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kellert, S.R., (1993). The biological basis for human values of nature. In S.R. Kellert & E.O. Wilson (Eds.), Biophilia hypothesis (pp. 42–69). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  36. Kooiman, J. (2008). Exploring the concept of governability. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 10, 171–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kooiman, J., & Jentoft, S. (2005). Hard choices and values. In J. Kooiman, M. Bavinck, S. Jentoft, R. Pullin (Eds.), Fish for life: Interactive governance for fisheries (pp. 285–299). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kooiman, J., & Jentoft, S. (2009). Meta-governance: Values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Public Administration, 87, 818–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kooiman, J., Bavinck, M., Jentoft, S., Pullin, R. (Eds.). (2005). Fish for life: Interactive governance for fisheries. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kuperan, K., & Sutinen, J.G. (1998). Blue water crime: Deterrence, legitimacy, and compliance in fisheries. Law & Society Review, 32, 309–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Manríquez, P.H., & Castilla, J.C. (2001). Significance of marine protected areas in central Chile and seeding grounds for the gastropod Concholepas concholepas. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 215, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murawski, S.A., Brown, R., Lai, H.-L., Rago, P.J., & Hendrickson, L. (2000). Large-scale closed areas as a fishery-management tool in temperate marine systems: The Georges Bank experience. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66, 775–798.Google Scholar
  43. Ngochera, M.J.R. (2001). Status of small scale fishery in Malawi. In O.L.F. Weyl & M.V. Weyl (Eds.), Proceedings of the Lake Malawi fisheries management symposium, Lilongwe, 4–9 June 2001 (pp. 95–104). Lilongwe: Organizing Committee of the Lake Malawi Fisheries Management Symposium.Google Scholar
  44. Njaya, F. (2007). Governance challenges for the implementations of fisheries co-management: Experiences from Malawi. International Journal of the Commons, 1, 137–153.Google Scholar
  45. Njaya, F. (2008). Participatory Fisheries Management revisited. Samudra, Triannual Report of International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, 49, 29–34.Google Scholar
  46. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Peterson, G.L., & Brown, T.C. (1998). Economic valuation by the method of paired comparison, with emphasis on tests of the transitivity axiom. Land Economics, 74, 240–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Quah, E., Choa, E., Tan, K.C. (2006). Use of damage schedules in environmental valuation: The case of urban Singapore. Applied Economics, 38, 1501–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rolston, H., III. (1994). Conserving natural value. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rudd, M.A. (2001). The non-extractive economic value of spiny lobster, Panulirus argus, in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Environmental Conservation, 28, 226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rutherford, M.B., Knetsch, J.L., Brown, T.C. (1998). Assessing environmental losses: Judgments of importance and damage schedules. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 22, 51–101.Google Scholar
  52. Satterfield, T., & Kalof, L. (2005). Environmental values: an introduction – Relativistic and axiomatic traditions in the study of environmental values. In L. Kalof & T. Satterfield (Eds.), The Earthscan reader in environmental values (pp. xxi–xxxiii). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  53. Simpson, R.D., & Sedjo, R.A. (1996). Paying for the conservation of endangered ecosystems: a comparison of direct and indirect approaches. Environment and Development Economics, 1, 241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith, L.W. (1998). Use of traditional practices and knowledge in monitoring a Lake Malawi artisanal fishery. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 18, 982–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Song, A.M. (2009). Dealing with uncertainty in governance outcomes: Illegal fishing and conservation in the Southeast Arm fishery of Lake Malawi (pp. 248). Masters dissertation. St. John’s: Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland.Google Scholar
  56. Sumaila, U.R., Alder, J., & Keith, H. (2006). Global scope and economics of illegal fishing. Marine Policy, 30, 696–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sutinen, J.G., & Gauvin, J.R. (1989). An economic study of regulatory enforcement and compliance in the commercial inshore lobster fishery of Massachusetts. In P.A. Neher, R. Arnason, & N. Mollet (Eds.), Rights based fishing (pp. 415–428). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sutinen, J.G., & Kuperan, K. (1999). A socio-economic theory of regulatory compliance. International Journal of Social Economics, 26, 174–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sutinen, J.G., Rieser, A., Gauvin, J.R. (1990). Measuring and explaining non-compliance in federally managed fisheries. Ocean Development and International Law, 21, 335–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Thurstone, L.L. (1927). The method of paired comparisons for social values. The Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 21, 384–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tyler, T. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Watling, L., & Norse, E.A. (1998). Disturbance of the seabed by mobile fishing gear: A comparison to forest clearcutting. Conservation Biology, 12, 1180–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wattage, P., & Mardle, S. (2005). Stakeholder preferences towards conservation versus development for a wetland in Sri Lanka. Journal of Environmental Management, 77, 122–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. World Bank. (2000). Project proposal: Guatemala Western Altiplano natural resources management project. Project ID GTPE64883. Latin America and Caribbean Region.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’sCanada

Personalised recommendations