The history of natural resources management and environmental sciences is intrinsically linked with the history of colonisation. In particular, colonial-imposed governance regimes impacted on, entangled with, and was resisted by indigenous environmental management regimes.
We must interrogate this history and its impact on contemporary governance contexts if we are to work towards future sustainable and just natural resources governance.
The “Lessons from Lake Malawi: British Colonialism, Marine Sciences, & Fisheries Governance in the Mid-Twentieth Century” project (2022-23)* brought together historians, environmental scientists, and public health researchers from the University of Strathclyde and Mzuzu University (Malawi) to investigate fisheries management in Lake Malawi.
We focused on the histories of two distinctive fisheries management regimes that developed in Lake Malawi in the mid-twentieth century. The first was the lake-wide regime imposed by the British colonial government of the then Nyasaland Protectorate (after 1953, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland). The second was developed by Senior Chief Makanjira to regulate the rich fishing grounds surrounding Mbenji Island off the western shore of Lake Malawi. Both developed in response to the considerable expansion and change in lake fisheries from the 1930s onwards. This occurred as African and non-African fishers responded to market opportunities and ecological changes while expanding their repertoire of fishing gears and methods.
The parallel development of these regimes provided a unique opportunity to compare their underlying principles, ideologies, and long-term outcomes, considering how fisheries management centred on different ways of knowing—dominant scientific knowledge or local ecological knowledge—led to drastically different legacies over the short- and long-term.
Today, the centralised fisheries regime under the Government of Malawi, with its origins in the colonial era, struggles with questions of legitimacy, participation, and enforcement, leading to persistent concerns of overfishing in government-managed waters. The fishery at Mbenji, however, is celebrated as a successful and sustainable fishery that observes healthier fish stocks than those in surrounding government-managed waters. This is seen as a model for small-scale fisheries management in Lake Malawi.
Exploring these histories, our project paired historical investigation with environmental sampling to consider the underlying principles and long-term socio-ecological outcomes of the two regimes. Research methods included archival research in London and Malawi to investigate colonial fisheries governance, oral history interviews in Chikombe with customary leaders and community elders involved in the Mbenji Island fishery, and analysis of water quality, fish health, and fishing methods in the waters surrounding Mbenji Island and nearby fishing grounds under government management.
Findings from our environmental sampling work aligned with fishers’ observances of healthier and stouter fish at Mbenji Island in comparison with nearby government waters. This appeared to be the result of successful and dynamic management rather than distinctive environmental conditions. In particular, management at Mbenji concentrates on a complete fishing ban during an annual four-month closed season, which coincides with the breeding season of utaka, the principal catch in the area. This closed season is locally enforced and is paired with social and technical regulations during the open season, which are regulated by community-based committees headed up by Senior Chief Makanjira. In government waters, a two-month closed season focuses on the ban of specific fishing gears that are used predominantly to target chambo, particularly in the south-east arm of the lake. This is paired with similar technical restrictions to those enforced at Mbenji, but enforcement appears stricter at Mbenji Island.
The long-term successes and preservation of Mbenji Island fisheries has resulted from the collective elements of the customary regime and not just the technical principles and ecological knowledge underpinning it. This has combined targeted technical regulations with robust leadership, proactive enforcement, sustained ecological and economic benefits, transparent processes, and embeddedness in existing institutions and beliefs. This is in comparison to the under-resourced and patchy centralised fisheries management regime first instituted by the British colonial government and since developed by the Government of Malawi, which has centred on top-down and externally influenced blueprints to the neglect of existing institutions and power structures. This has resulted in uneven and unequal enforcement, outbreaks of violence between fishers and government enforcers, a lack of regular consultation or negotiation surrounding regulations, and elite capture or obstruction of participatory structures. This has undermined the legitimacy of government-led management initiatives, even those aimed at greater participation and empowerment since the 1990s.
We have argued that the lessons learned from our integrated historical and environmental analysis offer important insights into contemporary questions of governance legitimacy, the feedback between different management regimes, and the role of science within management. Ultimately, this agrees with recent calls that have emphasised the need to focus on processes centred on participation and capacity building rather than set ecological outcomes within small-scale fisheries management.
We contend that any such approach, however, requires deep historical awareness and reflection that policymakers too often neglect.
Find more information, including access to archival and published historical material.
The project was funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) “Hidden histories of environmental science: Acknowledging legacies of race, social injustice and exclusion to inform the future” programme [AH/W009099/1].