Effective Factors for the Promotion of Co - Management Performance of Fisheries Cooperatives in Guilan Province, Iran

Mohammad Sadegh Allahyari Assistant professor Islamic Azad University, Rasht Branch, Rasht, Iran E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] Mohammad Chizari Professor Department of Agricultural Extension and Education College of Agriculture Tarbiat Modares University P.O. Box 14155-4838 Tehran, Iran E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: The current consensus of fishing industry professionals' is that the fisheries industry and aquatic resources are under of various threats and risks because of overfishing and the destruction of aquatic habitat. However, other professionals believe that in addition to resources crisis, the fishing industry has faced a management crisis, which has resulted in organizational and institutional problems. Having a top- down management approach has led to noncompliance with the regulations and rules. To try and solve these problems, integrated coastal fisheries management has been implemented in some regions with one of the most effective component of this system being local participation in management, which is also called fisheries co-management. To implement fisheries co–management requires powerful tools, including active local organizations and institutions at the fisheries sector, such as fisheries cooperatives. In Iran, the government took over the custodianship of fisheries cooperatives and due to their high level of support and involvement in working of these cooperatives, this led to a high level of dependency of fishermen on government. When the level of government support was reduced this subsequently led to sever weakening of these cooperatives. Having strong non-governmental and economically viable cooperatives is thought to be one of the main factors to enable co- management to operate effectively which may also be as an index of development. The purpose of our research was to explore the questions of what; characteristics of non-governmental organization will enhance the level of fisheries co–management. The survey design involved selecting 136 fishermen from fisheries cooperatives through multistage cluster sampling. Data were collected by using questionnaires that had been validated as reliable using Cronbach's alpha coefficient (0.77). Descriptive findings revealed that generating sustainable fishing (mean value of 4.58 out of 5) had the highest level of effect on determining if fishermen would participate in fisheries co – management. The result of correlation analysis indicated that there were seven predictor variables that had a significant correlation with the criterion variable (those included as independency from government, settlement of the group office at fishing place and decentralization planning system). Key words: fishermen participation, fisheries co–management, fisheries cooperative

Introduction: Fishing, the catching of other aquatic organisms and the hunting of animals were considered parts of primary activities of men who survived by hunting and consumption in pre – historic periods. Over time, these activities developed from individual activities to provide daily food requirements of immediate family members into more industrial methods in order to meet the different economic and social objectives of communities. One of the most conspicuous aspects of this trend was the emergence and establishment of fisheries cooperatives as a powerful tool for community activities in general and those of fishing in particular [5]. By nature, fishing activities often requires close co-operations among the fishermen. To accomplish this objective in our country I.R of Iran, in 1963 once fishing had been prohibited in the rivers of northern parts of Iran, some cooperative firms were established to employ fulltime fishermen, subject to article 78 of cooperatives law and in accordance with note it of article 1 of fishing legislation. Nevertheless, these cooperatives were not successful over this period and they currently suffer from a number of problems. On the other hand, public policies during five–year plans of development in order to downsize public sectors resulted in the fact that the fishery cooperatives should shift to become more independent. However, this generated a high level of dissatisfaction among fishermen. Therefore, while the previous poor performance of fisheries cooperatives has left a negative impression in the minds of many fishermen. The fishermen recognize that without the support government they will not survive without a functioning cooperative. Perhaps the most important thing that accounts for such developed situation is the fact that the members are not familiar with their rights and functions. Many fishermen do not recognize that they can have a role in the participatory process of co-management. All these factors have produced a negative view of cooperatives among the fishermen in Iran. Some of the experts consider that the lack of trust felt by fishermen as the main factor for the poor management of these cooperatives especially following the shift back to their control by the people themselves. Therefore some experts argue that the problems currently facing the fishing industry, instead of being a resources crisis is instead a management crisis that

2

has resulted from organizational and institutional problems [5]. It has been suggested that the establishment of economically viable and effective non-governmental cooperatives that would replace the current inefficiencies would remove confusion and promote the level of comanagement of fisheries cooperatives needed to have successful fisheries.

Theoretical framework: Fisheries have a wide range of socio- economic importance and more than 12.5 millions of the population is involved within it. The value of the aquatic international trade in the early 1990's was estimated to be about $40 billion and the total production of fishing and aquaculture raising and breeding reached about 100 million tons during the same period [3]. This provides the impetus for developing. Undoubtedly, there is a high importance in having good management tool to conduct such volume of transactions and exchanges. One of the most important differences in the area of agriculture in general and fisheries category and aquatics resources in particular, is that the users (i.e. the fisherman) play vastly different roles. Consequently in fisheries management, one cannot ignore the role of the fishermen or the users themselves play. Perhaps, one can admit that the roles and influences of fishers' population in the aquatic resources utilization system have immensely grown over time and today they have reached to their peaks by setting limit to resources. Under present conditions, fisheries management system cannot be successful only by controlling the roles the users play to achieve plans. For this reason, it is today believed that with the stages needed to design and execute plans for utilizing aquatic resources, one must be the inclusion of fishers' participation in this context, the thing that has been generally ignored in the operation system as viewed by many experts. From this perspective, fishery management system and that of fishing are addressed; having so far failed to get the interested group participation. All criticisms of the previous management systems have emphasized the fact that they have only operated using a top – down approach and the bottom – up approaches was either not used or if it was its use was marginal and limited [5],[9&10]. Fisheries co-management approach serves as a solution to this problem [9&10]. It can be in keeping with the added participation of users groups within the fisheries management. A centralized top - down fisheries management approach that has focused on the role of government in fisheries management failed often because of excessive use of resources. Therefore, a participatory management has been recommended as an approach to it in order to replace it [6]. This approach emphasizes that the users of resources should participate in the management process and decision – making processes as well as its implementation. This approach not only denotes a new type of partnership between public sector agencies and resources users but also a closer cooperation between two main groups of stakeholders in co-management. A participatory management is defined as a dynamic partnership. This dynamic partnership employs the capacity and interests of users groups [9], [6]. According to Mc Cay and Jentoft (1995), the groups involved must be organized not only at the local level but also at the regional and national levels before they show their participation [7]. The most advanced development for taking an approach to co -management is when the operators' participation and the legitimacy of fishing regulations can be enhanced. As compared between centralized approach and co- management approach, the centralized management results in higher costs for administration, supervision and little legitimacy between groups [6]. In 1994, ICLARM in Manila, Philippines, and IFM in Hirtshals, Denmark in cooperation with their national research partners (NAR) in some African and Asian countries such as Philippine, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Benin, and Senegal initiated a co-management project in a five – year plan. The results obtained from their activities identified a number recognition of factors that influenced the success of fisheries co- management at a number of levels. They were: 1-The supra community level: 1-1-enabling policies and legislations: If co- management initiatives are to be successful, basic issues of government action to establish supportive

3

legislation, policies, rights, and authority structures must be addressed. 1-2-external agents: These external agents assist the community in defining problem; provide independent advice, ideas, and expertise; provide training and technical assistance; guide joint problem solving and decision making; and assist in developing management plans. They fill a special role in terms of drawing out insights with a participatory style of facilitation, processing the insights and guiding the community in reaching its goals. 2- Community level: 2-1-appropriate scale and defined boundaries: The scale for co – management arrangements may vary a great deal but should be appropriate to the area's ecology, people, and level of management. This includes size of the physical area and number of members. 2-2-clearly – defined membership: The individual fishers or households with rights to fish in the bounded fishing area, to participate in area management and to be an organization member should be clearly defined. 2-3-group homogeneity: There is a high degree of homogeneity, in terms of kinship, ethnicity, religion or fishing gear type, among the group. 2-4-partnership by those affected: Most individuals affected by the co – management arrangements are included in group that makes decisions about and can change the arrangements. 2-5-leadership: Local leaders set an example for others to follow, set out courses of action and provide energy and direction for co– management process. 2-6-empowerment, capacity building and public preparation: The economic and political marginalization of coastal communities has led to the problems of poverty and resource degradation. Addressing marginalization requires empowerment of community members and the transfer of economic and political power from a few to impoverished majority. 2-7-community organizations: The existence of community organizations is vital means for representing resource users and stakeholders and influencing the direction of policies and decision making. 2-8-long – term support of the local government unit: There must be an incentive for the local politicians to support co–management. 2-9-property rights over the resource: Property rights, either individual or collective, should address the legal ownership of the resource and define the mechanisms and the structures required for allocating use rights to optimize use and ensure conservation of resources and the means and procedures for enforcement. 2-10-adequate financial resources: Co – management requires financial resources to support the process. Funds need to be available to support various operations and facilities related to planning, implementation, coordinating, monitoring and enforcement among others. 2-11-partnership in the co- management process: Active participation of partners in the planning and implementation process is directly related to their sense of ownership and commitment to co – management arrangements. 2-12-accountability: All partners must be held equally accountable for upholding the co- management agreement. The partners have common access to information. 2-13- conflict management mechanism: There is a need for a forum for resource users to debate and resolve conflicts and to appeal decision. Conflict managements should be conducted at the local level where solutions can be found quickly. 2-14- clear and transparent objectives: The clarity and simplicity of objectives helps steer the direction of co-management. Partners need to understand and

4

agree on the issues to be addressed, know what must be achieved, where the activities are headed and why. Clear objectives developed from a well- defined set of issues are essential to success. 2 – 15- management rules enforced: The research found that enforcement of management rules was of high importance for success of co–management. 3 – Individual and household level: 3 – 1 –individual incentive structure: The success of co-management hinges directly on an incentives structure (economic, social, and political) that induces various individuals to participate in the process. [8] The purpose of the study was to look at the fishermen’s thoughts on what would make co-management attractive in Guilan province and identify characteristics of these organizations, which can influence on promotion of fisheries co–management process. The specific objectives were to identify effective factors to attract fishermen participation in fisheries co–management. Methods and procedures: The survey was conducted in the province of Guilan, located in the north part of Iran and southern part of Caspian Sea (Figure 1). Coastal fishermen in Guilan province, Iran were the target population for this study. We selected 136 fishermen from fisheries cooperatives through multistage cluster sampling. The research design for this study was a survey design. From a review of the literature, the researchers developed an instrument to collect data.

Figure (1), site of study

The survey was divided into two sections. The first section was designed to gather data on personal characteristics of fishermen, included age, year of experience, level of education, place of living, marital status, second job, religious and race. The second section was designed to gather data about fishermen perceptions with regard to the factors that would promote the adoption of fisheries co – management. Responses for this section were categorized using five – point Likert – type scale: (5= very much, 4 = much, 3 = moderate, 2 = low and 1 = very low) A panel of experts consisting of faculty members established content and face validity. Questionnaire reliability was estimated by calculating Cronbach’s alpha. Reliability refers to the degree of reproducibility of the measurement. If you repeat the measurement in various ways, do you get the same results each time? Cronbach’s alpha is one of the statistical methods can be used for this objective [1], [2]. Reliability for the instrument was

5

estimated at 0.77. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze data. Descriptive statistics (frequency distributions, percent, means, and standard deviations) and inferential statistics (Kruskal Wallis test) were used to address objectives. Results: Demographic characteristics The ages of the respondents ranged from 15 to 73. 14.7% of fishermen (n = 20) described themselves as illiterate. 33.1of respondents (n=45) had some elementary education. Approximately 26 % of fishermen had middle school education, and 22.8 % of them had high school education and 3.7 % (n =5) had academic education. More than 52.2 % of respondents had less than 13 years of experience; however, 26.5 % of respondents had more than 24 years of experience. 45.6 % of the sample (n= 62) lived in urban areas. The remaining 54.4% lived in rural areas. Approximately seventy three percent of respondents were married. 32 persons of respondents had managerial tasks and the remaining (n = 104) were fishermen. In seasons out of fishing (six month of year), nearly 40% of fishermen were unemployed, but 60% of fishermen had a second job such as fisheries industry, farming etc. in addition, the religions of eighty three percent of the sample (n = 113) were Shiite and the remaining were Sunnite. 45.6 % (n =62) of fishermen were Gilak, 17.8 % (n = 24) were Talesh, and 36.8% were Azary. Figure (2): Descriptive of demographic characteristics of respondents in terms of percentage: Age (A), Level of education (B), years of experience(C); second job (D) and Race (E).

Age (A) 8.8% 8.1%

<20 20- 30 31- 40

14%

25%

41- 50 51 - 60 60>

24.3% 19.9%

years of experience (C)

Secon job(D)

<6 26.5% 37.5%

6_12

fishery industry

13_18

farmer

8.8%

19_24 >24

other jobs

39.7% 32.4%

13.2%

8.1%

non secon job

14.7%

19.1%

6

Race (E) Gilak Talesh Azary

36.8%

45.6%

17.8%

The dependent variable in this research was the inclination of fishermen to participate in co- management processes. This variable was measured by two statements, and the mean was 4.08 indicating a high inclination of fishermen to participate in fisheries co–management process. The data in Table 1 show the means and standard deviations for the 10 independent variables presented in descending order based on mean scores. This table reveals that sustainable fishing (M = 4.58), and a lack of bureaucracy (M = 4.57) had the most effect in attracting fishermen to participate and create fisheries co– management. In addition, independency from government (M = 2.6) and homogeneity of members (M = 3.96) had the less of an effect in creating fisheries co–management. Table (1): the means and standard deviations for fishermen views about independent variables Rank

independent variables

1 Sustainable fishing 2 Lack of bureaucracy 3 Settlement of the group office at fishing place 4 Accountability 5 Decentralized planning 6 Voluntarily membership 7 Common goal 8 Local dependency 9 Homogeneity of members 10 Independency from government Note. Scores based on Likert scale, where 1 = very low and 5= very much

Mean

SD

4.58 4.57 4.53 4.45 4.35 4.35 4.30 4.00 3.96 2.60

0.84 0.64 0.67 1.01 0.70 1.18 0.82 1.05 0.91 1.60

The data in Table 2 show calculated Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. The results of correlation analysis indicate that seven predicator variables had significant correlation with criterion variable (fisheries co – management). The correlated variables are; Sustainable fishing, independency from government, decentralized planning, settlement of the group office at fishing place, common goal, lack of bureaucracy, and accountability. With the exception of independency from government, other variables had direct correlation to dependent variable at the 0.01 significance level. Independency from government had inverse correlation to dependent variable at 0.01 significance level.

7

Table 2: correlation analysis between predicator variables and criterion variable (fisheries co–management) Row

Predicator variables

r

P

1

Homogeneity of members

0.078

0.365

2

Voluntarily membership

0.161

0.06

3

Decentralized planning system

0.311**

0.000

4

Settlement of the group office at fishing place

0.257**

0.000

5

Accountability

0.231**

0.007

6

Independency from government

- 0.311**

0.000

7

Lack of bureaucracy

0.242**

0.004

8

Common goal

0.257**

0.003

9

Local dependency

0.144

0.094

10

Sustainable fishing

0.313**

0.000

11

Age

0.152

0.077

12

Level of education

- 0.15

0.081

13

Marital status

- 0.056

0.518

14

Years of experiences

0.171*

0.047

15

Land ownership

0.033

0.699

16

Race

-0.172*

0.046

17

Second job

0.045

0.530

** Significance level at 0.01 (P * Significance level at 0.05 (P

0.01) 0.05)

The data in Table 3 show differences in fishermen's view regarding individual affecting factors on promotion co-management statements. Some of these differences are discussed bellow. Fishermen's view regarding affecting factors on promotion co-management differed significantly by fishermen's age for the variables “Lack of bureaucracy”( 2 = 25.35; p = .000) , “Accountability” ( 2= 20.6; p = .001), “Decentralized planning system” ( 2=13.35; p = .02), “Sustainable fishing” ( 2= 15.5; p = .008), “ local dependency” ( 2= 18.9; p = .002) and "Common goal” ( 2= 15.86; p = .007). Fishermen over 60 years of age agreed at a significantly higher level (M = 4.96) with the item “Lack of bureaucracy” than did fishermen in the five other age groups. Fishermen in the < 20 age group rated that item lower (M = 4.32) than did fishermen in the other five age group levels. Although differences were significant, it is important to note that each of the six age groups agreed with the variable. Fishermen 50-60 years of age agreed at a significantly higher level (M = 4.95) with the item “Accountability” than did fishermen in the five other age groups. The findings show that the means of fishermen's view toward affecting factors on promotion co-management differed significantly when examined by their level of education for the variables “Lack of bureaucracy” ( 2= 22.47; p = .000), “Voluntarily membership” ( 2= 14.36; p = .006)and“ Local dependency” ( 2=11.44; p = .022). Fishermen who were illiterate were significantly agreed with “Lack of bureaucracy” and “Voluntarily membership”. Fishermen whose level of education was middle school were

8

significantly less likely to agree with “lack of bureaucracy” (M= 4.35). Fishermen's view regarding affecting factors on promotion co-management differed significantly by fishermen's years of experience for the variables "Lack of bureaucracy” ( 2= 19.5; p = .001), “Accountability” ( 2= 10.6; p = .031), “Decentralized planning system” ( 2=10.98; p = .027), “Sustainable fishing” ( 2= 9.97; p = .041) and “Local dependency” ( 2= 13.16; p = .003). Fishermen over 24 years of experience agreed at a significantly higher level (M = 4.96) with the item “lack of bureaucracy” than did fishermen in the four other years of experience groups. Fishermen in the 19-24 years of experience group rated “Local dependency” item higher (M = 4.58) and Fishermen in the 13-18 years of experience group rated that item lower (M = 3.4) than did fishermen in the other four years of experience group levels. Table (3), differences in fishermen's view regarding individual affecting factors on promotion co-management statements Factor Age Level of years of second job Race place of education experience living 2

variables Independency from government 9.47 25.35** Lack of bureaucracy 8.86 Voluntarily membership 8.53 Homogeneity of members 20.6** Accountability 13.35* Decentralized planning system 5.107 Settlement of the group office at fishing place 15.5** Sustainable fishing 18.9** Local dependency 15.86** Common goal ** Significance level at 0.01 (P 0.01) * Significance level at 0.05 (P 0.05)

2

2

2

2

2

4.17 22.47** 14.36** 6.62 0.83 1.27 2.84

2.44 19.5** 4.9 3.1 10.6* 10.98* 6.032

6.17 3.3 4.7 0.315 4.34 0.256 6.95

0.346 7.7* 0.85 5.55 0.145 2.17 2.53

0.563 0.763 1.18 1.25 0.94 0.624 1.68

4.42 11.44* 3.54

9.97* 13.16** 4.78

0.42 0.26 1.36

7.015* 5.05 0.201

1.8 2.043* 0.123

Conclusions and recommendations: The findings of descriptive statistics generated in this study indicate that fishermen believe that factors such as sustainable fishing, lack of bureaucracy and settlement of the group office at fishing place, have the most important role in attracting fisherman participation in fisheries co–management. Fisheries cooperatives can encourage fishermen to only use of engines with authorized capacity and standard fishing nets, observance of fishing zone, time and season and propagation and releasing of under-sized (juvenile) by fishermen and therefore lead to sustainable fishing[5],[11]. The lack of bureaucracy facilitate a vertical exchange of information in cooperatives, be enabling fishermen to access higher levels of management. Having the office of the group located at the location where fishing occurs leads to increased participation of local fishermen in the fisheries co–management process; because of easier interaction among fishermen and managers. The correlation analysis shows that there is a high and significant relationship between fisheries co– management and sustainable fishing, it means that fishermen are aware from the crisis of aquatic resources and want a role themselves to prevent of crisis. They see that the best way to responses to this crisis is by participating in a fisheries co-management process .The decentralized planning system has a high relationship to the fisheries co– management, this means that if we allow to fishermen to participate in planning and decision making at different levels, it can be an important motivator to attract fishermen’s participation in the fisheries co-management process.

9

References: [1] Barker, C.; Pistrang, N. and Elliott, R.2002. Research methods in clinical psychology: an introduction for students and practitioners (second edition). West Sussex, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [2] Creswell, J.W. 1994. Research design, qualitative and quantitative approaches. London, SAGE publication. [3] FAO, 1996, Fishery management, Rome, Italia. [4] Ghaninejad, D., 1997, Methods for improving management of fish stocks in Caspian Sea. In Proceedings of responsibility fisheries congress, Tehran, Iran. [5] Ghasemi, A., 1998, “The principles of fisheries management”, Naghsh – e –Mehr press, Tehran (in Persian). [6] Hollup, O. 2001. Structural and socio-cultural constraints for user – group participation in fisheries management in Mauritius, Marine Policy, 24:407–421. [7] Jentoft, S., McCay, BJ. 1995. User participation in fisheries management. , Marine Policy, 19(3): 227-246. [8] Pomeroy, R., Katon, B.M and Harkesm, I. 2001. Conditions affecting the success of fisheries co-management: lessons from Asia, Marine Policy, 25: 197-208. [9] Raakjaer Nielsen, J. 1996. Fisheries co-management: a comparative analysis, Marine Policy, 20(5):405-18. [10] Raakjaer Nielsen, J. and Vedsmand, T. 1997. Fishermen's organizations in fisheries management: perspectives for fisheries co – management based on Danish fisheries. Marine Policy, 21(2):277-288. [11]Taghavi, A. 1997. Appropriate procedures to protect aquatic resources. In Proceedings of responsibility fisheries congress, Tehran, Iran.

10