Article Type: Research Article Article Citation: Warebi Gabriel Brisibe. (2021). DEFINING TERRITORIES IN AQUATIC PUBLIC SPACES: A CASE STUDY
OF IJO MIGRANT FISHERMEN IN NIGERIA. International Journal of Research
-GRANTHAALAYAH, 9(1), 279-289. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v9.i1.2021.3094 Received Date: 28 December 2020
Accepted Date: 31 January 2021 Keywords: Territoriality Migration Architecture Aquatic Spaces Public Spaces This paper examines the issue of territoriality in aquatic public spaces and how it affects fishing rights amongst artisanal fishermen of Ijo ethnic origin, in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria. It focuses on how these fishermen view the concept of space and define territories with or without the play of architectural materiality and elements. The study adopts a qualitative approach using interviews, focus groups and oral history as methodologies. The findings show that although architecturally defined boundaries in form of markings or spatial demarcations are not common in the estuarine and riverine zones of the Niger Delta, they however exist. Often implied or expressed by actions indicative of territoriality, or even revealed through other anthropological symptoms.
1. INTRODUCTIONThe subjects of this
study are migrant fishers. These are fishers who practice the fishing
livelihood for subsistence or trade purposes using locally made fishing
equipment and are known to operate either a cyclical migratory pattern (Ezewu and Tahir 1997) or a commuting mobility pattern (Symanski et al 1975) annually. As such, they have been
categorized as nomads by the Nigerian Population Commission and Board for
Nomadic Education in Nigeria. So, with migration being such a key factor in
their livelihoods, how these nomads view the concept of space and define
territories is worth investigating. This is because their perception of the
relative degree of tenure in prospective fishing spots needs to be understood from
a migratory perspective. Prussin (1995) states that Space is often used
metaphorically to evoke the idea of an unbounded or limited extension in all
directions, but the concept is defined and articulated in terms of boundary and
direction.... but for many nomads, architecturally defined boundaries do not
exist (1995:34) Although
architecturally defined boundaries in form of markings or spatial demarcations
may not necessarily exist in open aquatic ranges and fishing grounds, they can
however be implied, maintained by actions indicative of territoriality or even
revealed through other anthropological symptoms. This study seeks to understand
how these migrant fishers perceive unbounded spaces, mark and maintain
territories in open aquatic spaces or aquatic public spaces. 1.1. TERRITORIALITY
Territoriality is an
area of research that has received a lot of attention in the various
disciplines of the social sciences, such as sociology, human ecology,
anthropology and environmental psychology amongst others. However,
territoriality in architectural research is still gaining ground with scholars
like Newman (1973) whose work on defensible spaces opened up issues on
territoriality, Habraken (1982, 1998) and Karrholm (2005, 2007, 2008 and 2012). But it is Karrholm’s attempt at connecting territoriality and
architecture with particular emphasis on public retail spaces that provides a
good premise for this study. This is because Karrholm’s
(2012) work examined territoriality in open public spaces where there are layers
of shared access and uses and no clear-cut spatial demarcations. Similarly,
this study focuses on open public spaces albeit aquatic spaces with similar
issues relating to accessibility, use and non-spatial demarcations. Earlier
works like those of Cashdan (1983) view
territoriality as a form of resource management that works by the control
and/or limitation of access to certain environmental resources within a
specified area. Areas with static resources like vegetation or stagnant water
bodies are easier to control or defend, whereas transient or highly mobile
resources such as game, fish and birds are more difficult to defend. 1.2. RESEARCH
JUSTIFICATION
So, to justify this
attempt at examining territoriality in open aquatic spaces involving transient
resources like migrating fish shoals, a number of scholarly works previously
undertaken on this subject will need to be reviewed. Pinho
et al (2012) explored fisheries management in relation to migration. Their work
emphasizes the fact that fish populations are migratory, making the
establishment of physical boundaries difficult, hence the fishers themselves
are likely to move. As such, they maintain that ‘” spatial boundaries become
ambiguous rather than fixed”. Their study on local knowledge of fishers has been
used in establishing cultural boundaries that aid in local fisheries
management. Cinner (2009, 2011) also examined the
issue of migration and coastal resource use in Papua New Guinea. Similar
studies have also been done by Kramer et al (2002) and Berkes
et al (2006) on migration and the exploitation of marine resources in open
access fisheries. There have been a few studies on inshore and marine fisheries
in Nigeria’s Niger Delta regions (Fregene 2007;
Ben-Yami 2000), Fishing rights and common pool resources (Brisibe
2016) as well as works on the architecture of Ijo
migrant fishermen (Brisibe 2014, 2016b), which have
served as a foundation for research work in this region. However, there is
still a dearth of research in the area of territoriality as it relates to
migration amongst migrant fishers in Nigeria’s Niger Delta. 2. METHODOLOGY
The data used for
this paper is obtained from one collected for a much wider study on the
dwellings of these Ijo migrant fishermen. A total of
74 fishing camps were visited within the communities in Bayelsa State in
Nigeria and the Bakassi Peninsula in Cameroon. In
addition, a combined methods approach was adopted. For rich, in-depth
information on aspects of building culture, local maritime knowledge and other
forms of intangible heritage, the use of oral tradition as a data collection
strategy was adopted. In addition, focus group discussions proved very useful
as a means of obtaining these oral histories at the various migrant fishing
base camps visited. The gathering of all the household heads in a
multi-homestead base camp for discussions regarding the welfare of the camp or
to settle disputes between residents is a pre-existing social practice. This
practice was capitalised upon and converted into focus group sessions. The
information derived from these sessions was often self-validating as any information
offered by a member was likely to be confirmed, corrected or refuted by others.
Factual credibility rested on collective memory which is essential for the
narrative and descriptive approaches used in studies of the vernacular
environment. 3. IJO MIGRANT
FISHERS: SUBJECTS AND STUDY LOCATION
The Ijos are one of 10 prominent migrant fishing tribes in the
West African sub-region and the fourth largest ethnic group in Nigeria. They
migrate to different locations along the inshore rivers of Nigeria as well as
the West and Central African coastline following the movement of certain
species of fish. This has contributed in spreading their population among other
regions in Africa including Cameroon, Gabon, Chad and Equatorial Guinea. Figure 1: Outward migration to coastal
regions of West and Central African Countries (Source: Author) The few studies
carried out among Ijo migrant fishermen all support
the fact that these fishermen relocate on a consistent basis, as dictated by
fish movements. From his fieldwork at Soku in the
Eastern Delta region, (Horton, 1969) commented on the undefined seasonal fish movement in
those waters. He observed that, Fish tend to congregate in different parts of the community’s waters at
different seasons. Then, even at a given season, they are not always to be
found moving in the same way from year to year (1969:44). This yearly change in
the movement of fish could serve as a clue to offer possible explanations to
the pattern of movement of these migrant fishermen. Ezewu
& Tahir (1997) argued that families migrated from one fishing village/camp
to another during various fishing periods and in response to various changing
tides. Sikoki and Otobotekere
(1999) give a more detailed explanation of the fish movements and the
migration paths that are followed as result. They believe that fishermen take
advantage of seasonal distribution patterns, influenced by three main factors; moon
phases; water currents; and fish behaviour. All of these are intuitively
discerned and knowledge about them is traditionally transmitted through
successive generations. Moon phases are said
to be instrumental in bringing in larger shoals of pelagic species due to
high water levels of bi-monthly spring tides, occurring 3-4 days before the new
moon and low water levels take place in similar intervals. The causative factor
is attributed to the alignment of the new moon and full moon with the sun (Sikoki and Otobotekere, 1999). Of water currents, the authors state that, During the rainy season (May – September) rough conditions in the sea
restrict fishing operations by the canoe fishermen causing many of them to
resort to fishing in lagoons, creeks and estuaries. During this time high
fishing activity is noticeable in the brackish water zone (1999:304). This suggests that
migratory movement towards the more hinterland brackish water zone is due to
the high-water currents in the marine zone, which is not suitable for fishing.
Fish behaviour on the other hand varies among several existing stocks in the
area and could follow the various depths at which they dwell. Also, there is
the movement of fish into the floodplain following fast flow of flood water,
and low oxygen tolerant fishes in swamps or inshore lakes that flow in with the
flood and are trapped after the flood recedes (306-310). Further possible
causes of migration identified by (Adeyemi et al., 1997) include; marine incursion and erosion which involve unprecedented
levels of sea rise that have disastrous effects for coastal villages, fishing
camps and settlements. This results in fishermen moving away from the affected
areas to other locations. Other reasons why fishermen move include; flooding of
coastal plains and river banks; the need to move away from pathways of fishing
trawlers capable of destroying nets and traps and embarking on trips to market
their catch in distant markets and on specific market days. Irrespective of the
diverse reasons influencing the movement of fishermen, what appears to be a
constant, is the progressive eastward direction of movement observed over the
years. Most scholars agree that the movement of migrant fishermen along the
West African coastline have been towards the eastern part of the coast. Reverse
migration westward is a rarity (Antai, 1991). 3.1. MIGRATION
AND FISHING
The term ‘migration’
more often than not, conjures up an image of people travelling across
international borders to take up employment either as skilled or unskilled
labour. However, this term is not limited to transnational migrant workers
alone but also encompasses internal migrant labour i.e., rural-rural;
rural-urban; urban-rural; and urban-urban labour migration. For internal
rural-urban migration, the types of employments that hire the bulk of the
labour force, which is often the pull factor for such labour migration, include
large scale construction projects and industries. On the other hand, diversity
of ecology, resource abundance and land tenure arrangements form the basis of
the pull factor for rural-rural, as well as some urban-rural migration.
Shifting cultivation for farmers and movement in search of arable land for
grazing by pastoral nomads, all contribute to internal migration. Fulani
herdsmen in the West African sub-region are some of the best known examples of
internal migrants motivated by the need to gain access to natural resource
abundance (Adepoju, 1991). But there are also other less
known migrants equally motivated by the abundance of natural resources and food
stock; these are migrant or migrating fishermen. Tawari (2002) defines a migrant fisherman as “one who leaves his natural
community and moves from one habitation to another in fulfilment of his
occupation” (2002:2). In effect, migrant fishermen are a select group of
artisanal fishermen that embark on extended or prolonged foraging. Such
extended foraging consequently requires a change of residence, due to the
distance of the fishing grounds from their home base. Not all artisanal
fishermen embark on such fishing expeditions and this suggests that, although
all migrant fishermen may be ‘artisanal’ and not all artisanal fishermen
‘migrate’. However, where Ezewu and Tahir (1997) chose to define migrant fishing based on a
combination of full-time fishing practice and residential mobility, Sikoki and Otobotekere (1999) simply describes migrant fishing as a full-time
vocation. They argue that the full-time status means these fishermen do not
combine the fishing vocation with any other form of livelihood. In combining
all these definitions, one can infer that migrant fishing is primarily extended
foraging for fish, which involves residential mobility done on a full-time
basis. Having said this, the
connection however between labour migration and fishermen was made by Diaw (1983) when he examined the social and production relationships amongst
artisanal fishers of West Africa. In his thesis, he observed that the migration
patterns practiced by these fishermen were related to two essential forms of
movement in fisheries, which are, “Regulated Fishing Migrations” and “Labour
Migrations”. Adepoju (1991) who has carried out
extensive studies on labour migration in Africa, also observed that large scale
internal migration was carried out by nomads, semi-nomads and fishermen, in the
West African sub-region. Similarly, Jul-Larsen and Kassibo
(2001) also investigated and confirmed the existence of work migration among
fishermen from Niger’s Central Delta regions. These migrant fishermen also
extensively practice internal and international migration as much as the
conventional migrant workers. Studies conducted by (Njock and Westlund 2008; Samba and Faye, 2006; Randall, 2005) amongst others further confirm these migration patterns and previous
works by the author also show that Ijo migrant fishermen
practice a similar form of labour migration (Brisibe
2016b). 3.2. AQUATIC
PUBLIC SPACES AND OPEN AQUATIC RANGE
The data on use of
space reveal a number of issues. Firstly, in addition to the primary uses,
certain spaces have other uses which have their importance in maintaining the
overall balance of the migrant fisher lifestyle. For example, the river is not
seen as just an access route but serves equally as a foraging ground and area
of production, bathing facility, lavatory, and play area for children. In
essence, spaces in this context are not confined to bounded interiors but are
connections between the built form to natural space (De Sylva, 2008). In a similar analysis of the architecture of coastal
fishers in Sri Lanka, De Sylva observes that in a fishing community, spaces
accommodating daily activities are everything between the house and the sea and
this flow between spaces is of significant importance to the community. This
makes open spaces ranging from immediate verandas to the entire territorial
fishing grounds integral parts of the fisher’s dwelling. In effect, the
totality of these spaces constitutes an aquatic range. The concept of range
used in this context is akin to the foraging range of hunter gatherer
societies. To understand the
concept of the hunter gatherer, Ames (2004) asked the question “who is a hunter
gatherer?” while Kusimba (2005) carried an inquisitive caption of “what is a hunter-gatherer?”. Ames
speaks of the traits and socio-cultural lifestyle based possibly on preconceptions
or historically derived facts of hunter-gatherer organisational models. While Kusimba focuses on activities and practices that
characterize the hunter-gatherer ideal or variations. Current discussions on
hunter-gatherer classifications seem to have expanded to include variations
based on type of resource exploited, foraging patterns, whether or not they
produce food, and whether or not they are egalitarian. Several scholars have
offered varying definitions of the hunter-gatherer over the years, but it is
Ames’ compilation of hunter-gatherer indicators drawn from Susan Kent’s work
that I consider to be most comprehensive (Ames, 2004). It states that, Hunter-gatherers as a class are defined first, but not completely, by
foraging, second by certain organizational properties (living in bands,
relative egalitarianism, mobility, mobility patterns of dispersion and
aggregation, and a common property regime), and third by a common cultural
ethos marked by sharing and belief in a giving environment and an animated
cosmos (2004:367) Hunter-gatherers are food-producing
itinerant communities. These communities are referred to universally as nomads,
the most common of which is the pastoral nomad. Other societies listed as
food-producers include; migrant fishermen, hunters and gatherers and shifting
cultivators. Khazanov (1994), like some other scholars regarded migrant fishermen and shifting
cultivators as a part of the hunter-gatherer society. However, the question
of how these hunter-gatherer societies define, mark and maintain territory,
especially territory within their foraging range is worth investigating. For
this, Cashdan’s (1983) argument of a territorial
defence type, where territory size becomes indeterminate, can be considered.
This is primarily because this model has been applied in studying
territoriality among human forager groups, of which migrant fishing communities
are a part. It is this model that identifies ‘perimeter defence’ and ‘social
boundary defence’ as territorial mechanisms inherent in human foragers. In
perimeter defence, “foragers typically mark the perimeter of their territory
boundary and control access to the territory space itself” (1983:49). This
takes effect in the case of overt competition. Social boundary defence on the
other hand, works by controlling access to the social group in the area,
especially when resources become unpredictable and the foraging scope or range
becomes too large to make the practice of perimeter defence feasible. While the
former works by actual physical defence or manning of the territorial range,
the latter works on the principle of reciprocal altruism, which is the granting
of access in the hope that access, will be reciprocated when the need arises. 4. DETERMINING
AN AQUATIC RANGE IN AQUATIC PUBLIC SPACES
Based on data
obtained from oral traditions and narratives from the fishermen, a territorial
fishing range for a single or multi-homestead camp can be measured as a
‘shouting distance’ between one camp and other. A ‘shouting’ distance is the
radius or distance within which a shout can still be heard from a source,
especially when raised for help. In the creeks of the Niger Delta, fishers’
dwellings within this audible radius can be considered as being part of the
territorial range of the fishing camp. But where dwellings are located beyond
this radius of audibility, those other dwellings or group of dwellings assume
autonomous camp status and operate within a different territorial range even if
they are still visible from the neighbouring camp. It is necessary to
re-iterate that each fishing camp has an aquatic territorial range within the
inshore waters, where they carry out their livelihood. These territorial
allotments are only obtainable within riverine and estuarine zones and do not
apply to coastal or marine areas. In the Ijo vernacular landscape, an aquatic range within the
aquatic public space is known as the fishing ground. (Scott, 1989) defined fishing grounds as consisting of “the banks
and floor of the stream, and the still or flowing water they contain” (pg 16). It is important to note that the fishing grounds
referred to by (Ben-Yami 2000), (Hassan et al., 1997) and (Ezewu et al., 1997) may often comprise of different (secondary) sites
within a particular location. Access to these secondary sites involve further
yet shorter forms of relocation, brought about by adjustments to changing
circumstances or further fish movement. As such, (B) or (C) on the model in fig
3 could have multiples B1, B2, B3 or C1, C2, C3 etc (Hassan et al., 1997). In
essence, the fishing ground consists of several fishing spots within an aquatic
range. This is based on the presupposition that every migrant fishing household
operates within a given aquatic range or ‘home range’ Borrero and Barberena (2006). A typical home range could translate
directly into the area a household occupies in their movement annually. It
could also relate to the number of residential moves made per year or the
distances travelled during an annual foraging cycle (Borrero and Barberena, 2006; Binford, 2001; Kelly, 1995). But this aquatic home range consists of different
stops that are perceived as fertile fishing sites, where fish traps are set and
nets are cast for a while, until the stock depletes. Figure 9: Annual fishing cycle of Ijo migrant fishermen showing secondary sites (Source:
Adapted from Hassan et al in Ezewu & Tahir (eds)
1997) This idea of a home
range is also reflected in the Ijo word for fishing
camp. The term used for a fishing camp is often a combination of two words and
sometimes with a connecting word or syllable in between. The commonly used
terms are; Indidougbene/Endidougbene, Bou-rikiri, Alamendi.
The first three are associated with the fresh water zone, while the last with
the brackish and marine zones. Indi or Endi = fish (slight dialectical differences) Bou = Bush or forest (usually refers to highly transient camps) Dou = find Kiri or gbene = grounds, area – this gives no
specific location or boundary definition of the area. It thus, embodies the
concept of an unbounded space or an open aquatic range. Endidougbene can then be translated as fish-finding-area. While the term bou-rikiri
can be translated to mean, forest-grounds
or area, the other word alamendi also possesses the constant endi but has an
interesting prefix ala = far (with regards to distance). In translation, it will
read thus, far-fish or far fishing. This is not surprising as camps within this
region are located in the coastal regions or farther off the continental shelf.
Nonetheless, fishing
in an open aquatic range does not necessarily suggest that the fisheries
resources in the open rivers and creeks are freely accessible to all and that
fishing camps can be built anywhere arbitrarily. In the study location, fishing
rights have to be obtained before fishing camp dwellings can be built. 5. ARCHITECTURE
AND TERRITORIAL FISHING RIGHTS AMONGST IJO MIGRANT FISHERS
The concept of
ownership under Ijo customary law upholds the fact
that, all land (water bodies inclusive) is owned by the immediate community,
and segments are entrusted to extended families and clans to administer. These
larger family groups can in turn allow right of occupancy or use by any member
of the family, for the practice of their chosen livelihoods indefinitely. The
areas thus divided to individual members become their aquatic range for which
they exercise territorial rights of access to fishing grounds, withdrawal of
resources and defence. But the limitations and boundaries of this aquatic range
are often not demarcated nor are they amenable to demarcation. Nonetheless,
such aquatic territories can be marked by architectural features and a given radius
around such features is regarded as the aquatic range for the fisherman. Brisibe, D (1990) observed that in the case of Western Ijos, families may own whole fishing ponds or lakes but a
virgin expanse of swamp land commonly called ‘akpara’
belongs to the community and anybody is free to clear a portion and settle
there for the business of fishing. However, this right of ownership is limited
to only the area where the fisherman puts up some dwelling like a hut or
building. A reasonable area around the dwelling which can be described as a
foraging range is allocated to the fisherman to operate as long as he wants but
once he has abandoned the place any other person can take over the range and carry-on
fishing but may not use the dwelling except by permission. Okara (2003) also observed that migrant fishermen of Ijo ethnic origin in other communities pay for fishing
licenses per boat to the host community, which in turn grants them permission
to build their huts in the area. No moneys are charged for building of
dwellings in any area and no tax is paid to government authorities. Here again
the building of the hut is indicative of fishing rights being granted and also
marks the territorial range within which the fisherman can operate. An example of oral
traditions depicting the evolution of Agoloma town,
an Ijo settlement in the Niger Delta states that when
the progenitor Agolomaowei settled there, he cleared
a portion for farming, built a hut and occupied a strip of the territorial
waters for fishing (Brisibe, E. 1986). The strip of
waters around his constructed dwelling was considered his territorial range.
With subsequent settlers joining him, more huts were built and with each added
hut came added strips of waters for the fishermen. Figure 2 and 3: Sample of huts used as territorial markings in Bayelsa, Nigeria and Bakassi, Cameroon Ezewu et al (1997) attempted to map the cyclical pattern of fishermen in response to the
various mechanisms that influence migration. This was done with data obtained
from time-geographical survey analysis from which the model below was produced.
This has hitherto been cited as the typical migrant cycle for Ijo fishermen in the riverine and coastal communities of
the Niger Delta area in Nigeria. Figure 4: The annual fishing cycle of Ijo migrant fishermen (Adapted from: Ezewu
& Tahir 1997) Hassan et al (1997) explain the migration concept using the link between the boxes. (A) is
regarded as the sending society or the village of origin of the fishermen. (B)
or (C) depending on the migration pattern of the fishermen could be the base
camp or the off-shore camp. (Ben-Yami, 2000) offered a more lucid description of the three
categories of fishing communities, referring to them as; permanent villages (Ama), semi-permanent base camps (Endidougbene)
and fishing camp annexes (Endidoubou). Of the three locations, the base camp and
annex camps are located along aquatic public spaces where the building of huts
are used to establish territories. They are often established to bring the
fishermen closer to the fishing grounds or aquatic range. 5.1. OTHER TERRITORIAL
MARKERS
Aside from dwellings,
other features have also been used in marking fishing territories especially
around inshore ponds and lakes in brackish water swamps. The use of
‘anthropological tracking’ in the identification of fishing spots owned by
other fishers. A term used by Thwaites and Simkins (2007) in amongst other
things, identifying how space is used based on traces or tracks that reflect
the type of human activity practiced in that space. Some of the effects that
mark spots are highly visible architectural features like camp huts and fences,
while others like nets, basket traps and simple poles tied with strings bearing
fish hooks underwater, are less conspicuous markers. The ponds and lakes in the
swamps are often formed when flood waters have receded. Adult fish, which have
found their way into such pools because of the flood, eventually get stranded
when the flood waters recede. The ponds are small, approximately waist-deep and
measure less than 25sq yards but they are often well stocked with adult fish.
Because reasonable income can be derived from such finds, they can easily
become the cause for contention. As such, certain features are put in place as
perimeter defence to indicate ownership. The features which in this case are fish
fences and net pole barricades, act as markers that suggest territorial
ownership to other fishermen. Figure 5: Fish fence or Kiddle (Lala)
in use area Figure 6: Fish fence used in another
area Figure 7: Net poles used in marking larger fishing grounds Figure 8: Special net for catching ‘ekpai’ fish Besides inshore ponds
and lakes, fishers also stake claims to spawning grounds along the river edges.
These are ideal locations for baiting hooks, basket traps and setting the fish
fence or kiddle. These traps have to be checked daily
for harvest and re-baiting, as the trapped or hooked fish has a short
trapped-life before it gets spoilt. Once any of these traps have been spotted
by other fishers, they cannot set their traps within close proximity of the
already existing traps as this constitutes an infringement on the latter’s
immediate fishing territory. As such, these fishers may effectively monopolize
a spot for as long as collection and re-baiting activity continues. This is
similar to situations that are obtainable in Iceland, Brazil and Maine. Durrenberger and Palsson (1987)
referred to these similar situations as “unfortunate technical limitations that
two fishing implements cannot effectively take fish from the same spot at the
same time” (pg 516). 6. DISCUSSIONS
Previous studies have
established the fact that livelihood resources like fish tend to migrate and as
such groups that depend on them to survive have to migrate too. Studies have
also classed migrant fishermen as hunter-gatherers and migrant labourers. But
for every resource obtained from a common pool, control or management is vital
to help maintain balance, equity and fairness among users. With the need for
control come all forms of territorial behaviour common in all public spaces
where portions are unmarked and uses layer over each other through time-share
or other space allotment methods. This is manageable for landed spaces but
becomes tricky for fluidy spaces like water and air.
For such fluidy spaces the concept of open range or
fishing grounds was also discussed in this study, giving an added perspective
to territoriality in aquatic public spaces. As stated in Brisibe
(2015), when several users withdraw from
a common pool resource with no physical barriers demarcating the vast aquatic
range, disputes over rights of usage and contested fishing landscapes are
likely to occur. From the study, architectural elements in the form of huts and
local fishing equipment have been shown to be the main way aquatic territories
in the study area are being marked. However, to avoid user conflict and enhance
resource management and control, indicating proper boundaries along a strip of
water or sub-dividing territories from the larger aquatic space requires much
more than installation of architectural elements. It requires a knowledge of
what constitutes fishing grounds and open ranges in the Ijo
migrant fishing landscape in order to understand fishing rights. Because in
aquatic public spaces seemingly belonging to no one in particular and yet
belonging to all, not all resources
within are actually for public use. This translates into dependence on local knowledge as a means to
understanding territoriality just as it is already being used extensively in
the area of fisheries management and the management of other common pool
resources. SOURCES OF FUNDING
This research received no specific grant from
any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author have
declared that no competing interests exist. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
None. REFERENCES
[1] Adeyemi,
E. A, Fashuyi, S. A, Fatunla,
G. T. and Otaigbe, P. E. “Ondo State Study”, In: Ezewu, E. E. and Tahir, G. (eds) Ecology and Education in
Nigeria: Studies on the Education of Migrant Fishers, 1997, Tabansi Publishers
Ltd: Onitsha, Nigeria [2] Ames,
K. M. “Supposing Hunter-Gatherer Variability” American Antiquity, 69(2), 2004,
364-374. [3] Amire, A. V. “Monitoring, Measurement and
Assessment of Fishing Capacity: The Nigerian Experience”, FAO Fisheries
Technical Paper, T445, 2003, 329-344. [4] Antai, E.E. “Geographical and Ecological
Features of the Project Area” In: Miller, W (ed) Procedings
of Fisheries Development Extensionist Training Course, 1991, Federal Department
of Fisheries: Abuja [5] Ben-Yami,
M “Integration of traditional institutions and people's participation in an
Artisanal fisheries development project in southeastern Nigeria”, In:
McGoodwin, J. R (ed) Understanding the Cultures of Fishing Communities 401,
2000, FAO Fish.Tech.Paper, 133-167. [6] Berkes, F, Hughes, T.P, Steneck,
R.S, Wilson, J.A, Bellwood, D.R, Crona, B
“Globalization, Roving Bandits and Marine Resources”, Science 311, 2006, 1557-8 [7] Binford,
L. R. “Constructing frames of reference: An analytical method for
archaeological theory building using ethnographic and environmental data sets”,
Berkeley, 2001, University of California Press. [8] Borrero,
L. A. and Barberena, R. “Hunter-Gatherer Home Ranges
and Marine Resources: An Archaeological Case from Southern Patagonia”, Current
Anthropology 47(5), 2006, 855-868 [9] Brisibe, E. S. “The Nature and Extent of
Communal Ownership of Land in Traditional Izon
Society”, Unpublished LL. B Thesis, 1986, Rivers State University of Science
and Technology, Port-Harcourt [10]
Brisibe,
D.G “Succession to Property in Western Ijo”,
Unpublished LL. B Thesis, 1990, Rivers State University of Science and
Technology, Port-Harcourt [11]
Brisibe,
W. G. “Ijo fishing settlements in Nigeria:
Facilities, spaces and activities”, Journal of the International Society for
the Study of Vernacular Settlements, 3(2), 2014, 35-49. [12]
Brisibe,
W.G. “Common Pool Resources and Fishing Rights amongst Ijo
Migrant Fishing Communities in the Niger Delta, Nigeria”, Savant Journal of
Research in Environmental Studies, 2(1), 2016, 001-007 [13]
Brisibe,
W.G. “Base Camp Architecture: examining variations in fisher dwellings in
Nigeria and Cameroon”, Sage Open, (January - March Issue), 2016, 1-15, DOI:
10.1177/2158244016636942 [14]
Cashdan,
E “Territoriality among Human Foragers: Ecological Models and an Application to
Four Bushman Groups [and Comments and Reply]”, Current Anthropology, 24 (1),
1983, 47-66 [15]
Cinner,
J. “Migration and Coastal Resource Use in Papua New Guinea”, Ocean and Coastal
Management, 52(8), 2011, 411-416 [16]
De Sylva, S. “Contested Thresholds and
Displaced Traditions of Fisher Dwellings: A Study of Traditional Sri Lankan
Coastal Architecture”, Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, 2008,
20(1), 82 [17]
Diaw, M. C. “Social and production
relationships in the artisanal maritime fisheries of West Africa: A comparative
analysis”, 1983, Thesis, Michigan State University [18]
Durrenberger,
P.E and Palsson G. “Ownership at Sea: Fishing
Territories and Access to Sea Resources”, American Ethnologist, 14(3), 1087,
508-522 [19]
Ezewu,
E. E. and Tahir, G “Ecology and Education in Nigeria: Studies on the Education
of Migrant Fishers”, 1997, Tabansi Publishers: Nigeria [20]
Fregene,
B. T. “Profile of Fishers Migration in Nigeria and Implications for a
Sustainable Livelihood”, African Migrations Workshop, University of Ghana,
Ghana, September 2007. 1-10 [21]
Horton, R. “From fishing village to
city-state: A social history of New Calabar”, In: Douglas, M. (ed) Man in
Africa. 1969, London. 37-58 [22]
Jul-Larsen, E. and Kassibo,
B. “Fishing at home and abroad - Access to waters in Niger's central Delta and
the effects of work migration”, in Benjaminsen, T.
and Lund, C.(eds) Politics, Property and Production in the West African Sahel.
2001, Nordiska Afrikainstitutet. [23]
kȁrrholm,
M. “Retailising Space: Architecture, Retail and the Territorialisation of Public Space”, 2012, Ashgate
Publishing Limited, England [24]
kȁrrholm,
M. “The Territorialization of a Pedestrian Precinct in Malmȍ”,
Urban Studies, 45 (9), 2008, 1903-1924 [25]
[kȁrrholm, M.
“The Materiality of Territorial Production”, Space and Culture, 10 (4), 2007,
437-453 [26]
kȁrrholm,
M. “Territorial Complexity, a Study of Territoriality, Materiality and use at
Three Squares in Lund”, Nordic Journal of Architectural Research, 1/2005,
99-114 [27]
Kelly, R. “The foraging spectrum: Diversity
in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways”, 1995, Washington DC, Smithsonian Institution
Press. [28]
Khazanov, A. M. “Nomads and the Outside World”,
1994, University of Wisconsin Press [29]
Kusimba,
S. B. “What Is a Hunter-Gatherer? Variation in the Archaeological Record of
Eastern and Southern Africa”, Journal of Archaeological Research, 13(4), 2005,
337-365. [30]
Kramer, R. A, Siman
Juntak, S.M.H and Liese, C
“Migration and Fishing in Indonesian Coastal Villages”, Ambio
31(4), 2002, 367-372 [31]
Habraken,
N.J. “The Structure of the Ordinary, Form and Control in the Built
Environment”. 1998, Cambridge MA: The MIT Press [32]
Habraken,
N.J. “Transformation of the Site”, 1982, Chicago: ITT Press [33]
Newman, O. “Defensible Space”, 1973, New
York: Collier Books [34]
Njock,
J.C. and Westlund, L. “Understanding the Mobility of
Fishing People and the Challenge of Migration to Devolved Fisheries
Management”. In: Westlund, L., Holvoet,
K. and Kebe, M. (eds) Achieving Poverty Reduction
through Responsible Fisheries: Lessons from West and Central Africa. 2008, Food
and Agriculture Organisation. [35]
Okara,
E. U. “The Migrant Fisherman: A social and economic analysis”. National
institute for policy and strategic studies, Kuru: 2003, Nigeria. [36]
Olawepo,
R.A. “Using Participatory Rural Appraisal to Explore Coastal Fishing in Badagry
Villages”. Nigeria Environmentalist 28(2), 2008, 108-122 [37]
Pinho,
P, Orlove, B, Labell, M.
“Overcoming Barriers to Collective Action in Community-Based Fisheries
Management in the Amazon”. Human Organization 71(1) 2012, 99-109 [38]
Prussin,
L. “African Nomadic Architecture: Space, Place, and Gender”. Washington and
London, 1995 Smithsonian Institution Press and The National Museum of African
Art. [39]
Randall, S. “Review of Literature on Fishing
Migrations in West Africa - From a Demographic Perspective”. Sustainable
Fisheries Livelihoods Programme, FAO and DFID, 2005
pp. 40 [40]
Samba, A. and Faye, M. M. “Etude de la
contribution des migrations de pecheurs artisans Senegalais dans la gestion des peches
en Mauritanie et en Guinee”. Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme, (SFLP) 2006 (Unpublished working document) pp.
62 [41]
Scott, A. D “Conceptual Origins of Rights
Based Fishing”. In: Neher, P. A (ed) Rights Based
Fishing, 1989, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 11-38. [42]
Sikoki, F. D. and Otobotekere, A.
J. T. “Fisheries”, in Alagoa, E. J.(ed), Lands and
People of Bayelsa: Central Niger Delta. 1999 Onyoma
Publications Ltd, Nigeria. [43]
Symanski,
R., Manners, I. R. and Bromley, R. J. “The Mobile-Sedentary Continuum”, Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, 65(3), 1975, 461-471. [44]
Tawari, F. Dissemination of Research Findings
on Nomadic Education in Nigeria (The Migrant Fishers Education Experience):
Issues and Directions. IEC/DFID Virtual and Physical Conference: Education for
Nomads, Pastoralists and Migrant Fisherfolk. Abuja, Nigeria, 16-19th January
2002.
This work is licensed under a: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License © Granthaalayah 2014-2020. All Rights Reserved. |