Community Centred Conservation (C3)

MSc DISSERTATION SUBMISSION Student Name: JONATHON SYRON Programme: MSc Environmental Systems Engineering Supervisor: Richard SimonsDissertation Title: A Socio – economic assessment of Kia Island Fisheries DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP • I confirm that I have read and understood the guidelines on plagiarism, that I understand the meaning of plagiarism and that I may be penalised for submitting work that has been plagiarised. • I declare that all material presented in the accompanying work is entirely my own work except where explicitly and individually indicated and that all sources used in its preparation and all quotations are clearly cited. • I have submitted an electronic copy of the project report through turnitin. Should this statement prove to be untrue, I recognise the right of the Board of Examiners to recommend what action should be taken in line with UCL’s regulations. Signature: Date: 7/9/11 A socio-economic assessment of Kia Island fisheries Jonathon Syron: Msc Environmental Systems Engineering 2 Abstract This study focuses on the remote Fijian island of Kia, which is facing serious threats to its future due to the over-exploitation of the marine resources - which are the prime source of both sustenance and income. The methodology primarily follows that developed by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) for collecting socio-economic datasets of island fisheries (Kronen et al 2007). The primary objectives were to investigate fishing practices with the aim of obtaining quantitative data, to compare and contrast across the region and the island. As with any research of this nature, there are methodological limitations which confine the reliability of the results. Despite these recognised limitations, it is widely acknowledged that interview based research is the most appropriate method for conducting research in poorly studied regions. The research demonstrates an enormous reliance on the marine resources through various parameters, such as: consumption, income and asset availability. Furthermore, there is a recognition of the social factors which are contributing to the ecosystem decline; the nonchalance and short-sightedness of the community in dealing with an issue which will ultimately lead to the migration and destruction of island life, the lack of leadership and responsibility from all levels of governance; the poor management at island level coupled with governmental corruption and incompetence which leave the marine resources free for exploitation in a culture which is rapidly changing and acquiring a taste for wealth. The recommendations are stark and direct; unless changes are implemented with emphasis particularly on the diversion of livelihoods away from fishing, there will be a collapse in local fish stocks. 3 Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank Community Centred Conservation (C3) for giving me this opportunity; otherwise none of this research would have been possible. Of particular help and assistance: Chris Poonian and Maleli Qera. Additionally, I would like to thank USP student Lesley Lane for all her time and effort in helping with fieldwork. Finally, my supervisor at UCL, Professor Richard Simons who has assisted and directed me through the project. Community Centred Conservation (C3) works in Fiji in formal collaboration with the University of the South Pacific (USP). This work was funded by Community Centred Conservation (C3) and Conservation International. 4 Contents Abstract ..........................................................................................................................3 Acknowledgements........................................................................................................4 Contents .........................................................................................................................5 List of Figures ................................................................................................................7 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................8 1.2i Background .................................................................................................................... 9 1.2ii Ecological Problem ................................................................................................. 17 2. Literature Review .................................................................................................25 2.1 Fisheries Management................................................................................................... 25 2.2 Fishing for Livelihoods ................................................................................................. 29 2.3 Measuring Consumption ............................................................................................... 32 2.4 Changing social dynamics............................................................................................. 33 3. Methodology.........................................................................................................37 3.1 SEM Pasifika Fisheries Description.............................................................................. 40 3.2 Household Consumption Surveys ................................................................................. 41 3.3 Fishers Surveys.............................................................................................................. 42 4. Results ..................................................................................................................44 4.1 Socio-economic characteristics ..................................................................................... 44 4.2 Dependence on marine resources .................................................................................. 45 4.3 Number of Fishers ......................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Catch Distribution ......................................................................................................... 49 4.5 Destination of catch....................................................................................................... 51 5. Discussion.............................................................................................................55 5.1 Observations and Trends ............................................................................................... 55 5.2 Fisheries Management................................................................................................... 57 5.3 Methodology and Further Work.................................................................................... 59 6. 7. 8. Conclusion ............................................................................................................61 References ............................................................................................................64 Appendix ..............................................................................................................68 8.1 Geographical Setting ................................................................................................ 68 8.2 Equations for calculating socioeconomic data .............................................................. 69 8.3 Results: .......................................................................................................................... 74 5 8.4 Survey forms and methods ............................................................................................ 79 8.5 Sem Pasifika .................................................................................................................. 95 6 List of Figures Figure 1. Fiji’s location within the South Pacific ........................................................10 Figure 2. Map of Fiji (Kia Island is located ~30km NW of Labasa on Vanua Levu. .11 Figure 3. Fiji's Tectonic Setting..................................................................................12 Figure 4. Tectonic Divisions of Fiji with Kia highlighted...........................................13 Figure 5. Bathymetry of the South Pacific...................................................................68 Figure 6. Fiji's Coral Reefs with Kia encircled............................................................14 Figure 7. Kia Island......................................................................................................15 Figure 8. Fiji's LMMA's 2009......................................................................................19 Figure 9. Macuata Qoloqoli (fishing area)...................................................................20 Figure 10. Population Pressure on fish resources in Melanesia...................................21 Figure 11. Summary of Traditional Management Measures .......................................22 Figure 12. Structure of Fisheries Surveys....................................................................38 Figure 13. Fisheries Survey .........................................................................................42 Figure 14. Frequency of Seafood Consumption ..........................................................46 Figure 15. Annual per Capita Consumption ................................................................46 Figure 16. Livelihood dependency ..............................................................................48 Figure 17. Annual finfish catch by gender...................................................................50 Figure 18. Annual invertebrate catch by gender..........................................................51 Figure 19. Proportion of finfish consumption and export............................................51 Figure 20. Proportion of invertebrate consumption and export...................................52 Figure 21. Average finfish catch by gender.................................................................53 Figure 22. Average annual finfish catch ......................................................................53 Figure 23. Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) by gender ...................................................54 Figure 24. Importance of finfish sources .....................................................................74 Figure 25. Importance of invertebrate sources ............................................................75 Figure 26. Frequency of class size distribution ...........................................................77 Figure 27. Prevalence of ice usage ..............................................................................77 7 1.Introduction This study is an investigation into the issues and challenges of marine protection in a remote Fijian community. The project arose through the collaboration with Community Centred Conservation (C3) and their South Pacific programme. C3 is a marine conservation not-for-profit group which runs programmes in economically developing nations working with island communities focusing on research, training and awareness-raising. Previously, C3 has concentrated on Indian Ocean island communities, such as Madagascar - promoting sustainable fishing practices. The Fijian programme commenced at the beginning of 2011 with the prospect of expansion within the South Pacific over a five year period. The C3 programme is based in the Northern Province, Macuata district, island of Kia, due to: its proximity to the Great Sea Reef and the subsequent fishing pressures which are placed on the reef, the unique series of problems which face the community and various other practicalities. C3’s main objectives for the programme are:  To assess the exploitation of marine resources from the GSR (Great Sea Reef) through local ecological and traditional knowledge, socioeconomic and inwater surveys.    To raise awareness of conservation issues on Kia Island, particularly among marginalised groups. To train community members of Kia to monitor and manage their own marine resources. To investigate and pilot potential alternative sustainable livelihoods (C3 2011). The ecological well-being of the marine and coastal environment is of paramount importance to Kia’s population as marine resources are the primary source of sustenance and income. This project describes the background to the ecological issues at stake with relation to the fishing practices. Furthermore, there is a focus on gathering socio-economic data which will be derived from: demographic, economic and fisheries surveys, which can be related to fisheries exploitation and the future 8 prospects for the island. The importance of developing alternative livelihoods will be emphasised to ensure the future sustainability of Kia. The drive for conservation and environmental awareness is occurring at a time of increasing pressures on marine and coastal resources; “With approximately 40% of the overall population [Within Fiji] subsisting on marine resources and a distinct lack of alternative livelihood options, reliance on marine resources is increasing amongst the poorest people of Fiji. As a result, effective marine ecosystem management and the development of sustainable livelihoods are two issues that are closely linked” (WWF 2003). In short, the main aims of this project were to:     Explore the physical and ecological background to marine resource degradation through available literature. Undertake socio-economic surveys which quantify the fishing practices on Kia Island. Relate the findings to fisheries management and current environmental thinking. State the conflicting issues to environmental protection, and the future prospects for Kia Island. 1.2 Background Fiji is an archipelago in the Southwest Pacific situated between longitudes 175º East and 178º West, and latitudes 15º-22º South [Figure 1]. There are 332 islands of which only 110 are inhabited, incorporating a total land mass over 18000km², with an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) covering 1.3 million km². The two largest islands Viti Levu and Vanua Levu [Figure 2] account for 87% of the population, with 80% living on the coast due to the mountainous terrain of the islands’ interiors (Government of Fiji 2009). 9 Figure 1. Fiji’s location within the South Pacific (SOPAC 2008) While there are a wide range of terrestrial ecosystems, this study will concentrate on Fiji’s marine and coastal ecosystems which include: mangroves, algae and sea-grass beds in shallow reef and lagoon areas, and various reef types such as barrier, fringing platform and atoll or patch reefs (Government of Fiji 2009). Fiji’s marine ecosystems border the eastern fringe of the famous coral triangle; they are rich in biodiversity and allow habitation for many species of flora and fauna. 10 Figure 2. Map of Fiji (Kia Island is located ~30km NW of Labasa on Vanua Levu. (Government of Fiji. 2009) Fiji experiences an oceanic tropical climate which is largely influenced by the South Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ), associated with high rainfall which fluctuates northeast and southwest of Fiji. The El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) sways the relative position of the SPCZ. During the dry season (May to October) the SPCZ tends to be closer to the north-east of Fiji, while during the rainy season (November to April) the SPCZ tends to be over Fiji. There is however, a high degree of inter-annual variability in rainfall, which is strongly influenced by ENSO and SPCZ fluctuations. Fluctuations in ENSO have been shown to change fishing conditions, and vary Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) within the South Pacific (Barnett 2007). Another important influence on rainfall is the south-easterly trade wind, which carries moist air to the islands, on Viti Levu and Vanua Levu, the south-eastern regions experience high and intense rainfall due to the prevailing wind direction and relief rainfall. Kia’s location to the North West of Vanua Levu means it sits on the dryer side of the Island, but still experiences substantial seasonal rainfall. Kia residents have noticed changes in the climate, with dry seasons becoming wetter, and wet seasons becoming dryer. The annual rainfall in Fiji ranges from 2,000 mm to 11 5,000 mm, depending on geographical location (Government of Fiji 2009). Fiji experiences tropical cyclones which originate from the north and west mostly during the November- April wet season, putting Kia directly in the firing line. The Island receives approximately five cyclone warnings per annum, although the majority do not pose a threat. Cyclones cause flooding and landslides which have major effects on the economy and infrastructure, as well as adversely affecting the population (Government of Fiji 2009). Fiji’s geological setting is focused on the Fiji Platform and the Lau Ridge. The country lies close to the boundary of the Indo-Pacific plate and the Pacific plate, within an area of complex geology and fracturing [Figure 3] (Spalding et al 2001). Fiji lies in the active back-arc region, behind the west dipping Tonga arc trench system and the east dipping Vanuatu arc trench system. The main islands lie on the Fiji Platform, a broad, shallow submarine shelf surrounded by water less than 2 km deep (Rahiman et al 2007). “The oldest known part of Fiji formed during the Eocene and Oligocene, as part of the linear Solomons-New Hebrides-Fiji-Lau Island Arc System” (Malahoff et al 1982). Figure 3. Fiji's Tectonic Setting (SOPAC 2008) 12 Focusing on the regional scale, Nunn (1990) suggests that division 5 [Figure 4] (on which Kia is situated), is the most tectonically active in Fiji with numerous events of 6.5-7MM (Modified Mercalli scale). This zone has been interpreted as a transform fault, along which left-lateral movement is occurring, connecting a spreading ridge in the North Fiji Basin with one in the Lau Basin and the Tonga Trench complex to the east. Figure 4. Tectonic Divisions of Fiji with Kia highlighted (Nunn 1990) The north coast of Vanua Levu borders the band of recent high seismicity, associated with the Fiji Fracture Zone [Figure 4], and a complex history of vertical tectonics probably occurred here. The most recent general movement appears to have been relative emergence, as indicated by the dissection of most valley fills along the coast. It was recognised that a 1.0 m shoreline occurs in places on the main island and offshore on Kia (Nunn 1990). The location and volcanic geology of Kia suggests it 13 was formed as a hotspot on the Fiji Fracture Zone. Further bathymetric details are included in the appendix. Fiji’s marine environment is famous for its tropical coral reefs, and is in the top ten countries for globally significant coral systems including the world’s third longest barrier reef, The Great Sea Reef which runs along the shelf edge (off the north-west coast of Vanua Levu) for over 200 kilometres [Figure ]. The Great Sea Reef is classified as being leeward, outer-shelf reefs, shoals and a northern barrier reef system. A barrier reef is described as being elongated reefs forming walls or ribbons offshore along the edge of the continental shelf (Vuki et al 2000). The Great Sea Reef encircles Kia providing protection from the Pacific waves and excellent fishing grounds, while there is an impressive array of biodiversity; many species are listed under CITES (WWF 2003). Figure 6. Fiji's Coral Reefs with Kia encircled (Spalding et al 2001) 14 Kia is typical of the northern islands in being a high volcanic island, approximately 1.5-2km² and extensively vegetated. The three villages on the island: Yaro, Ligau and Daku, have a combined population of approximately 350 [Figure ]. The community live a reasonably traditional way of life, relying on the terrestrial and marine resources. The most significant humanitarian challenge facing the population is the lack of a fresh water source, with rainfall the only provision. A failed reservoir project and lack of de-salination has rendered the island very scarce of water during the dry season. Figure 7. Kia Island (google maps 2011) Daku Ligau Yaro N↑ 15 Coastal hazards are a huge problem in Kia with many issues threatening the community: waves, flooding, shoreline erosion, as well as wind damage during cyclones. The incidence, strength, and other characteristics of wind, wave, sea-level, and sediment transport processes are also affected by multiyear, ocean-wide, changes in the ocean climate system such as El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), as previously mentioned. Seasonal changes in sea level are usually minor (10-15 cm), but ENSO-related changes can range up to almost 50 cm (Solomon & Forbes 1999). During El Nino episodes, the prevailing trade winds from the east are typically replaced by strong and persistent westerlies. This is due to changes in the atmospheric pressure distribution across the tropical Pacific Ocean, reflected in negative values of the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI). Negative SOI events happen every 5-7 years, resulting in a variety of environmental changes, such as changes in wind patterns, mean sea levels, rainfall, and cyclone frequency (Solomon & Forbes 1999). The projected rise in sea level due to climate change is a worrying threat to the future of the beach-side villages of Kia. According to villagers, Yaro’s shoreline has eroded approximately five metres over the past twenty years - which is significant in this context due to the small coastal plain on which the village is situated. A number of houses have been lost, especially following large storm events when the sea inundates the beachside houses. Further issues arise from: reef degradation after storm damage, coral bleaching, disease and predation, sedimentation as a resultant of storm runoff (worsened by clear-cut logging), reef blasting and mining, beach excavation, pollution and physical damage from recreational use. While the reefs dissipates much of the wave energy, Kia’s relatively off-shore location still renders it susceptible. The prevailing wind direction means the on-shore waves are south-easterly - affecting the largest village of Yaro, except during El Nino periods when, as mentioned, the prevailing winds are replaced by strong westerlies which would affect the other two villages, Ligau and Daku. In this case the fetch becomes much larger, extending across to Vanuatu, with the only protection offered by The Great Sea Reef. In large lagoons, such as that off Kia - where the fetch is in excess of 20km, winds can produce local waves of 2-3m in height, characterised by a destructive short wave period, resulting in erosion (Solomon & Forbes 1999). Tsunamis also present a threat due to the volatile geological location within the Pacific, and have affected Fiji in the past; however, the most prominent coastal issues seem to be those of coastal erosion, storm surges and lagoon in-filling. The lagoon in16 filing presents a serious problem; not only does it challenge the navigability of the lagoon which is vital for transport to the mainland, but allows for the migration of reef fish threatening the livelihoods of the fishing community. 1.2ii Ecological Problem Kia Island was first populated approximately 300 years ago and while fishing has always been the main livelihood, it was traditionally for subsistence, until fish started to be sold on the mainland at the beginning of the last century and to an agent on Kia about 30 years ago. Now approximately 80-90% of the catch is sold. The catch has increased due to both an increase in fishing effort driven by financial incentive, but also an improvement in fishing technique such as the use of high power boats, torches for night diving and the use of spear guns, which coincidentally arrived around the same time (1980s/90s). The inshore marine environment traditionally provided Fijians with the majority of their nutritional protein and remains vital for the subsistence of the indigenous population in rural areas. Fijians are amongst the highest seafood consumers in the world, 40kg per capita per year (Zann 1994). Using figures from Fiji’s Locally Managed Marine Areas Network (FLMMA) - 11,300 catch records from 46 villages across 10 provinces; 70% of the fishes and invertebrates landed in villages are sold, the remainder of catches are consumed at home or donated. Overall, catches were dominated by emperors (Lethrinidae), surgeonfishes (Acanthuridae) and snappers (Lutjanidae), and handlining, spearfishing and netting are the primary methods of fishing (Jenkins et al 2009). This can be compared to that on Kia, as well as spatially on the island. The winter months of June - August are considered the best time of the year for fishing as several reef fish species are known to aggregate on the reef for spawning purposes (Morrison & Naqasima 1999). The estimated weekly income of artisanal fishing households on the mainland is F$34 (Hunt 1999). This is expected to be higher in Kia due to the abundant fisheries of The Great Sea Reef, even if the fish values are lower in Kia than on the mainland markets. There is a swath of literature which highlights the progress and success of Fiji’s marine protection. Govan (2009) points out that Fiji has shown remarkable expansion of its marine protection supported by a national network of NonGovernment Organisations (NGOs) and government organisations promoting 17 LMMAs (Locally Managed Marine Areas) known as FLMMA (Fiji Locally Managed Marine Area Network) [Figure ]. “LMMA: An area of nearshore waters and coastal resources that is largely or wholly managed at a local level by the coastal communities, land-owning groups, partner organizations, and/or collaborative government representatives who reside or are based in the immediate area” (Govan 2009). Over 200 villages across the fourteen Fijian provinces have established community-based management measures and the numbers have increased every year over the last decade. This is partly due to the snow-ball effect which has seen skills passed from village to village and requests from interested communities surpassing existing support capacity. Fiji has the largest contribution to ‘area under management’ (10,800 km²) and ‘no-take’ (600 km²) within the South Pacific. This follows the Fijian governments pledge for 30% of the EEZ to be MPA (Marine Protected Area). “MPA: A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Govan 2009). About 80% of the land in Fiji and 410 qoliqolis (traditional fishing areas) are native-owned. There is an inherited responsibility to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources and for environmental conservation as the resources in those qoliqolis and land are exploited and environmental degradation increases (Jenkins et al 2009). Yet two thirds of Fiji’s reefs are at risk: over-fishing, coastal development, logging, and agricultural erosion are all recognised threats to the ecosystem. Fiji’s reefs are significant tourist draws and, according to a 1992 estimate, a major source of food for local people, generating close to $200 million annually in fisheries and tourism revenues alone (Bryant et al 1999). There are therefore serious implications if the marine environment is left to degrade , and measures should be taken to ensure the long term sustainability. “Because ecosystem components interact, the effects of fishing are more complex than the simple removal of a few species. Ecosystems can suddenly collapse when some of their components are damaged, just as houses can fall if their foundations rot away” (Zabel et al 2003). This paper also proposes a shift in thinking from maximum sustainable yield to ecologically sustainable yield, whereby there is no large impact on the ecosystem in that its make-up is fundamentally altered. 18 Figure 8. Fiji's LMMA's 2009 (Govan 2009) Kia From Figure it can be seen that the area surrounding Kia, on the lagoon side, northern Vanua Levu comes under the FLMMA (area under management). Figure shows the Qoliqoli (fishing area) for Macuata, the region which includes Kia. In red are the tabu (no take) areas, otherwise referred to as an MPA (Marine Protected Area). The Great Sea Reef to the western side of Kia is designated tabu; additional tabu areas can be seen on the shoal reefs inside the lagoon. 19 Figure 9. Macuata Qoloqoli (fishing area) (WWF 2011) Kia The current Pacific population of 9.3 million is expected to double over the next thirty years, which will in turn increase pressure on fisheries resources. Figure 5 highlights the population pressure for the South West Pacific (Melanesia). As the human has population increased, the pressure on fish stocks from fishing and habitat loss have increased, further diminishing stocks. Additionally, loss of habitat induced by climate change may increase existing levels of stress on marine ecosystems, and as the impacts of climate change are comparatively unknown compared with overexploitation, the full, long-term effects may be far larger than presently understood (Wilson et al 2008). 20 Figure 5. Population Pressure on fish resources in Melanesia (Govan 2009) The future of Pacific Island people is intricately related to their terrestrial and coastal ecosystems and a rapidly growing population is dependent on fish as the major source of protein for the next twenty years [Figure 5]. This dependence could cause a future predicament in Melanesia where high population growth and predominantly rural populations, with few alternatives have estimated food requirements well in excess of what coastal areas are likely to produce without considerable improvements in management and productivity. The role played by Pacific Island reef ecosystems extends far beyond that of sustenance or income generation and includes functions such as: protection from extreme natural events, safe transport and providing a central element of Island society and culture. The autonomous Pacific Island countries have generally inherited unsuitable forms of government considering their social and physical situation. The ‘command and control’ approach to policy and regulation often clashes with customary resource tenure common in most of the region, and requires human and financial resources that are out of reach for most of the island nations and therefore difficult to implement through the complex arrays of traditional and modern sectoral institutions (Goven 2009). In Fiji, a dual system of coastal 21 resource management exists - an informal management system developed and applied by a community of resource users coexisting with a formal government management system. The customary system, based on traditional practices that are handed down through generations, is the basis of community-based resource management which is undertaken throughout the Pacific. Although the customary system reflects the ethnic, clan, kin, class and gender situations and responsibilities, there has been little thought of cultural factors. An assumption has been made that the system works and that all of the community members are upholding the decisions made by the community (Jenkins et al 2009). The typical traditional fisheries management methods are detailed in Figure 6. Figure 6. Summary of Traditional Management Measures (Cinner & Aswani 2007) Illegal fishing is a serious threat to the reef; either by way of catching protected species/undersized fish or using banned fishing methods such as netting. The regulation and control of fishing is largely ignored in the area with fishing 22 wardens involved in the sale of illegal species. In developing countries corruption and financial benefit is more influential than environmental protection. A prime example is that of the Humphead Wrasse Cheilinus undulatus which can weigh almost 200kg, it is a predator of the crown-of-thorns starfish, one of the most destructive species of coral reefs. Yet this protected fish continues to be illegally fished and sold via the local agent in Kia who ironically is also the fishing warden and WWF representative. Dulvy et al (2004) found that the depletion of functionally important consumer species (predators) by exploitation can indirectly influence coral reef ecosystem structure and function at the scale of islands. Dulvy additionally states that human exploitation of the seas has resulted in a greater than 90% decline in predator abundance which has resulted in the local and regional extinction of more than 50 predatory fish populations in the last century. The removal of consumers may be enough to influence aspects of marine ecosystem structure and consequently, there is fear that the removal of consumer fishes could modify the structure and function of marine ecosystems, particularly of diverse systems such as coral reefs. During September-October 2008, community members from three villages on Kia Island, Macuata Province, engaged in an intensive harvest of their tabu (no take) area as a fundraiser for school and church fees. Underwater visual count surveys of reef fish size and abundance were conducted on shallow (5-8 m) and deep (12-15 m) reef sites within and adjacent to the tabu area, both before and after four weeks of fishing. Prior to the harvest, natural gradients in fish abundance and size existed within the tabu area; Following intensive fishing, the ratio evened out across all of the sites, suggesting a depletion of large fish from deep areas inside of the tabu area likely caused by the outward migration of preyed-upon fish from the tabu area (Jenkins et al 2009). As discussed, the loss of large fish can lead to a rapid loss of ecosystem functioning, and the absence of competitors can prevent compensatory dynamics and/or substitutability by other species. Highly diverse systems may also be vulnerable to human activities, as more species and/or functional groups can be vulnerable to the overabundance of anthropogenic stressors. This signifies that reef fish groups, mainly the most diverse, are seriously vulnerable to the effects of anthropogenic stressors which may also be the case for corals (Mora 2011). Hoffmann (2002) significantly points out that coral reef environmental change is connected with human geographic factors, such as changes in social institutions like marine property regimes. Following a nine year monitoring programme carried out by 23 the Fiji Coral Reef Monitoring Network it was established that coral cover fell between 1998 and 2000 due to crown-of-thorns (Acanthaster plancii) starfish outbreaks, then dramatically between 2000 and 2002 due to mass temperature-related coral bleaching events, but coral cover recovered to pre-bleaching levels by 2005. Cyclones affected localised coral health in shallow waters (2001, 2004) but caused no large scale or permanent damage and in some cases served coral recovery by lowering water temperatures and clearing new substrate for settlement (Jenkins et al 2009). It can be said therefore, that coral reefs can easily recover from naturally occurring events, but struggle with human induced alterations, such as increasing the number of crown-of-thorns starfish. Hoffmann (2002) found from studies in Fiji and the Cook Islands that the agro-industry is strongly related to deaths of hard corals and has also affected the diversity of the coral. The Great Sea Reef is strongly influenced by the sugar town of Labasa, where there is a large processing mill located on the coast. Wilson et al (2008) cites that, studies on the continental shelf and Open Ocean indicate that the influence of predators on prey abundance varies with latitude, and systems at low latitudes, which are warmer and more diverse than those at higher latitudes, are more likely to be controlled by bottom-up processes. There is therefore a wide range of internal influences affecting the well-being and future sustainability of the reef, as well as the external physical factors discussed previously. Development, sustainable management, and safe occupation of coastal lands necessitate consideration of natural coastal hazards and how they constrain human activity. This is particularly important in the South Pacific, where land area is small, and subsistence and cash economies depend heavily on coastal resources. In some instances, an entire island or country can be categorised as lying within the coastal zone. The concentration of economic activities near the shore means that coastal hazards can affect the entire country albeit indirectly (Solomon & Forbes 1999). This reliance on coastal and marine resources is putting pressure on the ecological wellbeing of the marine life and its future security. Therefore the need to diversify from fishing and seek alternative livelihoods is necessary not only for ecological reasons, but for economic diversity which is important for the resilience of the community and this research will focus on the core of these issues. 24 2.Literature Review This review shall explore and critique the array of literature which builds upon that already cited in the introduction, relating to:  Fisheries Management  Fishing for livelihoods  Measuring Consumption  Changing Social dynamics While marine fisheries management has been well covered by literature, with case studies abundant, there remains a lack of publications which relate sustainable fishing practices to the promotion of alternative livelihoods – an option which shall be related to Kia in due course. 2.1 Fisheries Management The traditional approach to fishery management is centred on scientific information, overlooking the knowledge and management systems unofficially taken up by fishing communities. The application of traditional top-down management is often complex, inoperative, and expensive as fishermen (and other stakeholders) do not participate in the decision making process, and subsequently, do not conform to the rules. A widespread problem with fisheries management of developing countries is the lack of basic data, such as the number of boats and fishermen, type of gears, as well as basic statistics on landings and fishing effort. Often, total landings are not logged correctly, effort information is missing, landings by different gears, areas, and periods are not differentiated, and all the data may have various degrees of reliability. In reality, for most artisanal fisheries, no formal long-term data sets exist (Schafer & Reis 2008). It is therefore unsurprising that no formal data exists for the fisheries on Kia, and in order to make informed decisions regarding fisheries management there needs to be a suitable assessment of the catch and consumption for Kia Island, which will be the focus of the primary data collection for this research. There are numerous articles promoting the integration of stakeholders for fisheries management, Lane (2008) provides a useful source in explaining the challenges for this within Fiji. A significant problem is that of the government and the 25 governance approach of ‘command and control’ which clashes with the recognition of the customary resource control. Furthermore, the centrality of the government does not integrate well with the remote and disconnected areas of Fiji, due to budget and time expenditures. Described as being a ‘vertical’ government, which does not allow for policy negotiation resulting in poor stakeholder participation and hence low compliance rates. Undoubtedly on Kia, the government in Suva seems very distant from the reality of fisheries on Kia, and highlights the inadequacies of central governance. Hanich et al (2010) provides further damming reports of fisheries management and the impact of corruption throughout the Pacific islands, regarding the associated weaknesses in governance to effectively manage and develop its fisheries. Corruption in the fisheries sector is believed to be widespread, albeit difficult to measure the extent or frequency due to the secretive and deceitful nature of the activity. Furthermore, corruption has stolen much needed funds which should have gone to national accounts and local communities, damaging negotiating positions by Pacific Island states, and weakened the capacity of Pacific Island states to benefit from their fisheries resources. Moreover, some Pacific Island states simply lack the resources to manage their fisheries sustainably or effectively implement national and/or regional conservation and management measures. Delving into the literature there is no shortage of criticism regarding Fijian fisheries management, there seems to be a contrast to the literature cited in the introduction, praising the progress of Fiji’s marine protection. While conservation is evident on paper, there is clearly a disparity in conservation at a grass roots level. Wright et al (2006) describes further fisheries management challenges which face the Pacific Countries. The difficulties experienced in remaining up-to-date with international developments relating to coastal and marine affairs, arise principally because of limited financial and human resources. Most national and regional environmental agencies and resource management institutions in the region have limited staff. Although staff are usually highly committed and possess considerable local knowledge, the technical skills necessary to support effective multi-sectoral management is often inadequate. Limited financial resources significantly challenge effective environmental governance in building local capacity to strengthen institutions and collaborations. 26 Another issue is the lack of a comprehensive coastal management plan for Fiji which limits the holistic management and objectivity of resources. Fisheries statistics are publicly viewed as economic statistics with little regard for the consequences of increased fishing efforts. Emphasis is on encouraging fishermen to fish further offshore for commercial markets, leaving a large gap in the management regime as local villagers continue to fish locally both for home consumption as well as area markets. This can be especially dangerous if the assumption exists that marine resources are adequately protected from overexploitation since some traditional management systems are still viable (Matthews 1998). Fiji’s primary fishery are the deep-water tuna fleets which generate considerably more financially than local artisanal fisheries, additionally these fleets are internationally operated and come under far greater scrutiny, suggesting small scale coastal fisheries are not managed with equal force. Jenkins et al (2009) describes the critical conditions for achieving positive outcomes. Primarily these are: political support through the acknowledgment of community rights in decision making concerning the fishing ground, availability of alternative sources of income, active community participation in project coordination, and continuous support from outside agencies. It would appear that Jenkins is in agreement with the other publications in that community involvement is key to successful fisheries management. While this may be true at a community level, is has to be said that government has a far larger influence from a country wide perspective. The Macuata (Kia district) coastal communities are known for their strong concern in controlling fisheries, and it is no coincidence that this is one of the few provinces where decisions about coastal fishery policies for the coming year are taken at meetings of fishing rights owners from several areas (Adams 1998). Figure 6 describes some of the typical traditional marine management measures which are employed, in Macuata and elsewhere. Hanich & Tsamenyi (2009) author a paper which has considerable relevance to the issues which face Kia, namely the concern regarding the corruption and related flaws in governance on the capability of the region to successfully manage and develop its fisheries. Allegations of corruption over licensing decisions at senior official and Ministerial levels have been frequently made by members of the fishing industry and community. In 2004, the government set up a Committee of Inquiry to the Ministry of Fisheries to investigate the allegations. In early 2005, the Committee 27 confirmed what the industry had been saying for many years. Two senior fisheries officials, including the Director of Fisheries, were found to have engaged in the corrupt issuing of fishing licenses and were jailed. Further court cases are pending following investigations in 2007 within the Ministry of Fisheries. Gutie´rrez et al (2011) demonstrate the vital importance of prominent community leaders and strong social capital, twinned with clear incentives through catch shares and conservation benefits resulting from protected areas, for effectively managing aquatic resources and safeguarding the livelihoods of dependent communities. They argue that that co-management, is the best solution for the majority of the world’s fisheries, and can solve many of the problems facing global fisheries. In Fiji there are conflicting management issues, with governance coming from the fisheries department at a national level, and from local chiefs who often have more influence than federal government. However, regardless of fisheries management, and how this may change, there needs to be responsible fishing and a sense of ownership from the fishers themselves in order to maintain a sustainable fisheries yield. This can only be achieved through education and local responsibility at a grass roots level, which is where this research is targeting. “In some cases, fishers are not aware of modern fisheries and ecosystem management and the information they need to change unsustainable practices can be as simple as the recognition that fishing effort and fish abundance are related or that a particular gear is destructive to fish habitat. Once fishers are aware of these relationships there is increased chance that they will adjust their behaviour, management and gear towards more sustainable use” (ISRS 2004). Looking at solutions and fisheries management measures which can be undertaken to reduce over-exploitation, possible restrictions include: fisher or boat numbers, time allowed for fishing, fishing area, fishing gear/methods, fish harvesting sizes, target species. “Social, cultural, and economic forces will often determine the success of the restriction options and the challenge for management is to find the right mix of limits for the particular human environment” (ISRS 2004). 28 2.2 Fishing for Livelihoods Subsistence and artisanal coastal (reef and lagoon) fishing is regarded as one of the most important activities that determine the livelihood of people in the small island communities of the South Pacific. Traditionally, the extent to which these communities are dependent on marine resources is also determined by the availability of cultivable land. Lately, access and availability of alternative income through secondary and tertiary sectors, which are due to a favourable institutional environment, have become further factors that define the social and economic roles of coastal fishing (Kronen 2004). Extending Kronen’s view to Kia, and Fiji in general it can be said that, due to the lack of cultivatable land and the difficulty in accessing secondary and tertiary sectors on the mainland, fishing is undoubtedly the primary source of income, for which the community is heavily dependent. Furthermore the political regime has forced Indo-Fijians on the mainland off the farms which they have worked and subsequently left them with little alternative but low-capital coastal fishing, stretching the marine resources capacity. Fishing in Kia, as in other South Pacific communities involves little entrepreneurial skill, small informal groups, small fishing vessels, low capital investment, and correspondingly low productivity. Kronen has made significant contributions to research in this field, with numerous publications many of which are cited in this research. She is also the main contributor to the methodology for which this research is following and will be discussed in due course. Bunce et al (2008) author a paper which provides an interesting perspective on the primary role of long-term over-fishing in the collapse of coastal ecosystems. Of particular relevance is the occurrence of ‘shifting environmental baselines’ which suggests successive generations of fishers adjust to the increasing scarcity of fish and fail to understand the extent to which humans have modified their environment over the long term. Fishers consequently perceive as ‘natural’ the way the environment appeared to them when they were young and then use that benchmark for measuring subsequent change. This therefore, discounts the experience of the earlier generations, running the risk of wrongly observing social and ecological systems as stable and unspoiled and then failing to adapt even when change does occur. For example, the management of reef fisheries; ‘‘if it exists, has almost always been instigated long after exploitation has peaked. Typically the stocks continue to decline even further and over time management targets slip lower and lower’’. Though fisheries managers 29 can identify damage to the marine ecosystem, shifting baselines among fishers may resist corrective policy, such as marine reserves. Fishers may not perceive any need to change their habits. Fishers’ perceptions of environmental conditions need to be completely understood in coral reef fishery management contexts. Depletion of fish and degradation of coral expose reef systems worldwide to the risk of unexpected phase shifts to less desirable states, which has the potential to devastate or limit social and economic development options in developing nations, embedding their reliance on marine resources. Small islands with limited livelihood options rely greatly on mixed reef fisheries and their bio-geographical isolation, lower biodiversity and higher endemism. This means they can be especially less resilient to catastrophic ecological change, with a consequential risk of societal collapse, which relates to Jennings and Polunin (1996), and will be discussed in due course. This paper echoes a worrying resemblance to the situation on Kia, and illustrates the heart of the problem. Ovetz (2007) states that Fijian subsistence fishers have noted a decreasing catch which is due to the activities of large scale industrial fishing vessels, the majority of which are from outside the region. Declining catches by small-scale fishing communities find it increasingly difficult to continue subsistence fishing, and subsequently the survival of these communities and ancient cultures are at stake. Attributing one cause to declining fisheries is a difficult assumption and one which cannot be made easily, especially when referring to Fiji wide statements. In some cases, such as the more remote small islands surrounded by deep water, industrial fishing may take place but generally subsistence fishing takes place in coastal waters near the community and easily accessible by small boats where large industrial vessels do not venture, therefore it seems unlikely that large commercial vessels play a part in Kia’s declining fisheries. Fijian reefs are good examples for reef fisheries studies as they are managed, to a certain extent, by a traditional tenure system. The communities of certain villages have historical and exclusive rights to fishing in a native fishing ground (qoliqoli) and take responsibility for its protection. Therefore, it is conceivable to monitor all catches from the qoliqoli by recording landings in the villages with fishing rights. Furthermore, many qoliqoli are isolated reefs surrounded by water > 1000 m deep and it is unlikely that reef-associated fish populations move between adjacent qoliqoli once they have moved to the reef area. Consequently, area-specific estimates of yield for isolated qoliqoli are not likely to be affected by immigration from, or emigration 30 to, areas which are fished more or less intensively (Jennings and Polunin 1995). Theoretically this should be of benefit to the research undertaken on Kia, however, due to the versatility of fishing practices i.e. the range of fishing grounds visiting within one trip, estimating the catch of purely reef fish becomes challenges. According to ISRS (2004) the average yield from coral reef fisheries is 8 tons per square kilometre, which is close to the maximum sustainable yield. However, this figure varies depending on local conditions making it difficult to make reliable estimations. ISRS (2004) goes on to suggest the varying factors for estimating resource productivity: water depth, aerial extent, technology of the fishery and different histories and selectivity of fishing, create difficulties for and making precise recommendations on maximum sustained yields. “Reefs with intermediate levels of coral cover of between 25 and 50% of the bottom are likely to be optimal for sustaining high fisheries yields. Fishing gear and methods that destroy coral will reduce the available refuge for fish and fisheries yields” (ISRS 2004). Furthermore, due to the physical nature of the Great Sea Reef being a long section of continuous reef, with some sections protected as no-take areas, means that’s reef fish migration becomes more likely. While this paper may not overly concern Kia, Polunin has contributed to or authored many papers which are fundamental in assessing the fishing livelihoods within the South Pacific, such as Turner et al (2007) which is one of the most relevant papers and argues for a declining reliance on marine resources due to ecological rather than socio-economic drivers, the very core of the issue with which this research is concerned. Kia’s proximity to the MPA, should benefit the surrounding fisheries, by removing fishing pressure from specific areas and regulating fisheries in the surrounding waters. Managers and stakeholders expect to enhance fishing yields and to conserve marine habitats at the same time. Enhancement of fishing yields can originate by a net export of adult biomass (spillover effect) and/or larvae (recruitment effect) from the marine reserves outwards into the adjacent waters. Moreover, these fisheries benefits operate at different spatial scales. While spillover effects occur rather close to MPAs (from 1–10 up to 100 km), larval dispersal may be significant farther away, from 10 to 100 km for invertebrates and 50 to 200 km for fish (Stelzenmüller et al 2008). The establishment of MPA’s certainly benefit Kia, both in fishing yields and in conserving habitats, however, the MPA needs to be strictly adhered to if any long term benefits are to be seen. 31 Lam (1998) discusses the prevalence of reef systems throughout the South Pacific and that most coastal people have access to the reef environment and it’s supporting resources. The author describes the requirement for communities to realise they need to preserve the coastal environment and take ownership concerning resource use within sustainable limits. The right to use in-shore fisheries resources and communal decision making about their management stimulates a natural concern for their proper use. However, following assessment of the environmental situation on Kia, Lam’s sweeping statement seems very distant from the South Pacific envisaged. It is plausible that since publication a hastened transition has taken place from subsistence to a monetary economy, which has taken place to the detriment of the environment. Further counterargument comes from Jennings and Polunin (1996), who are significant contributors to this field of research, with publication notably before that of Lam. The article states that increasing urbanisation within Fiji has driven up demand for fish and consequently the market price, resulting in traditionally managed reef fisheries being exploited to meet existing subsistence needs and growing urban markets, it is possible that this discrepancy between articles is geo-spatially dependant on the proximity and connectivity to a large urban market. The results obtained can be compared to those obtained on Mali, a neighbouring island, by Friedman et al (2010), where the same methodology was followed and similar results should be expected. 2.3 Measuring Consumption Labrosse et al (2006) importantly shows that the analysis of fish consumption surveys can provide useful quantitative and qualitative information on subsistence reef and lagoon fisheries (e.g. the most frequently caught species, the amount of catch and types of consumers) with relation to their impact on reef and lagoon fish resources and management issues. This therefore demonstrates that fisheries surveys are useful in providing data that can be used to make informative decisions regarding environmental management. Moore et al (2010) state that “relatively short (<30 min) closed-question surveys have generally been recommended for collecting quantifiable or factual information.” This was important for deciding and proceeding with the chosen methodology, ensuring short surveys with closed questions. 32 Bell et al provides some interesting averages for sustainable fish consumption; the World Health Organisation (WHO) suggests a recommended per capita protein intake of 0.7g of protein per kg of body weight each day, many island nations need to consider using fish to provide ~50% of protein. Small, isolated islands such as Kia would need to consider an even larger proportion. To provide 50% of protein requirements, an annual consumption of ~35kg would be required. This figure will be compared to annual consumption in Kia in due course. With a growing population across Melanesia the real issue which remains to be seen is whether there can be an increase in sustainable fisheries yield. Furthermore, with little disposable income the shortcomings are unlikely to be met with tinned fish and the poor national distribution system renders it difficult to transport fresh fish. The transition to a monetary economy increases pressure to supply large urban markets changing the proportion of fresh fish used for subsistence and those that are sold. Financial hardship in rural areas coupled with the lack of alternative livelihoods, increases fishing effort and therefore the risk of over-fishing. Climate change will very likely exacerbate the problem with a reduction in biodiversity and the abundance of reef-forming corals (Bell et al). These issues strike a chord with the situation on Kia, the large urban market of Labasa providing incentive for increased fishing effort. Furthermore the opening of a store has hastened the transition to a monetary economy, albeit if material possessions remain a low priority. The lack of protein substitutes on Kia makes food security a key challenge if fish yields were to decline, which is a greater threat than that of financial hardship which would present itself on the mainland. Bell et al also suggests measures for these countries in planning for food security: estimating the catch from fisheries, the contribution to fish to food security and the performance of management to deliver fish to households. It recommends quantifying the following: fish consumption by source and means of acquisition, the number of people deriving livelihoods from fisheries and the associated earnings. This study will aim to research these aspects, albeit on a smaller scale with different outputs. 2.4 Changing social dynamics Agassi (2005) describes the transition within the South Pacific and the pressures placed on marine resources; more families now live in permanent houses as 33 opposed to traditional types, children attend school and pay school fees, the influence of westernised urban centres and media has placed increased pressure of the aesthetic appearance of both the individual and their house. Furthermore the traditional hierarchies are breaking down with less respect for chiefs and elders. With families becoming more self-contained, food and other goods and exchanged for cash, and increasing cash for labour as opposed to volunteer work and sharing of food Additionally the engagement with the global economy increases the need for cash. Kronen et al (2010) provides a holistic view of the fisheries resources in the South Pacific and the subsequent pressure applied by the artisanal fishing. Importantly it demonstrated that the future of the region’s artisanal fisheries and the livelihoods of the coastal communities will be very reliant on alternative subsistence and income sources, which are crucial to ease fishing pressure to a sustainable level to preserve the ecosystem and food security. They demonstrated significant correlations between population size and fisheries catch, highlighting high dependency which is subsequently a factor for exploitation. Crucially they also found that the availability of alternative incomes and the household’s ability to meet living costs were the most important variables affecting exploitation levels, more so than population size, seafood consumption levels and latitudinal differences (affecting biodiversity). This study is highly relevant to the Kian situation and the access, or lack thereof, to alternative livelihoods. Teh et al (2008) provides an insightful introduction for linking marine management to alternative livelihoods. Following a depletion of fish stocks, a substantial decrease in fishing effort is required to replenish and conserve for the future. The paper states lists common alternative income options which are resorted to when fishing activity becomes restricted: marine tourism jobs, mariculture projects, and terrestrial agricultural projects. Additional options can include: Aquaculture and post fishing activities as well as traditional activities like handicraft production. Government, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other institutional organisations are vital in making alternative livelihoods economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable. Ordinarily, fishers will require training, and funding for setting up the new economic venture. Importantly, alternative livelihood programmes should be established to fit within the communities’ culture, resources, and environment. Therefore, an understanding of the fishing community’s: diversity, adaptability, incentives, and vulnerabilities, is an essential part of the process towards 34 sustainable fisheries management, and this research will go some way in answering those questions. Crawford (2002) states the two main objectives for the promotion of alternative livelihoods; the first is to raise the economic standard of living of fishers and coastal communities, and the second is to reduce fishing effort. Alternative livelihoods as a solution to overfishing have been suggested for over two decades. Willingness to change was also higher in more geographically isolated locations, among poorer, younger, less educated and less successful fishermen, groups less likely to accept the risks of a new activity. There should therefore be an emphasis on supplemental rather than alternative employment, encouraging a shift from full-time to part-time fishing. Cinner et al (2008) found that fishers were more likely to consider stopping fishing if they had a higher material style of life and a greater number of occupations. Furthermore, fishers from poorer households are less likely to stop fishing due to inability of finding resources to switch livelihoods, and ending up in a poverty trap. The recommendation made is to direct wealth generation and employment opportunities at the poorest households first. As previously mentioned Turner et al (2007) is one of the few publications with specific reference to the South Pacific and the necessity of alternative livelihoods. Assumptions about connections between coastal dwellers and the marine environment have frequently been based on anticipated high marine-resource dependency on small remote islands. There is however, a tendency towards landbased livelihoods as a more secure source of food in Melanesia, and dependence on marine resources is variable compared to the prevalent role of crop farming. Fish remains a significant source of protein, but data suggests that fresh fish consumption is decreasing, replaced mainly by purchased food such as tinned fish and meat. Level of dependence on marine resources is important in considering capacity to adapt to future change. Where dependence on fisheries is high, or where there are strong economic enticements to over-exploit resources, opportunities to adapt to change are restricted by the short-term consequences for food and economic security. Little evidence exists that changes in fishing practices have resulted as a response to ecological change in the qoliqoli. If the impact of ecological change is insufficient to provoke change in fishing practices, it is conversely influenced by socio-economic drivers. 35 The literature has shown justification for the methodology, in the need to obtain scientific information along with an understanding of the social context. A key theme was the poor central governance and the requirement for conservation efforts to come from a local level. There has been strong concurrence in explaining the need for transition and the accompanying drivers. There is a strong relevance to the Kia situation, and definitive conclusions can be drawn in saying that the functions and previsions of fishing need to be understood, so that informed decisions can be made regarding the future role of fishing on Kia Island. C3 will need to have a long term commitment in working with the community and external organisations in the promotion of alternative livelihoods, both for the conservation of marine resources and the future security of the island. 36 3.Methodology In order to assess the fisheries of Kia Island a methodical and systematic approach was adopted to ensure the study was as wide reaching and as in depth as possible bearing in mind the limited time in the field. Following a review of the literature and an assessment of the relevant methodologies, the Kronen et al (2007) ‘handbook on the collection of socio-economic fisheries data’ seemed to be the most suitable. The method was written for the SPC (Secretariat of the Pacific Community), accompanying software was also developed and is available for free download. (http://www.spc.int/coastfish/en/features/coastal-fisheries-science-andmanagement/software.html) The analytical software is an important tool in being able to quickly and easily sort the information while obtaining relevant outputs. The methodology provided is intended to be used as a guide, and adapted as needed depending on the requirements of the research. Conducting a socioeconomic fisheries survey can help:    demonstrate the importance and value of reef and lagoon resources to coastal communities Fisheries managers understand the relationship between fisheries stakeholders and fisheries resources The identification of problems, key management issues and potential management measures. The methodology used is fairly standard according to McClusky & Lewison (2008), “many researchers use fisher interview data to quantify effort and gather information on length of fishing season, catch per fishing trip and number of trips and vessels.” The data are a good starting point in establishing baseline conditions for the course of C3’s programme on the island. The baseline conditions can then be used, for instance, to assess economic impacts if the MPA is expanded. 37 Typically, a socioeconomic fisheries survey asks:          How much fish is generally prepared for one family meal? Where do you go fishing? How do you fish? How often do you go fishing? What species do you want to catch? How many fish are caught during a normal fishing trip? Do you derive income from fishing (do you sell your catch or part of it)? To whom do you sell your fish? Where do you sell your catch? Figure 7. Structure of Fisheries Surveys How much does the community depend on reef and lagoon resources? How much and what is fished? How much and what is consumed? How much and what is sold? Income Social security Food security The field work involved carrying out three different surveys of: household demographics and consumption, fin-fisheries and invertebrate fisheries. Additionally, a necessary prerequisite is the description of the fisheries, to ensure the questions are relevant and in order to translate the target species. For this, the SEM PASIFIKA methodology was used in order to obtain information on: target species, fishing gear, fishing vessels and fishing grounds. The intention was to carry out a survey from every household on Kia Island in order to obtain an accurate as possible picture of the 38 socio-economic and consumption data. While a representative sample could have been taken, and the data extrapolated, the relatively small number of households meant it was possible to survey every household. The household survey targets the women of community as they are responsible for preparing the food and know how much is consumed, additionally they are more readily available to survey compared to the men who are often fishing or carrying out community work. The field work included a trial run of each of the surveys which were tested six times before deciding to proceed with the questions. The trials demonstrated the questions were suitable, especially the household surveys. Although the fisheries surveys were slightly long-winded it was necessary to proceed in order to obtain a species break-down of the catch. The data obtained could be entered into the SEMCoS software even if there is an inability to analyse without a complete data set. The trial run was, however, to test the suitability of the questions as opposed to the analysing of the initial results. Conducting surveys is always going to be problematic in a community where the study group do not share a language with the researcher. While competency levels for spoken English are high among the community, the technical language of the questions and the need for accuracy renders the need for translators in some cases. This is especially the case for the fishers’ questionnaires where the specific terms need translating. The use of a translator negates the need for the researcher to sit in on the interviews as this only slows the process. The translators used were either C3 staff or students from USP (University of the South Pacific) who have fluent spoken and written English and Fijian. The time frame allocated for the field work was approximately six weeks. While a total of ten weeks were spent in the field, time was needed for the set-up and initial stages of preparing the study, also much of the research would need to be written-up in the field. The household surveys were quick to carry out and could be completed in fifteen minutes. The village of Yaro, was the easiest to survey, as the home village of the C3 research base. Luckily, this is by far the largest village meaning not as much time was allocated to surveying away in the other villages. The problem of access to the other villages slightly hindered the progress of the surveying. The path to the other villages is steep and rocky over the mountain, and subsequently should only be attempted during daylight and dry conditions. The alternative route around the coast can only be completed during low tide and also may be dangerous during wet conditions when the rocks are slippery. During the last week 39 of June, a large low pressure system over Fiji caused wide-spread disruption including the suspension of all sea transport and interrupted the surveying of the other villages. Another physical research obstacle is that of electricity, the village generator is meant to run for four hours per night, however there are frequent interruptions, sometimes for multiple nights in a row due to lack of funding to buy the fuel. This therefore interrupts the work that can be carried out on the laptop. Furthermore, there is no available internet on the island and all literature must be brought in advance or downloaded while on the mainland. 3.1 SEM Pasifika Fisheries Description The fisheries description enables the fishers’ surveys to record species vernacular names which is far quicker and easier, and can subsequently be translated. As a starting point it was necessary to establish the target species: finfish, béche-demer and other invertebrates. Following catch landing, photographs were taken of the different species while also noting the Fijian name. This could then be matched using a fish identification book, and assistance from local fishers to the common name and subsequently the scientific name. The fishers were also able to assist in: establishing the usual harvesting method (i.e. spear fishing), location caught, frequency of capture, market value and destination, and whether there were any specific regulations relating to the specie. Secondly the fishing gears were also recorded: the Fijian name, English name, photograph, details including measurements bait hook size, mesh size, how it is used, and the number of gear on Kia, and finally, and restrictions relating to the use of the particular gear. The details relating to the fishing vessels included: Fijian name, English name, photograph, length and beam, engine size, construction, number of vessels and whether there are any restrictions relating to the type of vessel. Finally, for fishing grounds: the Fijian name, English name, distance/time from Kia, identification of site, gear used at site, main species caught, other notes and any specific rules and regulations for the site. The description is included in the appendix. Prior to conducting a survey, consent was asked following explanation of the research being undertaken and how their answers will be used. “Hello, my name is………..and I would like to take about 20 minutes of your time to ask you about 40 your: household and its fish consumption/fin-fishing/invertebrate fishing. Please be aware that the results of this interview will be kept completely confidential from any authorities and the results of this survey will be discussed in detail with the whole community in a few months with the hope of improving the management of Kia’s natural resources.” Following completion of the surveying and assimilation of the results, a presentation was given to the community explaining this research and the basics of the results. It was important to ensure community ownership of the research. The field survey equipment included:    Copies of the household/fin-fishers/invertebrate fishers surveys Maps of the three villages to identify the households Fish and invertebrate size charts Size charts are used to assess the quantity of fish consumed and caught. Asking the quantity in kilograms would be unreliable as fewer people, especially the women, would be unable to answer. Known relationships between fish (less so for invertebrates) length and weight allow conversions to be undertaken from length to weight. 3.2 Household Consumption Surveys The primary objectives are to obtain information on:      Average (current) household size and composition Education levels among adult members of the household Ranked sources of income and average household expenditure level Average household consumption levels and sources Average number of fishers (by gender) and boats per household As mentioned, in order to minimise extrapolation of data and to obtain the most accurate of results - it was decided to conduct a household survey for every house on the island. Maps were drawn up of all three villages with the houses numbered and labelled according, to systematically ensure all are covered, additionally the surveys can be compared to the fishing surveys, and any other research undertaken by C3. 41 While physical houses were a useful guide, generally, male households ate in houses other than their own. Therefore households were made up on the basis of consumption and where people ate. Figure 8. Fisheries Survey 3.3 Fishers Surveys The primary objectives are to obtain information on:       When, how often and during which months of the year fishers go out to particular habitats Average catch size Catch composition Fishing techniques Proportion of the catch targeted for subsistence, gift and sale, and preservation How finfish and invertebrates are preserved The sampling technique employed was to obtain one finfisher and one invertebrate fisher survey from each household. In some cases, it was only necessary to complete one as there may not be a finfisher/invertebrate fisher in the household. In order to obtain a wide variety of fishers, the surveys targeted fishers from all ages and both 42 men and women. However, the surveying sample depended on the availability of the primary fishers, who are usually absent during the day. The methodology breaks down into different outputs:  Demographic characteristics: Uses the household survey to find out population size, average household size, percentage of adult male and females. This data can be used to gauge total consumption and catch figures.  Boat assets: The numbers of boats are useful in assessing fishing effort, the flexibility of choosing fishing grounds and the size of the fished area, as well as availability of transport to market.  Dependence of marine resources: This category is broken down into two subsets: domestic consumption and income. The consumption provides an insight into the current nutritional value of fresh fish, invertebrates and tinned fish. Additionally measuring how much the community depends on marine resources for generating income, can further establish the degree of reliance on marine resources. The issues encountered with surveying methods will be further discussed in a following chapter; however, problems were expected based on literature reviewing similar methods. Moore et al (2010) states problems which are extremely relevant to this research, “Representative sampling of communities and fishers rarely occurred, in some instances due to a lack of pre-existing information to develop a robust sampling design, in others for logistical reasons, ……….rather, most surveys were conducted via opportunistic or convenience sampling. Interviews focused on the most accessible villages or, those perceived as the most important (larger villages, those using, gears most relevant to the study, etc.).” Of additional relevance, “target catch is often over-estimated from interview….............. memory decay and biased response by interviewees contribute substantial error to survey data. The mathematical equations for deriving the results are detailed in the appendix, along with the additional information concerning the surveying. 43 4.Results 4.1 Socio-economic characteristics Table 1. Demographics for Kia Island Total Total number number of of people households surveyed surveyed 7.0 35.0 24.0 131.0 16.0 96.0 Average household size 5.0 5.5 6.0 Percentage Percentage of males of females 45.7 55.0 54.2 54.3 45.0 45.8 Percentage of males >=15 years 22.9 42.7 34.4 Percentage of females >=15 years 25.7 28.2 27.1 Village Daku Yaro Ligau Average household sizes are comparable island wide, at approximately 5.5 persons per household. The figures shown may be slightly higher than in practice due to the amalgamation of households that eat together. Daku has the highest percentage of females on the island, 10% greater than the other villages, as well as the youngest population. There is no apparent reason for this, although Daku’s demographics reflect what would be expected if outward female migration did not occur in the other two villages, especially Yaro. Table 2. Boat Ownership Average number of motor boats per household 0.43 0.67 0.50 Village Daku Yaro Ligau Yaro has the highest boat availability, of 0.67 per household, this is expected due to the status of the village as the traditional fishers. Furthermore, Table 1 shows Yaro to have the eldest population and therefore the greatest number of fishers requiring boats. Reflected in boat ownership, is the fishing effort, which can be interpreted as being vastly greater in Yaro. The ownership suggests Yaro fishermen have the greatest flexibility in choosing fishing grounds, and a far greater potential fishing area. Additionally it shows the availability of transport, both for getting to market, but also the availability of transport for passengers travelling to Vanua Levu. Yaro’s boat ownership is boosted by the provision of two boats owned by the fishing 44 company ‘Goldhold’. Boat ownership is key aspiration and necessity for families on Kia, government funding assistance will increase boat ownership, which will in turn increase fishing effort and fishing area. Currently some fishermen do not fish at maximum effort due to the limited space on the boat, therefore increasing capacity will invariably increase effort and catch. 4.2 Dependence on marine resources Table 3. Kian Seafood Consumption Annual Per Capita Consumption Average per Average per Total Total Total Average per capita capita consumption consumption consumption capita consumption consumption Finfish Invertebrates Canned Fish consumption of of Canned (kg/year) (kg/year) (kg/year) of Finfish Invertebrates Fish 1983.7 3751.9 3555.3 240.3 537.2 1091.3 53.5 873.1 319.1 81.1 37.4 43.4 10.9 5.8 14.7 2.7 8.5 4.5 Village Total population Daku Yaro Ligau 35 131 96 A high dependency is evident from the high per capita consumption of finfish, which ranges from approximately 40 – 80 kg/year. Invertebrate and tinned fish consumption clearly has lesser value in providing protein for the community. Interesting to note; is that Daku’s per capita consumption is double that of the other villages, while canned fish consumption is half, and a quarter of that in Ligau and Yaro, respectively. From the author’s experience it would seem finfish consumption in Yaro and Ligau is portrayed lower than in reality. A drawback of using the methodised software is the inability to look at the range and skew of results, which would have been useful at this point. It is important to note that only fauna resources have been measured in this instance. The inclusion of flora would be an important follow on, as consumption of seaweed is commonplace. Should this data be obtained, then a holistic view can be taken of the removal of all biomass from the system, which can be further detailed looking at the trophic levels to establish where the most unsustainable consumption is taking place. 45 Figure 9. Frequency of Seafood Consumption Figure 10. Annual per Capita Consumption From Figure 9 and Figure 10, the large difference in per capita consumption in Daku can be seen, of interest is why this is so high is comparison to frequency of consumption, which is only marginally different to the other villages. One possible justification is the provision of a shop in Yaro which accounts for the highest consumption of canned fish and the lowest consumption of fresh seafood. Daku, being furthest from the shop subsequently has the highest reliance on fresh seafood consumption. Furthermore, as mentioned the availability of boat transport enables Yaro and Ligau villagers to go shopping on the mainland more frequently reducing the reliance on fish. Yaro and Ligau also keep pigs which are eaten at special occasions and during periods of bad weather when fishing cannot be undertaken. All three villages have chickens running freely which provide an additional source of protein. 46 Table 4 further reinforces the dependence on the marine resources with the vast majority of households reliant on income from fishing (84% in Daku and Yaro), albeit slightly less for Ligau (63%). The notable difference for Ligau can be explained by the school and the employment it provides for four households. The inability of the land to create income can be seen from Table 4, the agriculture which provides secondary income is land owned in other places within Fiji, mainly Vanua Levu. The unsuitability of the terrain coupled with the high transportation costs render commercial agriculture uneconomical. The influence of the school is evident in Ligau with almost a third of houses receiving a salary as their main income. ‘Other’ generally accounts for: the selling of traditional wares such as mats, small canteens, selling of kava/yaqona. Particularly worrying is the majority of households which do not have a secondary source of income should fishing be impacted. Table 4. Income ranking First source of income percentage Village Daku Yaro Ligau Number of households surveyed 7 24 16 Fishing (%) 85.71 83.33 62.50 Agriculture (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Salary (%) 0.00 12.50 31.25 Other (%) 14.29 4.17 6.25 Village Daku Yaro Ligau Second source of income percentage Number of Agriculture households Fishing (%) Salary (%) (%) surveyed 7 14.29 0.00 14.29 24 12.50 4.17 4.17 16 18.75 12.50 6.25 Other (%) 0.00 37.50 18.75 47 4.3 Number of Fishers Figure 11. Livelihood dependency Fishers account for approximately 70% of the adult population, and slightly less 65% in Ligau – as explained previously. The remained of the population are likely to be women who do not fish, the elderly or male youths who stay in the village. This further reinforces the view that fishing is the only livelihood option for the vast majority of Islanders. The salaried workers, namely the teachers and pastors and nurse are not from Kia but are brought in as skilled workers by the church and government respectively. It should be noted that the fishers included only the adult population. Gauging children’s involvement in fisheries is problematic because of a lack of continuity, and because the perceptions and objectives of children may differ significantly from those of adults. Usually, children accompany their parents and thus their catch and contribution is accounted for by the adult respondent (N.B. Adults are counted from age fifteen). 48 4.4 Catch Distribution Table 5. Finfish fishing Frequency of fishing trips and average finfish catch Average Average Average number of number of Average catch for Village fishing trips fishing trips catch for men women for men for women (kg/year) (kg/year) (times/year) (times/year) Daku 251.3 469.3 636.4 313.7 Yaro 348.7 324.9 608.0 1138.6 Ligau 349.6 182.5 258.2 96.4 Table 6. Invertebrate fishing Frequency of fishing trips and average invertebrate catch Average Average Average number of number of Average catch for Village fishing trips fishing trips catch for men women for men for women (kg/year) (kg/year) (times/year) (times/year) Daku 596.95 0.00 1779.12 0.00 Yaro 652.47 0.00 1842.09 0.00 Ligau 918.85 156.43 3814.84 1505.67 The catch distribution shows some interesting disparities, between the number of fishing trips and the average catch, both between genders and villages. The number of fishing trip undertaken by men is far higher than in reality. The primary reason for this is that finfish fishing and invertebrate fishing can be done in the same trip, something which the software does not allow for. This was overlooked in order to obtain accurate Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) data, which is more important in assessing sustainable catch. Based on personal observations it would be estimated that fishermen do not make more than 150 fishing trips per year, and not exceeding 100 for women. Interestingly, women do not go invertebrate fishing (apart from gleaning) and still have a high number of fishing trips (that cannot be attributed to separating fin-fishing and invertebrate fishing trips). It must be concluded therefore that all fishers overestimate the fishing they undertake, and subsequently the amount of fish which is derived from this figure. It can be seen that Ligau fishermen go on the most trips, followed by Yaro and Daku, this holds for both fin-fishing and invertebrates. The pattern does not hold true for women fishers. The limited number of women fishers interviewed renders it difficult to draw accurate conclusions. 49 While the given figures may be ill-representative, the comparisons should in theory be proportionally accurate. The small sample size may be significantly restrictive here, inaccurately representing reality. Figure 12 and Figure 13 more accurately represent the proportions within the community looking by whole gender groups as opposed to a per capita basis. It can be seen that invertebrate fishing is almost exclusively carried out by males. At this point it should also be noted that, in reference to literature previously discussed, the best fishing months are during those that were surveyed, which may contribute to the overestimation of the catch. Overestimation is common, and may relate to people’s perception of time. While the methodology tries to overcome this by asking how many fishing trips per day / week / month / year etc, there seems to be an overestimate on all timescales. Figure 12. Annual finfish catch by gender 50 Figure 13. Annual invertebrate catch by gender 4.5 Destination of catch Figure 19. Proportion of finfish consumption and export 51 Figure 14. Proportion of invertebrate consumption and export Figure and Figure 14 highlight the proportion of the catch which is exported. It is striking to see how much larger Yaro’s catch is, compared to the other villages. It would be expected that Ligau’s catch would be significantly larger than Daku’s. Economic value of fishing can be obtained from the above export figures. The cumulative export of finfish amounts to ~37 tons/37,000kg. If the value of finfish is approximately FJ$ 4/kg, this works out at FJ$ 148,000 pa. Similarly, for invertebrates, ~155 tons/155,000kg is exported with an approximate value of FJ$ 25/kg equating to FJ$ 3,875,000 pa. This brings the total export value to FJ$ 4,023,000 (£1.4m or US$ 2.3m [Aug 2011]). If this is divided by 50 (the approximate number of households), each household should receive £28,000 pa. As mentioned the fishing estimates are overly high, even reducing the income by a factor of 3, in relating to number of fishing trips and overestimation of catch, still provides an income of ~£10,000. Based on the field experience, it is plausible to say a frequent fisherman can earn FJ$ 200 a week (£70), equating to £3640 pa. There are approximately 80 fishermen on the island (80×3640=291,200), if this is divided by the number of households (50), £5824 pa per household. This therefore suggests that 40% of the catch value goes towards costs, such as fuel and boat hire. 52 Figure 15. Average finfish catch by gender Figure 16. Average annual finfish catch 53 Figure 17. Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) by gender Figure 15, Figure 16 and Figure 17 can provide some interesting gender and village comparisons. The high catch rate for Daku women seems unlikely, but as there is only one sample for this group, there can be no conclusive assertions. The high catch rate for Yaro is quite interesting, and suggests that Yaro catches more in the same period than their counterparts across the island, as reflected in Figure 17. The limitations of the methodology are particularly evident with the women fishers, and the limit numbers of surveys which were conducted on fisherwomen, which makes cross village comparison difficult. Overall, it is extremely unlikely that women catch more than men as a cumulative group, the Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) appears more accurate with Yaro fishermen catching 3.5kg/hour. 54 5.Discussion 5.1 Observations and Trends Firstly, reflecting on the overall results; the data obtained is hugely useful in being able to conclusively say marine exploitation is happening, and the stability of the ecosystem is at risk – which will ultimately affect the livelihoods on Kia. Generally the results showed a high dependency on marine resources as evident from the high per capita consumption of finfish, ranging from approximately 40 to 80 kg/year. Invertebrate and tinned fish consumption clearly has lesser value in providing protein for the community. Of note was the large difference in per capita consumption in Daku which was shown to have the greatest dependence on fresh finfish for subsistence. Additionally, the vast majority of are households reliant on income from fishing (84% in Daku and Yaro), albeit slightly less for Ligau (63%), with fishers accounting for approximately 70% of the adult population. As discussed previously, the results can be compared to those on Mali, obtained by Friedman et al (2010). There are a slightly higher proportion of households with fishing as their primary income, 88% versus 80% on Kia. In concurrence with Mali it can be said that there are few salary-based incomes on the island and agricultural production is marginal and does not offer any income opportunities. The need for additional income is suggested by the fact that 50% of all households earn secondary income from handicrafts made by females, i.e. mat weaving. While this of lesser importance on Kia, this could be due to the additional fuel costs which have to be factored in, as Mali is far closer to the urban market than Kia. Pigs are not popularly reared; only 19% of all households have perhaps one pig, while chickens are usually not accounted for but are numerous and run freely around the village. Distribution of fish and seafood produce on a non-monetary basis is still an important practice; 38% of all households reported consuming finfish that they are given. While Mali’s reliance on marine resources may appear higher than Kia’s, this is far from reality. The relative proximity of Mali to the urban centre, Labasa, has drawn many families away from the island to take up salaried jobs on the mainland. The population of Mali has been declining steadily, unlike the population on Kia. 55 Mali’s consumption of fresh fish is high at almost 81 kg/person/year, and above for Fiji, and more than double the regional average of ~35 kg/person/year. Consumption of invertebrates is lower at ~13 kg/person/year, but still important. Canned fish is not commonly eaten and adds only ~2 kg/person to the annual protein supply from seafood. The consumption pattern of seafood found in Mali highlights the fact that people have little if any access to agricultural produce and also limited purchasing power to acquire commercially available food items, which is reflective of the Kia situation. Referring back to ISRS (2004) and the average yield from coral reef fisheries of 8 tons per square kilometre, Kia’s results show approximately 60 tons of finfish caught pa, which theoretically therefore equate to roughly 7.5 square kilometres of fishing ground. However the varying factors for estimating resource productivity: water depth, aerial extent, technology of the fishery and different histories and selectivity of fishing, create difficulties for and making precise recommendations on maximum sustained yields (ISRS 2004). Furthermore, while the waters immediately surrounding Kia are exclusively for Kia fishers, the greater Macuata fishing grounds are fished by many, and therefore further extensive research would need to be done to determine the fishing effort within the region, requiring the cooperation of the Department of Fisheries, which to date has been unsuccessful. An average catch can be calculated knowing the number of fishing boats, and the average hauls. This also encounters problems, in assuming all boats will be registered, and no boats from outside the region fish in Macuata waters, additionally there is no account land-based fishing. However, in regions of limited data, this would be the most practical way, and should be undertaken as a next step. The catch per person is the most frequently collected statistic for coral reef fisheries but, by itself, is not very helpful in determining the maximum sustainable catch, as it always declines with increased effort. This therefore suggests that longer term monitoring is needed to gauge the sustainability of the fisheries, and monitoring per capita catch over time can be a useful indicator for declining stocks. There are further issues which would need to be addressed, fishing effort and area would need to remain constant over time to be able to compare like for like. In a declining fishery fisher’s travel further and fish longer to compensate for declining stocks, which therefore could be an alternative measure. “Reefs with intermediate levels of coral cover of between 25 and 50% of the bottom are likely to be optimal for sustaining 56 high fisheries yields. Fishing gear and methods that destroy coral will reduce the available refuge for fish and fisheries yields” (ISRS 2004). Kia reefs are known to be under pressure through lack of care; boat damage, increase in coral predators due to removal of carnivorous predators, growth of algae as a result of pig slurry affecting the sunlight penetration and coral health, the dumping of rubbish which smoothers and kills coral. The subsequent reduction of coral cover reduces the abundance of fish which inhabit it. 5.2 Fisheries Management There are a number of fisheries management measures which can be undertaken to reduce over-exploitation, restrictions on: fisher or boat numbers, time allowed for fishing, fishing area, fishing gear/methods, fish harvesting sizes, target species (ISRS 2004). Referring to Kia, a number of these management techniques have been tried; Time allowed for fishing is restricted by customary values which dictate 1-2 days a week for community work, and Sunday as a day of rest. Fishing area is restricted with tabu areas (no-take MPA’s), however on occasions restrictions are lifted and maximum fishing effort is directed at the target area – quickly reversing progress of building fish stocks. Such an event took place while on field, the government lifted the ban for a large police convention for which fish and turtles were required. Similarly, there is a complete ban on the use of gill nets which is ignored and un-policed, such methods are hugely destructive and unsustainable, but yield large catches for minimum effort. Target species are also restricted, but yet ignored as illegal species continue to be fished and sold, something which the authorities are aware of, but do not act upon. Is it clear that the current management and restrictions are not working, and need re-focusing. Whether different strategies are needed, or if the current strategies just need supporting remains to be seen. It can be said that while the familiar management measures have been put in place, which would otherwise counter over-exploitation, due to poor implementation and lack of determination from a high level – the management measure are redundant and purely exist on paper. While monetary values have been researched, there is less information on the bequest value of marine resources and what it means to the community, this would be 57 interesting point, and one which should be researched with setting appropriate management, kept in mind. Looking at the longer term impact of the research, of maximum interest is the need for diversification of livelihoods, for both sustainable marine resources and for the resilience of the community. The lack of alternative income options highlights the destructive cycle which is at play, referring back to Cinner et al (2008) who found that fishers were more likely to consider stopping fishing if they had a higher material style of life and a greater number of occupations. The paper recommends directing wealth generation and employment opportunities at the poorest households first. Referring back to the desire of boat ownership, as previously discussed, it can be said that increasing boat ownership would be a short term solution which increases exploitation and the eventual collapse of the fisheries. Hence, the government should redirect funding for projects which divert from fishing and create alternative livelihood options for the community. Examples of projects may include, small scale business such as mat weaving, furniture crafting, subsistence farming. The biggest challenge would be changing perceptions for income earning, fishing is an immediate earner and therefore popular with the community. Reflecting on the research obtained, there is a large degree of uncertainty in the accuracy of the data, which is a common problem with ‘snap-shot’ analysis. Referring back to Moore et al (2010) who also encountered similar problems, “Representative sampling of communities and fishers rarely occurred, in some instances due to a lack of pre-existing information to develop a robust sampling design, in others for logistical reasons, ……….rather, most surveys were conducted via opportunistic or convenience sampling.” This is a fairly accurate reflection on the sampling on Kia, but is also indicative of research of this nature. The reported catch given by the fisher has a large degree of variability for a number of reasons, such as an abnormally sized catch caught that day. Also fishermen tend to over report their catch to appear as a successful fishermen, resulting in competitiveness between fishers. Additionally, the reliability of the responses given to the questions has to be taken into account, the very nature of a marine conservation NGO conducting research may skew fisher’s responses, to answer perceptively to give expectant answers. “target catch is often over-estimated from interview….............. memory decay and biased response by interviewees contribute substantial error to survey data” (Moore et al 2010). There is a suggestion that closer interdisciplinary collaboration is 58 required to enhance interview based- research design. Further recommendations include: multi-stage sampling, inclusion of open-ended questions, testing of questionnaire, allowing for ‘don't know’ or ‘unsure’, the use of photographs demonstrating gear type/fishing methods/marine species, native interviewers were found to be more trusted by the interviewee and given a more accurate response. Further steps included limiting respondents to expert fishers or elders so that results are not skewed by inaccurate results, and increasing the extrapolation to cover all fishers. Also for the interviewer to gauge the reliability of the interviewee and rank it accordingly so that results can be subsequently filtered. Suitable training for the interviewer’s is also recommended so that surveys remain accurate and consistent for the duration of the research. 5.3 Methodology and Further Work While the methodology was suitable for this research, there are many uncertainties which could be whittled down with further work. A possible variation would be to record catches as the boats arrive so that the scientists record the data themselves and divide the total catch by the number of fishers in the boat. The paper does acknowledge that while interview data may also include considerable error and despite these limitations, these methods represent the best approaches available for data deficient areas. In order to obtain more accurate and reflective results it would have been beneficial to manually calculate the results, instead of using the software provided. The methodology could also be manipulated to reflect the local features and specific needs of the research. Henceforth individual characteristics can be investigated further. However, it would be a very time consuming exercise, and as such was not practical in this instance. In addition if time allowed it would have been beneficial to interview every fisher on the island, instead of one per household. While the obtained proportion should give a high degree of accuracy, due to the comparatively small population of the island it is not unreasonable to obtain surveys from each fisher. Another issue with the research was that of communication, the technical wording of the surveys made translating difficult, and in some instances meaning was lost in translation. This is very difficult to avoid with undertaking research via 59 translation, particularly when translating to a traditional indigenous language. Furthermore, differences in wording between translators can have serious implications. Particularly challenging was trying to translate the notion of ‘reef gleaning’ which has no direct translation, and the translators took it to mean slightly different things, but has major influences on the answer of the recipient. 60 6.Conclusion This research has been undertaken to enhance the understanding of Kia’s fisheries so that informed decisions can be made. The socio-economic data has been used to demonstrate the importance and value of the marine resources to the community. The baseline conditions have now been established and can be further processed and enhanced through monitoring over time. Obtaining socio-economic information can help assess the potential impacts of management decisions and therefore the implementation of alternative and negating measures. In conclusion the main findings are:       High per capita consumption of finfish, which ranges from approximately 40 – 80 kg/year Fishers account for approximately 70% of the adult population Of the total catch, ~85% is sold It would be estimated that fishermen do not make more than 150 fishing trips per year, and not exceeding 100 for women Total export value to FJ$ 4,023,000 (£1.4m or US$ 2.3m [Aug 2011]). Marine management requires some serious changes, which are detailed below. Recommendations for further work include:   The continued monitoring of landed catch, particularly looking for seasonal variation and increasing documentation on caught species Obtaining records from fish agents on the Island to: ascertain the reliability of the surveying, check for declining or increasing catch as an indicator of both fishing effort and marine degradation  Developing technological methodologies, in order to move away from error prone human-surveying. Primary example would be looking to install a cheap GPS system on a sample of boats to monitor how the fishing time and area varies over the medium term, which can be compared to the catch reports from such boats to gauge the condition on the marine resources, and a measure of the depletion of fish stocks. 61   Supporting the current fishing management to uphold the rules, especially regarding the important of maintaining a long-term MPA. The upholding of the rules can only be achieved with the co-operation of the local community, and as such there needs to be regular educational workshops, working in conjunction with: Department of Fisheries, University of the South Pacific and the Macuata district government. There needs to be emphasis on the long term sustainability of fisheries.  Furthermore, there needs to be further education on the holistic environmental picture on Kia, to include refuse disposal and electricity generation. There needs to be promotion of environmental stewardship and responsibility of actions. This is particularly important in Yaro, as the village with the poorest environmental actions.  The development of alternative incomes as a priority in diversifying livelihoods and reducing reliance on marine resources. There can be no doubt as to the reliance on marine resources for both consumption and income. The declining stocks are plainly evident from within the community due to the increased distance and time which is spent fishing. Strikingly alarming is the apparent nonchalance and lack of accountability within the fishing community. The results showed the majority of the catch is sold, which highlights the areas where fisheries management can be targeted. To move towards sustainable fisheries there has to be serious consideration of rigorous management measures, which are put in place with the cooperation of all stakeholders, especially the fishers. With further work, the maximum sustainable yield can be calculated, and assessed based on data obtained in this research. This should be achievable for finfish, however, there is far less literature on the sustainable yields for invertebrates and calculating accurate numerical values may be more difficult. Education seems paramount to the future of the island, both in educating the adult fishers about sustainable fishing, but also to provide the future generations with the skills to work on the mainland – and not be forced into fishing. Accompanying this is a change of attitudes that society is changing and males can no longer expect an 62 ‘easy life’ on the island. Gender roles are slowly changing and outward migration of women will provide an interesting challenge for the males on the island. The influence of western culture has certainly had a part to play in exposing western values. The future prospects of Kia Island are intrinsically linked to the state of the marine resources, and whether they can be sustainably managed. The inability of the island’s terrestrial resources to sustain the population further enforces the importance of sustainable fisheries management. Stakeholders need to work together to achieve a solution which delivers in meeting sustainable targets but does not compromise the ability of the community to meet their needs. The community, NGO’s, government and industry needs to be involved in the process to ensure all parties are involved in the decision making process and in ultimately securing the future of the island. Fundamentally, there needs to be a dramatic shift in the community’s outlook, from its short term exploitive view, to one of long term sustainability with future generations in mind. With an increasing population and decreasing marine resources, there needs to be a sudden realisation that marine resources are not infinite. Fish can migrate, the island cannot! Although urbanisation is inevitably happening in Fiji, the process would be accelerated on Kia if marine resources decline - forcing relocation. 63 7.References Adams, T. 2008. The interface between traditional and modern methods of fishery management in the Pacific Islands. Ocean & Coastal Management. 40. pp 127-142. Agassi, A. 2005. Chap 8 Feast or Famine? Fishing for a Living in Rural Solomon Islands. In Pacific Voices: Equity and Sustainabibility in Pacific Island Fisheries. Eds: Novaczek, I. Mitchell, J. & Veitayaki, J. Institute of Pacific Studies Publications: Suva, Fiji. Atkinson, J. & Collen, J. 2000. Environmental Setting Of Namuka Reef, Suva, Fiji Island. SOPAC Technical Report 324. Barnett, J. 2007. Food security and climate change in the South Pacific. Pacific Ecologist. Winter 2007. Pp. 32-36. [Online] Available at: http://www.pacificecologist.org/archive/14/food-security-climatechange.pdf [Accessed 25/8/11] Bell, J. Kronen, M. Vunisea, A. Nash, W. Keeble, G, Demmke, A. Pontifex, S. Andréfouët, S. Planning the Use of Fish for Food Security in the Pacific. Bryant, D. Burke, L. McManus, J & Spalding, M. 1999. Reefs at Risk: A Map-Based Indicator of Threats to the World’s Coral Reefs. World Resources Institute: United States. Bunce, M. Rodwell, L. Gibb, R. & Mee, L. 2008. Shifting baselines in fishers’ perceptions of island reef fishery degradation. Ocean & Coastal Management. 51. pp 285-302. (C3) Community Centred Conservation. 2011. Programme Briefing: Fiji. Cinner, J. & Aswani, S. 2007. Integrating customary management into marine conservation. Biological Conservation. 140. pp 201-216. Cinner, J. Daw, T & McClanahan, T. 2008. Socioeconomic factors that affect artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. Conservation Biology. [Online] Available at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.82175!cinner%20et%20al%20resubmitted%20080409%20%20socioecon%20and%20fishery%20exit.pdf [Accessed 15/7/11] Crawford, B. 2002. Seaweed Farming: An Alternative Livelihood for Small-Scale Fishers. Working Paper: Coastal Resources Center. University of Rhode Island. Dulvy, N. Freckleton, R. & Polunin, N. 2004. Ecology Letters. 7. pp 410-416. Friedman, K. Kronen, M. Vunisea, A. Pinca, S. Pakoa, K. Magron, F. Chapman, L. Sauni, S. Vigliola, S. Tardy, D & Labrosse, P. 2010. Fiji Island Country Report: Profiles and Results from survey work at Dromuna, Muaivuso, Mali and Lakeba. SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Google maps. © 2011. [Online] Available at: http://maps.google.co.uk/ [Accessed 15/7/11] Govan, H. 2009. Status and Potential of Locally-Managed Marine Areas in the South-Pacific: Meeting nature conservation and sustainable livelihood targets through wide-spread implementation of LMMAs. Crisp: Study Report. Government of Fiji. 2009. Country Report on Pacific Adaption to Climate Change Inception Meeting: Samoa. Gutie´rrez, H. Hilborn, R. & Defeo, O. 2011. Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature. 470. pp 386-389. Hanich, Q. & Tsamenyi, M. 2009. Managing fisheries and corruption in the Pacific Islands region. Marine Policy. 33. pp. 386-392. 64 Hanich, Q. Teo, F. & Tsamenyi, M. 2010. A collective approach to Pacific islands fisheries management: Moving beyond regional agreements. Marine Policy. 34. pp. 85-91. Hoffmann, T. 2002. Coral reef health and effects of socio-economic factors in Fiji and Cook Islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 44. pp. 1281-1293. Hunt, C. 1999. Fiji’s Fisheries: their contribution to development and their future. Marine Policy. 23 (6). Pp 571-585. ISRS. 2004. Sustainable fisheries management in coral reef ecosystems. Briefing Paper 4, International Society for Reef Studies, pp 14. [Online] Available at: http://www.coralreefs.org/documents/ISRS%20Briefing%20Paper%204%20-%20Fisheries.pdf [Accessed 20/8/11] Jenkins, A. Prasad, S. Bacchiochi, J. Skelton, P. and Yakub, N. 2009. Proceedings of the inaugural Fiji Islands Conservation Science Forum 2009 – Suva, Fiji: Ecosystem Based Management Project-Fiji, 2009. Jennings, S. & Polunin, N. 1995. Comparative size and composition of yield from six Fijian reef fisheries. Journal of Fish Biology. 46. pp. 28-46. Jennings, S. & Polunin, N. 1996. Fishing strategies, fishery development and socioeconomics in traditionally managed Fijian fishing grounds. Fisheries Management and Ecology. 3. pp. 335-347. Kessler, W. & Gourdeau, L. 2006. The Annual Cycle of Circulation of the Southwest Subtropical Pacific, Analyzed in an Ocean GCM. Journal of Physical Oceanography. 37. pp. 1610-1627. Kronen, M. 2004. Fishing for Fortunes? A Socio-economic assessment of Tonga’s artisanal fisheries. Fisheries Research. 70. pp. 121-134. Kronen, M. Stacey, N. Holland, P. Magron, F. & Power, M. 2007. Socioeconomic fisheries surveys in Pacific Islands: A manual for the collection of a minimum dataset. Kronen, M. Vunisea, A. Magron, F. & McArdle, B. 2010. Socio-economic drivers and indicators for artisanal coastal fisheries in Pacific island countries and territories and their use for fisheries management strategies. Marine Policy. 35. pp 1135-1143. Labrosse, P. Ferraris, J. & Letourneur, Y. 2006. Assessing the sustainability of subsistence fisheries in the Pacific: The use of data on fish consumption. Ocean & Coastal Management. 49. pp. 203-221. Lamm, M. 1998. Consideration of customary marine tenure system in the establishment of marine protected areas in the South Pacific. Ocean & Coastal Management. 39. pp. 97-104. Lane, M. Strategic coastal governance issues in Fiji: The challenges of integration. Marine Policy. 32. pp 856-866. Malahoff, A., Feden, R.H., Fleming, H.F. 1982. Magnetic anomalies and tectonic fabric of marginal basins north of New Zealand. Journal of Geophysical Research, 87: 4109-4125. Matthews, E. Veitayaki, J. & Bidesi, V. 1998. Fijian villagers adapt to changes in local fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management. 38. pp 207-224. McCluskey, S. & Lewison, R. 2008. Quantifying fishing effort: a synthesis of current methods and their applications. Fish and Fisheries. 9. Pp. 188-200. [Online] Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00283.x/pdf [Accessed 25/8/11] Moore, J et al. 2010. An interview-based approach to assess marine mammal and sea turtle captures in artisanal fisheries. Biological Conservation. 143. Pp 795-805. 65 Mora, C et al. 2011. Global Human Footprint on the Linkage between Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning in Reef Fishes. PLoS Biology. 9 (4). Morrison, R & Naqasima, M. 1999. Fiji's Great Astrolabe Lagoon: baseline study and management issues for a pristine marine environment. Ocean & Coastal Management. 42. pp 617-636. Navuku, S. & Tabunakawai, K. Trends and Influences in Coastal Fisheries: Exploring the Social and Economic aspects of Catch Per Unit in Qoliqoli Cokavata: Macuata Fiji. Nunn, P 1990 Coastal Processes and Landforms of Fiji: Their Bearing on Holocene Sea-Level Changes in the South and West Pacific. Journal of Coastal Research. 6 (2) pp. 279-310. Nunn, P.D. 1991. Tectonic environments of Fiji. In: Workshop on coastal processes in the South Pacific Island Nations, Lae, Papua New Guinea, 1-8 October 1987. SOPAC Technical Bulletin, 7: 6776. Ovetz, R. 2007. The Bottom Line: An investigation of the economic, cultural and social costs of high seas industrial longline fishing in the Pacific and the benefits of conservation. Marine Policy. 31. pp. 217-228. Rahiman, T. Pettinga, J & Watts, P. 2007. The source mechanism and numerical modelling of the 1953 Suva tsunami, Fiji. Marine Geology. 237. pp 55-70. Schafer, A. & Reis, E. 2008. Artisanal fishing areas and traditional ecological knowledge: The case study of the artisanal fisheries of the Patos Lagoon estuary (Brazil). Marine Policy. 32. pp. 283-292. Spalding, D. Ravilious, C & Green, E. 2001. World Atlas of Coral Reefs Solomon and Forbes 1999. Coastal hazards and associated management issues on South Pacific Islands. Ocean & Coastal Management. 42. pp 523-554. Stelzenmüller, V. Maynou, F. Bernard, G. Cadiou, G. Camilleri, M. Crec’hriou, R. Criquet, G. Dimech, M. Esparza, O. Higgins, R. Lenfant, P. & Pérez-Ruzafa, A. Spatial assessment of fishing effort around European marine reserves: Implications for successful fisheries management. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 56. pp 2018-2026. Teh, L. Cheung, W. Cornish, A. Chu, C. & Sumaila, U. 2008. A survey of alternative livelihood options for Hong Kong’s fishers. International Journal of Social Economics. 35 (5). Pp 380-395. Teh, L. Teh, L. Starkhouse, B & Sumaila, R. 2009. An overview of socio-economic and ecological perspectives of Fiji’s inshore reef fisheries. Marine Policy. 33. pp. 807-817. Turner, R. Cakacaka, A Graham, N. Polunin, N. Pratchett, M. Stead, S. & Wilson, S. 2007. Declining reliance on marine resources in remote South Pacific societies: ecological versus socio-economic drivers. Coral Reefs. 26. pp. 997-1008. Vuki, V.C., Zann, L.P., Naqasima, M. and Vuki, M. (2000) The Fiji Islands. In: Seas at the Millennium: an environmental evaluation, edited by Sheppard, C.R.C. Pergamon. pp 751-764. Wilson, S. Fisher, R. Pratchett, M. Graham, N. Dulvy, N. Turner, R. Cakacaka, A. Polunin, N. & Rushton, S. 2008. Exploitation and habitat degradation as agents of change within coral reef fish communities. Global Change Biology. 14. pp. 2796-2809. Wongbusarakum, S. & Pomeroy, B. 2000. SEM-Pasifika: Socioeconomic Guidelines for Coastal Managers in Pacific Island Countries. Wright, A. Stacey, N. & Holland, P. The cooperative framework for ocean and coastal management in the Pacific Islands: Effectiveness, constraints and future direction. Ocean & Coastal Management. 49. pp 739-763. 66 WWF. 2003. Fiji Islands Marine Ecosystem: An overview of outstanding biodiversity, threats, opportunities and key stakeholders for conservation. WWF Fiji Programme: November 2003. WWF. Shifting Perception on the Impacts of MPA: A Macuata Qoliqoli Cokovata Case study. Zann, L. 1994. The Status of Coral Reefs in South Western Pacific Islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 29 (1-3) pp. 52-61. Zabel, R. Harvey, C. Katz, S. Good, T & Levin, P. 2003. Ecologically Sustainable Yield Marine: conservation requires a new ecosystem-based concept for fisheries management that looks beyond sustainable yield for individual fish species. American Scientist. 91. Pp 150-157. [Online] Available at: http://es.ucsb.edu/faculty/lberry/classes/es100f06/Homework/ZabelESY.pdf [Accessed 23/7/11] 67 8.Appendix 8.1 (1.2i) Geographical Setting Figure 18. Bathymetry of the South Pacific (Kessler & Gourdeau 2006) Error! Reference source not found.a shows the bathymetry of the region, highlighting the expanse of the geological features and the Fiji Platform, showing the relatively close deep water due to the dropping shelf. Figure 5b shows the main oceanic currents and their westerly flow through the South Pacific towards the Australian coast. 8.2 (3.4) Equations for calculating socioeconomic data 68 8.2 (3.4) Equations for calculating socioeconomic data All of the equations have been taken from Kronen et al (2007). Equation 1. Annual household consumption for fresh fish Fish quantities can be entered either directly as kilograms, or more likely as number of fish per size class. The correction factor of 0.8 is for the not edible weight of the fish, while the 0.83 correction factor adjusts the consumption on the basis that during two months of the year fishing, fish consumption does not take place due to festivities, funerals and bad weather. Equation 2. Annual household consumption for invertebrates Error! Bookmark not defined. The correction factor for non-edible weight cannot be encompassed under one ratio like finfish. Therefore species weights are entered for the particular species based on known averages. 69 Equation 3. Annual household consumption for canned fish Error! Bookmark not defined. Equation 4. Per capita finfish consumption Error! Bookmark not defined. In order to accurately assess per capita consumption, there has to be gender and age considerations. If the total consumption is divided by the total household number, the per capita consumption will be underestimated. The correction factors made follow the guidelines issues by the WHO (World Health Organisation): Error! Bookmark not defined. Equation 5. Per capita invertebrate consumption Error! Bookmark not defined. Equation 6. Per capita canned fish consumption 70 Equation 6. Per capita canned fish consumption Error! Bookmark not defined. Equation 7. Total population fresh fish consumption Error! Bookmark not defined. Equation 8. Total population invertebrate consumption Error! Bookmark not defined. Equation 9. Total population canned fish consumption Error! Bookmark not defined. 71 Equation 10. Total finfish catch Error! Bookmark not defined. To calculate total catch the average frequency and catch for each gender group must be predetermined. The total annual catch reported for each habitat by each gender by the total number of fishers for each habitat by each gender. The sum can subsequently be calculated. 72 Equation 11. Total catch for invertebrates Error! Bookmark not defined. Equation 12. Total annual export Error! Bookmark not defined. 73 8.3 Results: (4.6) Sources of Seafood Consumed Figure 19. Importance of finfish sources Figure 19 and Figure 20 illustrate the sources of finish and invertebrates, and which is the most frequent. For finfish it can be seen that the primary source is from within the household, although some households in Ligau and Daku receive fish from other households as the primary source, this links with the households which are not involved with fishing and hence are given fish, which is traditional Fijian culture to share. The lower incidence of invertebrate consumption explains the lower percentages on Figure 20. The occurrence of buying fresh seafood is almost nonexistent, with households donating a proportion of the catch. 74 Figure 20. Importance of invertebrate sources 4.7 Target Habitats and Species Table 7. Species Diversity Species Diversity Total no of Total no of finfish invertebrate vernacular vernacular names names recorded recorded 22 17 32 18 21 20 41 21 Village Daku Yaro Ligau Kia 75 Table 8. Frequency of finfish species recorded Daku Species Black Snapper Humphead Wrasse Spangled Emperor Peppered Rabbitfish Yellowlip Emperor Malabar Grouper Speckled Grouper Highfin Grouper Parrot Fish Squaretail Coral Grouper Red Grouper Sky Emperor Foursaddle Grouper Scribbled Snapper Bigspot Coral Trout Longface Emperor Spotted Coral Grouper Twinspot Snapper Honeycomb Rock Cod Pacific Steephead Parrotfish Yellowmargin Trigger Fish Paddletail Snapper Thumbprint Emperor Finlined Surgeon Fish Hexagon Grouper Club-Nosed Trevally Giant Trevally Snapper Various Long-jawed Squirrelfish Marbled Coral Grouper Striped Mackerel Potato Grouper Somber Sweetlips Harlequin Sweetlips Highfin Grouper Brown Marbled Grouper Jewfish Bigeye Grouper Whitemargin Lyretail Grouper Gibbus Sweetlips Narrow-Barred King Mackerel Black Surgeonfish Number of times recorded 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 % of records 2.86 2.86 8.57 2.86 8.57 2.86 5.71 2.86 2.86 2.86 8.57 5.71 2.86 2.86 2.86 8.57 2.86 2.86 5.71 2.86 2.86 8.57 1 1 1 2 2 1 6 2 1 2.44 2.44 2.44 4.88 4.88 2.44 14.63 4.88 2.44 3 1 1 5 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3.61 1.20 1.20 6.02 4.82 2.41 2.41 1.20 1.20 2.41 1.20 1.20 1.20 5 3 6.02 3.61 2 5 4 2 2.41 6.02 4.82 2.41 1 2 1 2.44 4.88 2.44 2 5 3 1 3 2.41 6.02 3.61 1.20 3.61 2 6 2 4.88 14.63 4.88 2 1 2 2.41 1.20 2.41 1 2 1 1 2.44 4.88 2.44 2.44 6 2 4 7.23 2.41 4.82 1 4 2.44 9.76 1 5 1.20 6.02 Ligau Number of % of records times recorded Yaro Number of times % of records recorded Kia Number of times % of records recorded 1 3 12 1 10 5 7 2 1 5 10 6 1 1 4 10 5 2 5 1 2 6 6 6 4 1 11 5 1 3 1 1 5 4 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 159 0.63 1.89 7.55 0.63 6.29 3.14 4.40 1.26 0.63 3.14 6.29 3.77 0.63 0.63 2.52 6.29 3.14 1.26 3.14 0.63 1.26 3.77 3.77 3.77 2.52 0.63 6.92 3.14 0.63 1.89 0.63 0.63 3.14 2.52 1.26 1.26 0.63 0.63 1.26 0.63 0.63 0.63 100 76 Table 9. Class size distribution Total yearly reported number 7235.1 24963.5 9559.5 Frequency % of finfish size class 8 (A) 18.7 6.2 4.0 16 (B) 4.5 5.1 9.6 24 (C) 51.4 28.5 50.7 32 (D) 20.6 27.6 8.7 40 (E) 2.4 22.5 6.9 >40 (E+) 2.4 10.0 20.2 Village Daku Yaro Ligau Figure 21. Frequency of class size distribution Figure 22. Prevalence of ice usage 77 Table 10. Frequency of invertebrate species recorded Daku Species Octopus White Teatfish Sandfish Lollyfish Golden Rock Lobster Greenfish Painted Rock Lobster Surf Redfish Blackfish Black Teatfish Trochus Prickly Redfish Emberfish Giant Clam Elephants Trunkfish Tigerfish Curryfish Deep-Surf Red Fish Brown Sandfish Crab Shellfish Oyster no. 2 4 3 5 2 4 6 5 1 5 6 1 3 5 4 1 1 % 3.448 6.897 5.172 8.621 3.448 6.897 10.345 8.621 1.724 8.621 10.345 1.724 5.172 8.621 6.897 1.724 1.724 no. 7 9 2 9 3 7 9 1 4 7 10 5 2 10 5 4 4 4 4 1 Ligau % 6.542 8.411 1.869 8.411 2.804 6.542 8.411 0.935 3.738 6.542 9.346 4.673 1.869 9.346 4.673 3.738 3.738 3.738 3.738 0.935 2 1 1.429 0.714 no. 5 13 2 14 5 10 15 7 4 17 11 10 7 7 6 4 Yaro % 3.571 9.286 1.429 10.000 3.571 7.143 10.714 5.000 2.857 12.143 7.857 7.143 5.000 5.000 4.286 2.857 no. 14 26 7 28 10 21 30 13 9 29 27 16 5 22 16 11 5 8 4 1 2 1 305 Kia % 4.59016393 8.52459016 2.29508197 9.18032787 3.27868852 6.8852459 9.83606557 4.26229508 2.95081967 9.50819672 8.85245902 5.24590164 1.63934426 7.21311475 5.24590164 3.60655738 1.63934426 2.62295082 1.31147541 0.32786885 0.6557377 0.32786885 100 Table 11. Extrapolated annual finfish catch per habitat Daku Habitat Coastal Outer Lagoon Coastal, Lagoon, Outer Ligau Kg/year/men fishers 6131.88 11268.34 13606.35 0.00 Yaro Kg/year/women fishers 3706.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kg/year/men Kg/year/women Kg/year/men Kg/year/women fishers fishers fishers fishers 0.00 1882.01 2380.86 850.36 94.39 0.00 2653.34 0.00 3507.30 216.51 0.00 0.00 677.21 485.95 403.13 0.00 Table 12. Extrapolated annual invertebrate catch per activity Daku Activity Others Lobster Reef Top Beche-de-mer Mother of Pearl Soft bottom Kg/year/men Kg/year/women fishers fishers 436.16 0.00 405.54 0.00 968.71 0.00 1816.74 0.00 1710.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ligau Kg/year/men fishers 2047.70 2562.47 20026.64 26731.36 9669.20 0.00 Yaro Kg/year/women Kg/year/men Kg/year/women fishers fishers fishers 0.00 4496.06 0.00 0.00 3925.13 0.00 1466.36 11747.84 0.00 0.00 53294.32 0.00 0.00 9430.52 0.00 9073.36 0.00 0.00 78 8.4 Survey forms and methods 79 80 81 82 83 How much did you catch during your last fishing trip (your catch or share of catch only)? (Use size charts) On your last fishing trip as above, what kinds of fish do you catch? (Fill in the names and numbers per size class 84 85 86 87 88 On your last gleaning trip, what species did you catch? (Fill in names and numbers per size class) (use size charts) On your last dive trip, what species did you catch? (Fill in names and numbers per size class) (use size charts) 89 90 91 92 93 94 8.5 SEM PASIFIKA DESCRIPTION OF FISHERIES Kia Island, Fiji TABLE 1 TARGET SPECIES– including all finfish, invertebrates, turtles etc Fijian name Common name Latin name Photo Harvesting method (from Table 2) Location caught (e.g. reef, seagrass, open sea) Frequency of capture (daily, weekly, monthly, less frequently) Value (High /medium /low) or price kg-1 Market (local (Kia)/ national / international) Specific rules, restrictions, legislation, licences applicable to this species Dairo (tero) Sandfish Metriatyla scabra Diving Open sea Monthly $1.80/individual International N/A Drilulu driloli Blackfish Actinopyga miliaris Diving Open sea Monthly $6/kg International N/A Dritabua Deep-surf red fish Actinopyga echinites Diving Open sea Monthly $6/kg International N/A Green - Green fish Stichopus Unavailable Diving Open sea Monthly $0.70/cucumber International N/A Sucudrau Laulevu Loliloli- loiloi Sucudrau Curry fish Lollyfish Prickly redfish chloronotus Stichopus variegates Halodeima atra Thelenota ananas Unavailable Unavailable Diving Diving Diving Open sea Open sea Open sea Monthly Monthly Monthly $3/cucumber $2/kg $7/kg International International International N/A N/A N/A Sucuwalu Tarase White teatfish Surf redfish Microthele fuscogilva Actinopyga mauritiana Unavailable Diving Diving Open sea Open sea Monthly Monthly $25/kg $5/kg International International N/A N/A Tavunialoaloa Black teatfish Microthele nobilis Diving Open sea Monthly $15/kg International N/A 96 Vula Elephant’s trunkfish Holothuria fuscopunctata Diving Open sea Monthly $3/kg International N/A Vulavula Brown sandfish Painted rock lobster Bohadschia vitiensis Unavailable Diving Open sea Monthly $2/kg International N/A CRUSTACEANS Uraudina Panulirus versicolor Diving Reef Weekly $20/kg International/L N/A ocal Urauvatuvatu - uraukula Golden rock lobster Panulirus penicillatus Diving Reef Weekly $10/kg International/L N/A ocal FISH Balagi Finlined surgeon fish Acanthurus grammoptilus And other Acanthurus (mata, xanthopterus) Spear Reef Daily $3/kg Local N/A 97 Balara – tunatuna/bak u Balolo Moustach e conger Black surgeon fish Conger cinereus Unavailable Spear Spear Reef Reef Weekly Daily $4/kg International Local N/A N/A Acanthurus gahhm And other Acanthurus $3/kg Batisai Blacksadd le coral grouper Plectropomus laevis Spear Reef Daily $3/kg Local N/A Bici Somber sweetlips – ministrel sweetlips Longjawed squirrel fish Plectorhinchus schotaf Spear Reef Daily $4/kg International N/A Corocoro Sargocentron spiniferum And other soldierfish/squirr elfish Unavailable Spear Reef Weekly $3kg Local N/A 98 Cumu/ Cumu qau Yellow margin trigger fish Lyretail grouper – Yellow edged lyretail Twinspot snapper – brownstri pe red snapper River snapper – Mangrove red snapper Two-spot snapper – Humpbac k red snapper Pseudobalistes flavimarginatus NO  Balistoides viridescens And other Balistides Variola louti Spear Reef Daily $2/kg Local N/A Curusara Spear Reef Weekly $4/kg International N/A Damu Lutjanus vitta OR Lutjanus biguttatus (twospot snapper)? Unavailable Spear Reef Weekly $3/kg Local N/A Damu ni Waidranu Damu Drami Danabe Lutjanus argentimaculatus Unavailable Spear Reef Weekly $3/kg Local N/A Lutjanus gibbus Unavailable Line Reef Weekly $3/kg Local N/A Delabulewa Epinephelus fuscoguttatus Unavailable Spear Reef Daily $4/kg International N/A 99 Dokoni Dokanivudi Longface emperor Lethrinus olivaceus Line Reef Daily $4/kg International N/A Donu - lava = Plectopromus gender Donucurusara Donutuimuri – Donu damu varavaranitog a Draudrau / varivoce Big spot coral trout - Plectropomus spp. Spear Reef Daily $7/kg International N/A Unavailable White edged lyretail grouper Humphea d wrasse Variola albimarginata Line Spear Reef Reef Weekly Weekly $2/kg $4/kg Local International N/A N/A Cheilinus undulatus Spear Deep sea/Reef Daily $3/KG Local Illegal to land this spp. Guru ni sese Could not match identificat ion Kyphosus cinerascens or vaigiensis Unavailable Spear Reef Daily $4/KG International N/A 100 Kabatia Orange stripe emperor Lethrinus obsoletus? = Kawago in Fiji and other Lethrinus spp. Line Reef Daily $4/KG International N/A Kacika Yellowlip emperor Lethrinus xanthochilus Line Reef Daily $6/KG International N/A Kaikai Kake Many different snapper spp Leiognathus spp. or Gazza minuta Lutjanus spp. Unavailable Line Line Reef Reef Weekly Daily $3/KG $4/KG Local International N/A N/A Kanace Liza melinoptera or Moolgarda seheli or Crenimugil crenilabis Unavailable Net Reef Weekly $4/KG International Kanakanailag i Kasala Netfin grouper Unavailable Epinephelus morio only in Caribbean Kasala = E. miliaris in Fijian Line Spear Reef Reef Daily Daily $3/KG $6/KG Local International N/A N/A Unavailable 101 Kavu Speckled blue grouper Kavudamu Redmouth grouper Epinephelus flavocaeruleus OR Epinephelus cyanopodus = Ceva (OR Epinephelus lanceolatus = Kavu = Giant grouper) Aethaloperca rogaa Spear Reef Daily $4/KG International N/A Spear Reef Daily $4/KG International N/A Kawago Spangled emperor Lethrinus nebulosus Line Reef Weekly $6/KG International N/A Kawakawa = Epinephelus gender in Fiji Kela?? Honeyco mb rock cod Barcheek trevally Epinephelus spp. ??? Unavailable Spear Spear Reef Reef Daily Daily $6/KG International Local N/A N/A Carangoides plagiotaenia = Tokadrau in Fijian Kela = Lactarius lactarius in Fiji $3/KG 102 Kolekole / sevaseva Harlequin sweetlips Plectorhinchus chaetodonoides Spear Reef Daily $4/KG International N/A Lele – Ta lele/tivitivi Bluespine unicorn fish Naso unicornis Spear Reef Weekly $3/KG Local N/A Lokia Masimasi Mataere Spotted coral grouper Whitemar gin unicornfis h Coral hind - grouper Plectropomus maculatus Unavailable Unavailable Spear Spear Reef Reef Daily Daily $4/KG International Local N/A N/A Naso annulatus $3/KG Cephalopholis miniata Spear Reef Daily $6/KG International N/A Matailoilo Matu Bigeye Slender Priacanthus arenatus = Atlantic bigeye (Not in Fiji) Gerres acinaces = longirostris = strongspine ! Unavailable Unavailable Net Spear Reef Reef Daily Weekly $4/KG $3/KG International Local N/A N/A 103 spine mojarra Mesa Scribbled or blubberlip snapper mojarra  Gerres erythrourus = Deep bodied mojarra = Matu Lutjanus rivulatus Spear Reef Daily $2/KG Local N/A Mu Munua Delabulewa Unavailable Brownmarbled grouper Epinephelus fuscoguttatus Spear Spear Reef Reef Daily Daily $6/KG $4/KG International International N/A N/A Nuqa Ogo Scribbled rabbitfish Great barracuda Yellow fin goatfish Siganus spinus Unavailable Spear Spear Reef Reef Weekly Weekly $6/KG $3/KG International Local N/A N/A Sphyraena barracuda Ose Mulloidichthys martinicus only in the Atlantic  Mulloidichthys vanicolensis = Ose Spear Reef Daily $4/KG International N/A Oto Malabar Epinephelus malabaricus Unavailable Line Reef Weekly $6/KG International N/A 104 Pakapaka grouper Smalltoot h job fish Aphareus furca Pakapaka = Aphareus rutilans in Fijian Spear Reef Weekly $4/KG International N/A Qiawanitoga Lesson’s sweetlips Plectorhinchus lineatus = yellowbanded sweetlips Line Reef Daily $4/KG International N/A Sabutu Sky emperor Lethrinus mahsena Spear Reef Daily $6/KG International N/A Sabutudamu Saku?? Sakubalavu Salala Orange spotted emperor Blackfin squirrelfis h White spotted grouper Striped Lethrinus erythracanthus Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Line Spear Net Spear Reef Reef Reef Reef Daily Daily Daily Weekly $6/KG International Local International Local N/A N/A N/A N/A Neoniphon opercularis $3/KG Epinephelus caeruleopunctatu s Rastrelliger kanagurta $6/KG $3/KG 105 Saqa mackerel – long jawed mackerel Giant trevally Caranx ignobilis Spear Reef Daily $3/KG Local N/A Saqavisewa Savaroro Sevaseva?? Indian threadfin Trigger fish spp. Highfin grouper – snubnose grouper Alectis indicus Unavailable Unavailable Line spear Line Reef Reef Reef Weekly Daily Daily $3/KG $2/kg $4/KG Local Local International N/A N/A N/A Unknown Epinephelus maculatus OR macrospilos = kawakawa in Fijian Sphyraena spp Grouper spp… unsure due to sizing ‘’ ‘’ Barracuda Hexgon grouper?? Sinusinubalot ‘’ ‘’ u Silasila Sinusinu Unavailable Unavailable Line Line Spear Reef Reef Reef Daily Daily Daily $3/KG $3/KG $6/KG Local Local International N/A N/A N/A 106 Soisoi Malabar grouper Epinephelus malabaricus = Kawakawa in Fijian Picture? Line Reef Weekly $6/KG International N/A Taea Humpbac k or paddle tail snapper Black snapper Lutjanus gibbus Picture Humpback? Fijian: Bo, Taen, Sabuta damu or Yabo Macolor niger Spear Reef Daily $4/KG International N/A Taqara Spear Reef Daily $4/KG International N/A = Koko in Fijian Tikilo Tila = Acanthurus genus Tiridamu See Damu Drami Toatoa Gugu Surge grouper Palelipped surgeonfis h River snapped/ mangrove jack Yellow boxfish Epinephelus socialis Acanthurus leucocheilus Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Spear Spear Spear Reef Reef Reef Daily Daily Daily $4/KG $3/KG International Local Local N/A N/A Lutjanus argentimaculatus $3/KG Ostracion cubicus Unavailable Spear Reef Daily $2/kg Local N/A 107 Tubuna = gusu bi Gibbus sweetlips blubberlip Parrot fish Plectorhinchus gibbosus Spear Reef Daily $4/KG International N/A Ulavi Scaridae spp Line Reef Daily $3/KG Local N/A Utu – uto/utouto Green jobfish Aprion virescens Line Reef Daily $4/KG International N/A Vakatawanicu Halfspotte ka d hind Cephalopholis hemistiktos Only in the Red Sea  ? Line Reef Daily $3/KG Local N/A Vauvau Unicorn filefish Aluterus monoceros Spear Reef Daily $3/KG Local N/A 108 Vilu Bar jack – blue trevally Carangoides ferdau net Reef Daily $3/KG Local N/A Volaca Volotu Vermincul ate rabbitfish Gray angelfish Longfin spadefish – Longfin batfish Siganus vermiculatus Unavailable Unavailable Spear Spear Reef Reef Weekly Daily $6/KG International Local N/A N/A Vunavuna + draudrau, lasi daveta, marau, tivitivi etc. Pomacanthus arcuatus Doesn’t appear to be present in Fiji Platax teira $3/KG Line Reef Daily $3/KG Local N/A Waimerarawa Walu Narrowbarred king mackerel Yawa Milkfish Scomberomorus commerson Unavailable Unavailable Spear net Open sea Reef Daily Daily $3/KG $4/KG Local International N/A N/A Chanos chanos net Reef Weekly $3/KG Local N/A 109 BIVALVES/GASTEROPODS Vasuacega cega Kaikoso/Qeq e Katavatu kativatu Kolakola saulaki Sigawale silawale Vasuadina matau Golea - gerra Lasawa Sici/Leru Tovu Yaga/Ega Lokolokoniqi o Fluted giant clam Arkshell Rugose giant clam Thorny oyster Surf clam Smooth giant clam Stromb Turban shell Trochus shell Top shell Spider shell Starfishstriped juvenile/b lue adult Tridacna squamosa Anadara cornea Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable Diving Diving Diving Diving Diving Diving Diving Diving Diving Diving Diving Reef Reef Reef Reef Reef Reef Reef Reef Reef Reef Reef Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Weekly Monthly $20/kg $3/kg $20/kg n/a n/a $20/kg $3/kg $5/kg $7.50/kg n/a $3/kg n/a International International International n/a n/a International International International International n/a International n/a N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Vasticardium spp. Weekly Spondylus ducalis Atactodea striata Tridacna derasa Strombus gibberulus Turbo chrystomus Trochus niloticus Tectus pyramis Lambis lambis unknown 110 TABLE 2 FISHING GEARincluding all means of harvesting marine animals (e.g. inc gleaning from the reef flat by hand, spears, traps etc) Fijian name English name Photo Details , (measurements, bait, hook size, mesh size) How is it used? Number of this gear on Kia Rules, restrictions, legislation, licences governing use of this gear Da ai Spear gun A ‘gun’ fashioned from timber with a plastic handle are usually made by the fishers themselves. Using an elastic bungee to propel the long metal spear through the water. The spear is attached to the gun to prevent the issue of spear loss. The fishermen also wear mask and snorkel and fins to aid them beneath the water. 45-50 Fishermen swim along the surface of the water or slightly below the waters surface, visually location fish. The gun is loaded at the surface by stretching the elastic to the trigger. After an area with a substantial number of larger fish is located the fishermen will dive up to 15m to come within range of the fish. The gun is then fired, if the target is hit the fishermen swims to the surface, bringing the gun and hence the fish with him. The fish is killed at the surface an provided it is not too large; it is attached to a string through the Spear fishing at night is illegal. Endangered species cannot be targeted; humphead wrasse and giant grouper. 111 BatiniSiwa/Siwa Hook and Line mouth and gills which is secured to a float at the surface until the boat comes to collect the catch and fishermen. 25-30 Hooks are tied onto Hook sizes vary depending on fish fishing lines which are wound around circular species targeted wheels. Bait is attached and range from to the hook. A length of loose line is let out and the hook end is rapidly circulated above the head before being released as far as possible. The line is then held in the hand using one finger and one thumb to detect when a fish has taken the bait. After a fish is snagged the line is pulled in by hand. 112 Tagabaya Bait Net Small hand held nets with a small mesh size of approximately 1inch. In a hexagonal shape weighed at the ends. The centre of the net has a rope attached to it for retrieval. Tagalawa Fish drives (net) No photo available as nets are only used for special occasions. 1 net boat (no engine) 1 boat with engine. 1 large net – mesh size cm. The net is held in the centre by the rope. When a school of bait fish (Daniva) is located in the shallow coastal waters. The net is thrown so that it opens up over the fish, while the rope remains in the fishermens hand. The rope is then pulled which causes the weights to close the net at the bottom trapping the fish. Fish drives are a traditional activity which usually occurs when the TuiMacuata calls on the traditional fishermen for fish for a large celebration. 2 boats go out with one large net. 1 boat has an engine whereas the other is towed with the nets on board. The net boat is maneuvered 25-30 As the bat is used in hook and line fishing. N/A All able men partake in fish drives when the TuiMacuata requests. If the provincial chief calls for a fish drive. All legislations are lifted. 113 Nunu/Samarini Free diving Only snorkel and mask required. No equipment used other than mask and snorkel and fins, for propulsion underwater. Dolovono Turtle Catching No additional equipment required. Boat. around shoals of fish using paddles. The net is released between the 2 boats to catch large quantities of fish. Used when targeting lobster and beche-demer. Similarly to spear gun fishing the fishermen swim in the surface waters before diving down to up to 15m. However here the targeted species is removed by hand and carried to the surface. Again when the TuiMacuata calls for turtles for a particularly special celebrations. Boats will go out and search for turtles. Once a turtle is located it will be chased by the boat until it is exhausted and easily extracted from the water. 45-50 If the TuiMacuatacalls, again all able men will partake. If the provincial chief calls for a fish drive. All legislations are lifted. 114 TABLE 3 FISHING VESSELS Fijian name English name Photo Length and beam Engine (Outboard / Inboard, power) Outboard motor (15 or 40hp) Material (wood / fiberglass / aluminium) Fiberglass Number of these vessels on Kia 13 Yaro 5Ligau 0 Daku Rules, restrictions, legislation, licences applicable to vessel All vessels require a license which is applied for from the fisheries agency. A license costs approximately $50 initially. With an annual $15 renewal charge. Fiber Fiberglass boat 22ft x 5ft 115 TABLE 4 FISHING GROUNDS – note names of particularly knowledgeable informants for a focus group to map the grounds after we have compiled this table Fijian name Alternative name Distance from Kia / mins by boat Kia is in the fishing ground How do you identify this site? eg Nearest landmark / island Location in relation to the reef Gears used at this site All detailed above Main species caught at this site All detailed above Other notes about this site The traditional fishing grounds for the ‘Gonedau’. The traditional fishermen for the provincial chief. Combined fishing ground for all of the province of Macuata. Occasionally the fishers travel to the Bua fishing grounds to ‘camp’ at sea and fish for 2 whole days and much of the night. It is illegal for the fishers to target this area. Site / area- based rules, restrictions, legislation, licences No night diving. No net fishing. No use of compressors. It is illegal to land turtles and the humphead wrasse. Must have a fishing license and a boat license. Only boats with Macuata licenses are permitted to target this Qoliqoli. All the same restrictions apply. Only boats with Bua licenses are permitted to fish with this Qoliqoli. QoliqoliCokovata Kia fishing ground QoliqoliBua Bua Fishing Grounds Travel takes 7 hours by fiberglass boat. When you pass the end of the province of Macuata as marked on the mainland. All detailed above All detailed above. 116