Problem overview:
Awareness and visions: The fishing community in Fiji has formed a local authority of which has control over the fishing activities. The government has entrusted these communities to manage themselves since they have better understand in the nature of fishing activities and fishery resources. Hence, it will be best if these communities are left to manage themselves.
Policies and measures: The Macuata coastal communities get together each year to decide on coastal fishery access policy for the coming year. In the year 1990, they have come to a consensus on the ban of using gillnet fishing.
Meeting information requirements: The ban of gillnets is believed to have improved the quantity and quality of marine resources and the fishing industry as a whole in the Macuata community. However, there has been no previous accounting of marine resources in the area, therefore, no statistical/numerical evidence can be shown that there has been actual improvement.
Background in summary:
Unique style of management and control of fishing activities in Fiji: Fiji's legal recognition of community fishing rights is probably the most comprehensive in the world. The key responsibility for resource management and control of commercial fishing lies with the registered owners of each customary fishing rights area. Through a permit system, Fijian people determine which commercial fishermen are allowed to fish in their area and impose restrictions on each fisher (Ledua 1995).
Consensus on the ban of gillnet fishing: The Macuata coastal communities get together each year to decide on coastal fishery access policy for the coming year. In 1990, many people in the communities expressed the fear that commercial gillnetting was spoiling their subsistence fishing. The chiefs of several major fishing rights areas decided not to issue permissions commercial gillnetting.
Decisions are made by local authorities: The justification, the decision, and the effective action all took place at the local level. Even the subsequent enforcement was mainly at the local level, through the long-established network of honorary fish wardens nominated and maintained by the community" (Adams 1997).
After the ban, improvement in marine resources had been reported: There was no baseline survey carried out on the state of the fishery before, or after, the ban was imposed. Even so, most reports from the area suggested that the bans were having definite effect. Three years after the initial ban, fisheries staff reported seeing species of fish in subsistence catches from the Labasa River estuary that had not been noted for decades." (Adams 1997).
See document in full
Good practice rating:
(1 for the best, 5 for the lowest score) |
|
Sustainability
|
Efficiency
|
| 2 |
 Improvement in either the environment of economic condition with no harm to the other. |
2 |
Cost efficient. |
| 2 |
Sustainable over time (not one-off) |
Process |
| Adaptability |
1 |
Participation of the community |
| 3 |
Location adaptability (can the project be done in other places?) |
1 |
Participation of resource owners/users |
| 4 |
Socio-cultural adaptability. |
2 |
Partnerships between various actors (Governments, NGO, Academia, Private) |
| 3 |
Level of development adaptability. |
- |
Degree of coordination and cooperation between government departments. |
| 3 |
Style of government adaptability. |
- |
Ability to attract political interest/support |
| 2 |
Degree of decentralization adaptability. |
3 |
Procedures for feedback and review. |
Comments on this example:
With efficient management of fishing activities, the communities claim that there is an increase in marine species and number, while the fishing economy still grew. If only data on coastal marine life were available previous to the ban, objective evidence could be used to prove such claim. Today, studies are being conducted to document the positive results from this activity. With detailed information of coastal marine resources, the Optimum Sustainable Yield could be calculated to better improve fishing activities of the coastal area. This will then increase the number of catch and enhance economic output, but without depleting the resources.
|
Sustainability of the project:
|
Awareness and visions: The Macuata communities have been successful in regulating large-scale commercial fishing activities because they realise that these activities are affecting the livelihood of their own people. They all felt ownership over the coastal marine resources and had a strong will to protect it. In this sense, Property Rights has been established. Once Property Rights has been established, rational and efficient use of resources will be achieved.
|
Adaptability of the project to other situations:
|
Local fishing communities in other countries have similar problems to the Macuatu communities-reduction in coastal marine resources due to commercial fishing. Unfortunately, other communities were unable to get together and take actions against large-scale fishing from outsiders. People living in coastal communities are still indigenous people and do not know their rights over their own resources, nor have the knowledge of how to prevent outsiders.
In addition to that, governments are normally aware of illegal fishing activities from commercial fishing boats in the coastal area but do not or could not take actions against such activities. Possible reasons are that;
- Although these fishing activities deplete resources, they contribute a great deal to the countrys economy because of increased short-term output. Therefore, the government would rather chose to increase the economy instead of protect the resources.
- The government, although have regulations against illegal fishing activities, but does not have enough financial resources or man-power to monitor and control. Therefore, illegal fishing continues as long the government does not know. Fortunately, this problem can easily be resolved with the help from local communities. The government could ask for cooperation from local fishing communities to prevent their own resources by acting as monitoring officers of the government and report any illegal fishing activities to local authorities.
| Process of decision making and implementation: |
Policies and measures: All of these developmentsthe organisation of fishermen into groups providing economies of scale, the private-sector development of iceplants, the development of distribution and marketing arrangements for high-quality fish, improvement of subsistence fishery sustainabilitywere precisely what the Government fisheries service had been struggling to encourage over the whole of Fiji for the previous two decades or more, without a great deal of success. The main principle suggested by this is not, of course, that community-based decisions to impose commercial gillnet bans will necessarily lead to the immediate improvement of an artisanal fishery, but that the will for action, if it comes from within the community, is far more likely to produce positive results than any external attempts to impose such values.
Meeting information requirements: It suggests that the role of government in Pacific Islands coastal fishery management, as well as providing the framework within which community decision-making can operate, is perhaps more effectively concentrated on providing appropriate information to provide a rational basis for community decision-making rather than on trying to actually take those decisions themselves at the government level. At a more specific level, from consultation with many fishing communities and governments around the Pacific there emerges the clear expectation that restrictions on gillnetting will be followed by immediate hardship. However, this Macuata case-study demonstrates that hardship need not necessarily follow and that, apart from the likely longer-term sustainability benefits, there may also be immediate benefit resulting from the mobilisation and reorganisation of community resources to meet the largely self-imposed challenge. (Adams 1997).
|
Documentation: |
Literature or other written project review references
|
Source of Information: |
ESCAP: Integrating Environmental Considerations in Economic Decision Making Processes
Synthesis B Modalities for Environmental Assessment-Pacific Islands Subregion
Pacific Island case studies for Samoa, Kiribati and the Solomon Islands (Unpublished)
|
Contacts: |
|
Submitted by: |
ESCAP
|
|
