Understanding the “Ridge to Reef” Management Setting

“Ridge to reef” management is an easy way of getting across the key principle of ecosystem-based management, which is to consider how ecological processes and human impacts are connected across the landscape.

Fiji is a nation rich in terrestrial and marine resources upon which the majority of residents depend on for part, if not all, of their livelihoods. However, these same resources are threatened by coastal development, population growth, unsustainable resource extraction, and weak conservation policies (Chandra 2011, 176; Uniquest 2010b, 3). Fiji’s high levels of biodiversity have attracted support from international donor organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to implement sustainable coastal resource management efforts (Sievanen et al 2012). Although much planning has occurred at both the national and local scale for resource management, the complexity of cross-scale interactions amongst networks of resource stakeholders has kept many of these efforts from reaching their full potential (Chandra, 2011; Lane, 2008).

To further understand NRM frameworks in Fiji, a clear understanding of the nested political and spatial scales (Sievanen et al 2012), and the plurality of traditional and legal resource governance institutions must be established (Clarke and Jupiter, 2010). Basically there are two governments in Fiji, the traditional and the national, and various nested-scales for each. Here I will try to summarize the three NRM frameworks are being implemented at the different scales, using our Province as an example.

The three NRM frameworks being implemented in Bua Province are as follows: community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) at the village scale, ecosystem based management (EBM) at the district scale, and integrated coastal management (ICM) at the provincial scale. ICM has also been adopted as the NRM framework at the national level. It can be assumed the aforementioned frameworks adhere to a systems approach in applying principles of adaptive co-management and cross-scale governance (See Folke et al 2005).

A system of traditional resource governance exists in Fijian communities. In spite of the fact that indigenous (iTaukei) people own approximately 90% of land and maintain the rights to use traditional in-shore fishing grounds (iqoliqoli), there is lacking legal recognition by government of management decisions or protected areas established by communities (Clarke and Jupiter 2010a, Lane 2008). Traditional governance a has a nested structure, as does the national government. The land-owning unit is the mataqali, a clan made up of related families (vuvale). Related clans form a yavusa. There can be one or more yavusa per village. Yavusa combine to form the vanua. Rights to traditional fishing grounds generally belong to members of a certain yavusa or vanua. During colonial administration the formation of district boundaries was related to the authority of the vanua (TLTB 2011, Veitayaki 2002).

Figure 1 below attempts to summarize the nested structures of traditional governance, political/spatial scales, and NRM frameworks. The following sections will describe each framework and its implications for governance after a brief description of Bua Province.

Figure 1. Nested structure of traditional governance, political/spatial scales and corresponding NRM frameworks in Bua.

Site Context

Bua Province, on the northern island of Vanua Levu, is located within the Vatu-i-ra Seascape, a region of Fiji where ecosystems remain relatively intact. Natural resource management (NRM) planning efforts are being focused here to mitigate pressure from extractive industries and coastal development (Jupiter et al 2012). Bua is one of the least developed provinces in the country. The majority of communities lack electricity, paved roads, municipal water, and other infrastructure related to urban centers. The main industries are agriculture, fisheries, mining, and forestry. There are nine districts in the province, containing 54 villages, and 11 traditional fishing grounds (pers. comm, Bua Provincial Council 2013).

Map 1. Districts and villages in Bua Province, on Vanua Levu -- Fiji’s second largest island.

Map 2. Traditional fishing grounds in Bua.

COMMUNITY-BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AT THE VILLAGE SCALE

Fiji has a rich history of CBNRM initiatives and projects due to indigenous land tenure and inshore usufruct rights. CBNRM simply involves local stakeholders in managing resources that they own or use. The Fiji Locally-Managed Marine Area (FLMMA) network’s adaptive co-management framework has been widely implemented across the island group during the past decade. The FLMMA network consists of management and conservation practitioners who engage communities in resource management planning and share lessons learned to continually update best practices (Mills et al 2011, FLMMA 2010). The FLMMA approach combines traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) with scientific data to inform management actions. Establishing tabu no fishing areas is a cultural practice communities use to temporarily build up fish stocks in preparation for feasts, such as in the event of the death of a chief (Jupiter and Egli 2010, Veitayaki 2002,). Although FLMMA partners originally focused on inshore fisheries management, the organization now promotes “ridge to reef” management, recognizing that inland activities are linked to and greatly affect the marine environment (pers. comm, Vave 2012).

                At the village scale, committees are often formed to undertake management of a project. In the case of resource management, a community may designate a Qoliqoli Committee or Resource Management Committee to liaise with government and NGOs in management planning and implementation. It is critical to first seek approval of traditional leaders when working with communities at any scale in Fiji. This is not only respectful, but support of the Bose Vanua (chiefly leaders) is often crucial to achieving desired outcomes (Jupiter and Egli 2010).

ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT AT THE DISTRICT SCALE

                While the FLMMA approach is appropriate at the community level, implementation becomes much more complex as it is “scaled-up” (Seivenan 2013, Tawake 2007). Concerns by conservation practitioners in Fiji that a community-based approach was heavily institutionalizing management at a scale that did not correspond to ecological practices (Berkes 2003) led to an initiative to pilot EBM in Kubulau District, Bua (Jupiter & Egill 2010, Seivanen et al 2013). Clarke and Jupiter (2010b, 7) define ecosystem-based management as “an integrated approach that considers interactions between humans and the environment” with the goal “to sustainably manage natural resources and biodiversity by maintaining ecosystem processes, functions and services”.

The Kubulau District project has been successful in highlighting factors related to successful conservation and has been considered by some a “poster child” for conservation in the Pacific (Sievanen et al 2012;  Jupiter and Egli 2010).) Five of nine districts in Bua have thus far been engaged in resource management planning by Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the University of the South Pacific Institute of Applied Science (IAS), both of whom are FLMMA partners.  This process engages districts individually by bringing together elected representatives from each village for management planning workshops. Although it is recognized ecosystems do not follow political boundaries, from a management perspective a district is a reasonable scale at which engage stakeholders in planning.

By 2014, the goal is for each district (tikina) in Bua to have a resource management plan (WCS 2012a). To clarify, this means that all communities will be engaged in collaborative planning but does not mean individual village plans are a necessary outcome. As at the village scale, district-level resource management committees consisting of traditional leaders and community representatives are also formed.

INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT AT THE PROVINCIAL AND NATIONAL SCALES

In 2009, a national Integrated Coastal Management Committee (ICMC) was formed in adherence to the Environmental Management Act of 2005 to oversee the development of an ICM framework and plan for Fiji.  While a framework has been adopted, the committee recommended provincial level plans be developed first, and then compiled into a national ICM plan (Department of Environment 2011). The ICMC use Cicin-Sain and Knecht’s (1998) definition of ICM: “A continuous and dynamic process by which decisions are taken for the sustainable use, development, and protection of coastal and marine areas and resources”.

The term “integrated” as it applies here refers to holistic NRM that attempts to bridge fragmentation in sectoral management frameworks. The necessity of economic development is recognized but not at the cost of ecological processes, life support systems, and biological diversity (Cicin-Sain and Belfiore 2005). Five dimensions for integration have been suggested by Cicin-Sain and Belfiore (2005): intersectoral, intergovernmental, spatial, science-management, and international. These dimensions have been adapted by the ICMC to apply to resource management in Fiji and are shown in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Dimensions of Integration

Dimension	Components
Sector	Tourism, fisheries, government, industries, other businesses
Government	National, regional, local, traditional
Space	Inland, coastal, and marine environments
Discipline	Sciences and traditional knowledge applied in management

(Cicin-Sain and Belfiore, 2005, 854; Dept of Environment, 2011, 6)

Provincial ICM planning is currently being piloted in a select few provinces. Bua will develop an ICM plan following completion of district planning (WCS 2012a). At this scale, planning becomes even more complex due to the increasingly diverse group of stakeholders involved. Establishing Yaubula Management and Support Teams (YMSTs) is a new strategy developed by FLMMA partners and government ministries to improve resource governance at the provincial scale. A YMST is essentially a network of stakeholders working to coordinate NRM efforts between communities and the government in a particular province or region (FLMMA 2011).

The Bua YMST (BYMST) was formed in November 2012. It is essentially a committee of local government and  conservation practitioners overseeing a team of district representatives and community liaisons. BYMST members are intended to play key roles in awareness and communication about environmental issues in Bua, as well as participate in planning and implementation of management strategies (WCS 2012b). These communities vary greatly in their geographic location, isolation, and level of involvement in NRM activities.

Conclusion

                 In summary, natural resource management in Fiji is implemented on various scales but these scales are integrated. In practice, integrated resource management occurs through the frameworks of CBNRM, EBM, and ICM in Bua Province (See table 2 below).  Simplifying, each framework attempts to use adaptive co-management principles to achieve sustainable development and “ridge to reef” resource management. ICM in Bua requires collaboration between stakeholders and communities to identify goals, plan and take action together. The BYMST has been organized to help create a network of sharing and learning throughout the province and to support effective resource governance.

Table 2. IRM in Practice

Framework	What	Scale	Who
Integrated Coastal Management	Sustainable use, development, and protection of coastal and marine areas and resources	National & Provincial	Integrated Coastal Management Committees, Provincial Offices, YMSTs
Ecosystem-based Management	Considers humans and environment, biodiversity, ecosystem processes and services	District	YMSTs, Resource Management Committees, Conservation NGOs
Community-based Natural Resource Management	Local stakeholders involved in managing resources they own or use	Village	Communities with the assistance of FLMMA partners and other NGOs

References

Bua Provincial Council (2013). Personal communication. February 2013.

Chandra, A. (2011). A deliberate inclusive policy (DIP) approach for coastal resources governance: a Fijian perspective. Coastal Management, 39: 2, 175-197.

Clarke, P.  and S. D. Jupiter (2010a). Law, custom and community-based natural resource management in Kubulau District (Fiji), Environmental Conservation, 37(1): 98-106.

Clarke, P. and S. D. Jupiter (2010b). Principles and Practice of Ecosystem-Based Management: A Guide for Conservation Practitioners in the Tropical Western Pacific. Wildlife Conservation Society. Suva, Fiji.

Cicin-Sain, B. and S. Belfiore (2005). Linking marine protected areas to integrated coastal and ocean management: a review of theory and practice. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: 847-868.

 Cicin-Sain, B. & R. W. Knecht (1998). Integrated coastal and ocean management: Concepts and practices. Island Press: Washington D. C. 

Department of Environment (2011). Integrated Coastal Management Framework of the Republic of Fiji 2011: Opportunities and issue for managing our coastal resources sustainably.

 

FLMMA [Fiji Locally Managed Marine Area Network] (2010). FLMMA operations guide: the way we work together. Retrieved from http://lmmanetwork.dreamhosters.com/fiji.

FLMMA (2011). The Yaubula Management Support Team Strategy Version 1.0, December 2011.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, 441-473.

Jupiter S, and Egli, DP (2011). Ecosystem-based management in Fiji: successes and challenges after five years of implementation. Marine Biology, 14p

Jupiter S, Fox M, Cakacaka A, Caginitoba A, Askew N, Qauqau I, Weeks R, Prasad S(2012) Building

provincial‐level integrated Coastal Management Plans: Outcomes from the Vatu‐i‐Ra Seascape

Stakeholders Workshop. Wildlife Conservation Society, Suva, Fiji, 46 pp.

Mills et al (2011). Incorporating effectiveness of community-based management in a national marine gap analysis for Fiji, Conservation Biology,  25 (6), 1155–1164.

Sievanen et al (2013). Fixing marine governance in Fiji? The new scalar narrative of ecosystem-based management, Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 206-216. 

TLTB [iTaukei Land Trust Board] (2011). The iTaukei Landowners. http://www.tltb.com.fj/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=59. Accessed 10 April 2013. 

Veitayaki, J. (2002). Taking advantage of indigenous knowledge: the Fiji case. International Social Science Journal, 54: 395–402.

Wildlife Conservation Society (2012a). Annual Update to the Bua Provincial Office.

Wildlife Conservation Society (2012b). Bua FLMMA Workshop Report.

Uniquest (2010b). Policy, law and institutional capacity report. Final report prepared for Asian Development Bank: strengthening coastal and marine resource management in the coral triangle of the Pacific - phase 1.