Master’s Research Kicks Off at Workshop on Tavea Island

Last week I had the pleasure of traveling to Tavea Island in the District of Lekutu to attend a Resource Management Planning Workshop facilitated by Wildlife Conservation Society. This workshop was the first of a series, with the same concepts as the ones that have been held in our District and attended by our village environment committee. It was designed to raise awareness about Ridge to Reef management and help community members begin to identify targets and threats to healthy and connected ecosystems.

What was especially great for me was that we had a whole session on the third day for participants to be introduced to basic network concepts, to fill in the SNA questionnaire, and also to discuss barriers to collaboration/communication for effective resource management. While I played a key role in helping design the research methods, two facilitators from WCS carried it out in Fijian. It went over really well, although I have not yet had a chance to begin data entry and analysis.

I’m actually glad now that things didn’t go as planned when we tried to do the first round of sampling last October. It gave us a chance to improve our methods and simplify the questionnaire. Hoping to do some preliminary data entry in the next week to check for anything we may need to improve before our next sampling in late Feb-early March. 

Tavea Island Locator Map

Tavea Island, Lekutu District, Bua Province -- The white in the center is the village (about 30 houses). You can walk from one side to the other in less than a minute!

As we headed to the boat landing we found our fellow facilitators stuck in the mud.

View from Vanua Levu out to Tavea (on right).

Transport out to Tavea.

Kini Koto presenting basic network concepts to workshop participants.

A woman filling out the SNA questionnaire.

Facilitators leading participants through the questionnaire.

The workshop ended by releasing a tagged hawksbill turtle, "Adi Tavea", back to sea.

For an overview of my research see this post from last year: Social Network Research in Bua

Proposed Protected Areas Passed by Village Leaders

Village meetings (bose vakoro) are painful and important.

This year my birthday fell on village meeting day, which (most of the time) happens every month. The village meeting is where just about anything that’s happening in the village (and I mean anything!) gets discussed. But it’s also the forum where important decisions are made. For example, if we have an idea for a project to do in the community, it first needs to get passed in the Bose Vakoro. It is supposed to happen the first Monday of the month, but it depends on what is going on in the village. This month that date fell in the middle of building the new dam and water tank.

The Bose Vakoro is different in every village. Ours usually takes 4-6 hours (that's the painful part). It begins with someone from the Bose Vanua (the traditional council) giving a mini-lecture about how the village is falling to pieces because no one respects traditional protocols anymore, etc.  Then the minutes from the last village meeting are read and people can comment/ask questions about things that were brought up last time. This usually takes a lot of time because generally not much has been done about said previous issues, etc. Then each mini-committee in the village gives their report about what they have been doing for the last month or anything they are proposing to do. Followed again by questions/comments. Lastly, the meeting is opened up for anyone to raise miscellaneous issues concerning the community.

Before, I used to be my own special committee and have my own slot in which to talk. Now, most of the things I am involved in are brought up by the Development or Yaubula (Environment) Committees, since we work closely together. This makes me happy that others have taken ownership of projects and activities. I still give a short report sandwiched in there. For the greater part of this year, I’ve been preparing my report ahead of time in Fijian -- whereas before I used to just say it in English. 

This was a special Bose Vakoro because we were able to persuade the traditional council to sit down together the night before and discuss some important matters related to our fishing grounds.This is no easy task to get the village leader and the leaders of each clan to sit down together, but we requested them to let the Yaubula Committee do a presentation to them. Our environment committee has been working on creating environmental bylaws, management rules, and proposed protected areas for the past 6 months. One awesome and eloquent representative from our committee sat down with them to share our propositions and also explain background information on why we are proposing them. This was such a crucial step! Our traditional leaders don't have much scientific background, but they have a lot of traditional knowledge and are the key decision makers for what activities can take place on the land and in the sea. 

Last year they approved one small marine protected area for our village, but there wasn't much planning put into it. They said it was tabu, but we didn't talk about how long it would be protected, etc. But after our participation in the district workshops over the past few months, we were able give some solid suggestions for management guidelines that can protect our environment but also provide benefits to the local people.

Here is brief description of the 5 protected areas that were proposed and approved by our village leaders:

• Mata ni Wai Vuya/ Mata ni Wai Natwea: Two terrestrial protected areas, each extending 100m above our two main drinking water sources (dams) where farming, use of chemicals, cutting trees, and tying animals will be prohibited. This is to protect our drinking water from contamination.

• Natobu Tabu: Our current tabu fishing area, to be a 5 year ban on fishing and harvesting where we will grow and sustainably harvest sea cucumbers for sale to generate income for a village scholarship account. This area extends for the beach, including mangroves, out across the reef flat and After 5 years the tabu area will be reviewed. If the village is in favor of it and feels it is providing benefits, it can be extended or maybe moved to a new location. (Note: 5 years is the recommended minimum time limit in which to protect an area in order to see lasting improvements in habitat health and return of dwindling species.)

 

• Natarani Tabu: This is a small offshore reef that will be protected, but villagers will be allowed to fish there during special village functions such as funerals, weddings, etc with the permission of the Bose Vanua. This is called a periodically harvested protected area, and care can be given to limit the amount of time and/or gear used to fish here so as not to lose the benefits of protection in one quick raping of the reef.

• Kawakawa and Naitaga Tabu: This is the area between Natobu and Natarani and it will be permanently protected. It includes the edge of the reef flat and the deeper channel. Here we are hoping to be able to set up oyster spat collection nets and breed giant clams. It will also serve as a sanctuary for fish to breed. Fish do not stay inside the boundaries, obviously, and the "overflow" can support the local fisherfolk.

These proposed areas were also accepted by the Bose Vakoro. The next step is to get the support of those outside our village. We need the approval of the district chief and support from the other communities who share the same fishing ground. This will again involve traditional protocol and is  very important in order for this work to be sustainable and supported by all.

It might only be a small step forward but I am thankful for each little bit of progress we make. I can't think of anything else I could have wished for on my birthday than that.

District and Village Planning Moves Forward

Last week we had a District Resource Planning Workshop in Navave Village. This was the second workshop of a series designed to help communities come together to discuss environmental issues, think about possible solutions, and work toward a solid governance structure/plan for sustainably managing natural resources in our district. 

The first workshop was held in June, after general awareness sessions about eco-system based management principles had been completed in each village. Every village was asked to elect a few representatives to attend the district workshop. It was advised that there should be a mixture of men, women, and youth. Most villages came and there were a few women and youth. At that workshop we identified targets, threats to achieving them, causes of those threats, and potential strategies for addressing them. This exercise is called conceptual modeling.  It was divided into 3 habitat types: terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal/marine. 

After the workshop, the team from our village took the initiative to form their own Yaubula, or environment, committee. They gathered at my house on a Sunday afternoon and planned how to share what they learned at the workshop during the next village meeting. 

At this recent workshop, we revisited the outcomes of the first workshop, because some new people and villages that weren’t able to participate the first go-round were in attendance. We talked more about management rules and strategies, but some of the focus was on building the capacity of the attendees to go back and be agents of change in their communities.

Wildlife Conservation Society, with the help of Seaweb, facilitated the workshop. I was there to provide general support and work with the team from my village.

Some days it can feel like two years of work hasn’t amounted to much because things happen so slowly. And some days it’s all you can do not to give up, especially when some gossipy ol’ lady in your community asks your boyfriend what you’ve been doing all this time. That hurts. But when we attended this workshop we were actually an example for the other villages. My fellow community members were standing up on their own and sharing ideas and strategies for good practices and tips for problem solving. I felt so proud of them!

Real change doesn’t take place over night. But change is happening on Fiji time. 

One lesson that I’ve learned is the importance of building a team in the community. It’s something we’ve learned together. It has taken a lot of trial and error, various projects and committees, building relationships and trust, and just a lot of time learning how things work behind the scenes in a rural village to get to where we are now. But I’m happy to say that we are on our way to writing our own village natural resource management plan. We intend to seek funding for implementation, which will also include some income generating projects. And I’m not doing it alone.

I’d say our biggest advice to other communities wishing to “develop” would be to first take a hard look at your community and the way you work together. There is both the traditional and administrative structure to consider.  There can be a lot of other dividing lines to reach across. If you can identify a few key people to stand up and keep fighting to knock down those divisions -- that’s the best place to start. There’s not a whole lot of use rushing into having any type of community-wide or district-wide plan, if there isn’t a strong foundation for people to work together to implement it.

The more I’m involved in NRM planning activities in Fiji at the various scales (community, district, provincial, national), the more I’ve realized how the key to sustainable resource management is with the communities. They are the ones who are going to be ones on the ground doing the work in the end. 

But the scale at which to do NRM planning is a hot debate. Neither government or NGOs can target every community, there aren’t enough resources. And we must always consider the scale at which ecosystems function. It’s much larger than a village. 

If we can’t engage all communities from the bottom up, the district level isn’t a terrible solution. It can focus on building the capacity of key individuals who can then facilitate the trickling down of information and processes. Taking what they learn back to the communities and being an agent of change. 

One of the best outcomes for me to see at the workshops was communities discussing amongst themselves their unique issues and really considering ways that they could work better together, as a pre-cursor to what will be a later conversation of how the various communities can join together.

That’s not going to be an easy task, to create a working governance structure at the district level. There are subtle rivalries getting in the way. There are sensitive traditional issues people do not like to talk about. I’m akin to some of them, but it is not my place to speak up about them. Our Yaubula Committee is working to build a stronger relationship with our Bose Vanua, or the elders, in our village as a place to start. 

Workshop participants at the Navave workshop. Can you find me? :)

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.