View the complete CCRN’s Halifax Community Story as a PDF

Sadie Beaton, Miranda Cobb, Will Fawcett-Hill, Marla MacLeod, Laura Mather, Tiffanie Rainville, and Satya Ramen

Key messages

• Collective action in an unsustainable social-ecological system can catalyse a shift towards increased community sustainability when supported with financial resources and appropriate local institutions.

• Cross-cultural knowledge sharing and place-based learning are integral to transforming social-ecological systems at the community level.

• Social innovation can lead to transformation when supported by a network of collaborative organisations with a shared set of principles and a united vision to inspire change.

Community profile 

Figure 1: Map of Select Community Gardens in Halifax

Many communities in Nova Scotia rely on food from large chain grocery stores and discount stores year-round. As a secondary source, and seasonally dependent, there are an increasing number of Farmers’ Markets across the province. However, there are several communities in which grocery stores are physically far away, creating a situation where people rely on what’s available at small convenience stores such as those associated with many petrol stations. These stores typically offer prepared, packaged and convenience foods that tend to be high in sugar, salt and fat, and many do not have facilities to offer fresh foods. This exacerbates economic and social inequalities.

Like the rest of North America, the diet of many Nova Scotians features processed and convenience meals, with trends away from whole foods or home cooked meals. However, there is a strong history of growing and preserving livestock and produce in NS, which has been resurging through the food movement over the past decade.

Conservation and livelihood challenges

Unfortunately, several rural and urban Nova Scotian communities face issues with accessing healthy and sustainable foods. The rate of food insecurity in Nova Scotia is the third highest in Canada at 15.4%^(7,4).

Community initiatives

Since the early 2000s, community-based organizations have been taking a closer look at local food systems and working to improve access to healthy, sustainable food. This community story describes the work of four community groups in Nova Scotia’s capital city, Halifax, towards developing positive food environments: i) the Bayers Westwood Family Resource Centre (BWFRC), ii) the Immigrant Settlement Association of Nova Scotia (ISANS), iii) Mulgrave Park gardens and iv) Common Roots’ Urban Farm (CRUF). These groups are linked through their close relationship with the Ecology Action Centre (EAC), an environmental NGO that has been one of the first in Atlantic Canada to begin connecting food systems and environmental issues.

Bayers-Westwood
The Bayers-Westwood community, of Halifax’s West End, is very diverse, consisting of 358 families, including 60% newcomers. These are mostly single parent families, with many living on disability and income assistance. As one community member described, “The food environment is very challenging. There is never enough food, the food bank runs out, and there are hardly any fruit and vegetables available.”

Figure 2: Community Garden at Bayers-Westwood

Since their partnership with EAC, the community garden infrastructure and leadership has grown significantly. Bayers Westwood Family Resource Centre hired a seasonal garden coordinator, implemented a percentage of staff time toward food and garden programs, and established core volunteer roles for the ongoing maintenance and coordination of the garden. As a result, they now have capacity to grow more produce for initiatives like local pop-up markets, making their own garden preserves, and increase garden membership. According to the centre, factors supporting healthy food access include growing space, knowledge and skill, and social support.

ISANS: Glen Forest & Multicultural Community Gardens
ISANS is a community organization that welcomes immigrants to Nova Scotia, offering services and creating opportunities for immigrants to participate in Canadian life. In 2012, ISANS started their first two community gardens; the Glen Forest Garden, followed by the Multicultural Community Garden in 2013. Although vandalism put the gardens at risk, engagement with the EAC has increased the capacity to effectively run the gardens. Community members emphasized the need for social support, indicating a connection between social coordination and food access, such as through the ability to organise seed swaps, bulk food orders and intergenerational language exchanges.

Garden participants often lack basic social supports that affect their well-being, including their mental health and livelihood outcomes. As one participant put it, “In my ideal world… I don’t have to make a decision between chicken and detergent.” As another describes, “I feel better about myself when I am able to buy necessities.”

Mulgrave Park

Mulgrave Park is a vibrant public housing neighbourhood with a rich history, comprised of primarily of African-Nova Scotians, in the north end of Halifax, home to over 250 families. Progress in the park is a community development initiative that seeks to empower the residents through entrepreneurial action that inspires inclusiveness and challenges stigma. One major focus of the initiative is food security, including community gardens. The community has developed 12 accessible raised beds, which were built to address the needs of residents living beside the garden. Due to the multiple intersecting social and economic barriers experienced by the majority of the residents, community members were hesitant to invest in the gardening project. However, the children’s programme, ‘Plants- to-Plates’, was incredibly successful at engaging youth, and many days during the summer kids can be found playing and working in the garden. As a result, 70% of youth involved reported eating more vegetables because of the garden programme which led parents to become more open to the project. One parent had this to say about their children: “They love to help me at the garden, they enjoy watering, and enjoy the veggies that I have ready. :)” and “I have the veggies at the garden so I don’t need to buy. Just pick-up and enjoy and most important, no chemicals!”.

Figure 3: The HUGS Community Garden in Bayers-Westwood.

Common Roots:

Common Roots Urban Farm (CRUF) is a community garden in Halifax, building “a community-built vision of urban agriculture and productive landscapes” (Food Secure Canada, 2014), and along with over 100 individual and community plots, is made up of a market garden, edible landscaping, and places to sit and relax or learn and work together. Unlike the other gardens, Common Roots has a large volunteer capacity and the majority of participants enjoy a mid-range income. Common Roots also engages with newcomers and immigrants, many of who are living on assistance. Through programmes like Deep Roots, they invite newcomers to volunteer on the farm and employ their extensive farming skills in a new climate. In 2017, the first employee hired there came from the Deep Roots programme.

Practical Outcomes

There are, of course, challenges to be met. For example, the ISANS community found that access is also allayed by the availability of culturally appropriate food – that is, food that residents would customarily eat – but food banks don’t often serve culturally appropriate food (or familiar foods). Participants also spoke of lacking skills/knowledge on preparing the different foods. Language and literacy impacted peoples’ ability to buy at the grocery store, and community garden members commented on a lack of transparency in the food system, and an inability to “know what food has chemicals, what is organic, and what is not going to cause harm.”

Government Policy
The policy context for gardens on municipal land in the Halifax region is positive. For example, the proposed Centre Plan for Halifax allows and encourages urban agriculture. There is an Administrative Order within the Halifax Regional Municipality that allows community gardens on municipal land to sell their produce and reinvest the revenue in the garden (i.e. soil). Community development and recreation staff with the municipality may help gardens become established, helping them with the municipality’s application process and facilitating in-kind access to on-site infrastructure such as water or electricity.

Ultimately, food is a topic that connects all of us. Community garden projects and food skills workshops have proven to be great entry points to increased awareness and engagement with food issues. Community food programs are tangible and accessible; they build skills, and enhance a sense of agency alongside social and community connections. “Positive food environments” can also become points of resistance, as community members feel empowered to challenge the status quo⁽¹⁰⁾. Without a doubt, vulnerable populations experience multiple types of marginalisation related to complex power dynamics that create barriers to agency and food security.

Considering a variety of perspectives is beneficial when addressing complex social problems like food security, whether coming from the lens of health, environment, social justice, or even cultural celebration. There is value in linking communities together to explore some of the diverse elements of food security work in an integrated approach, recognising food production as just one variable in a much larger complex system.

This approach has fostered the development and integration of community food programming within various Nova Scotian communities. It has also enabled new cross-sectoral collaborations to emerge, that help address gaps in access to and availability of healthy foods within a more localised food system.

References

Acknowledgements 

Funding for this work was provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada (Innovation Strategy).

View the complete CCRN’s Tsitsikamma Community Story as a PDF

Ella-Kari Muhl

Key messages

• The Tsitsikamma area includes local communities whose food security and livelihoods have been impacted negatively by various government actions, notably a no-take marine protected area (MPA).
• While MPAs are promoted as a long-term conservation strategy, no-take MPAs threaten the food security and cultural practices of fishers in areas of low economic opportunity and limited alternative livelihoods or transitional support.
• A lack of communication between the regulating authority (SANParks) and the fishers has increased conflict in the Tsitsikamma area and endangered community members’ food security and livelihoods.
• Participatory monitoring, with formalised consultation with community members, may reduce conflict and strengthen conservation goals.

Community profile

Figure 1: The location of the TNP MPA relevant to the local communities

Conservation and livelihood challenges

The impacts of “no-take” MPA

With the abolition of apartheid and introduction of democracy, it was hoped that the right of small-scale and subsistence fishers would be restored in accordance with their culture and tradition^(10). When the legislative change to a “no take” MPA took place in 2000 under the Marine Living Resource Act 18 of 1998, it was shown to affect not only food security for the fishers and their families but also their cultural identity and heritage ⁽⁷⁾. The Thornham, Stormsrivier, Nompumelelo and Sanddrif communities have been reliant on fishing as a form of food security. With the loss of access to fish, there has been a reported decline in health and increase in crime⁽⁴⁾.

Fishers stated that, in addition, their well-being has been affected by the closure of the MPA, as fishing is part of their identity⁽¹⁾. The current top-down governmental conservation programme, which introduced a no-take MPA as a form of conservation to promote sustainability and biodiversity, was implemented without consultation with the community, and subsequently has elevated conflict between community members and the regulating authority.

Food security, customary rights and livelihood impacts

With no alternative livelihood provided, local village economies remain limited with few economic opportunities available (Figure 2). Local household economies are poor and under severe stress.

In 2016, for example, only 52.6% of households met the financial requirements for food security, which increases fisher’s dependence on marine resources as a supplementary food source. The Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) housing built by the South African government in 2001 to create Nompumelelo village added 480 households to the area, placing additional pressure on resources⁽⁶⁾. The timing of the completion of RDP housing coincided with the delineation of a no-take MPA, thus increased competition for work, and placed strain on local amenities, with already limited public services and health care.

The change in coastal access and legislation has had a negative effect on the community with a loss of livelihoods, fishing and recreational activity. The community describe themselves as being “born on the rocks (coast)”, claiming original ancestry from the indigenous Khoi-san people, indicating a consideration of the coast as a part of their culture and traditions^(1,6).

Many residents in Tsitsikamma have also historically relied on coastal forests for a range of amenities, such as medicinal plants, honey and woods for fuels and building materials, which they are also denied access to.

Figure 2: A former fisher, no longer allowed to access the coast, writes poetry about the sea now.

The lack of recognition as stakeholders and exclusion from the coastline has illustrated that unless social and ecological factors are considered with the design of the MPA, illegal fishing and conflict will continue between SANParks (South African National Parks) and the local communities.

Community initiatives

In 1994, the community created the Tsitsikamma Angling Forum (TAF) to represent local fishers who wanted access to the coast. The TAF have formally petitioned against the TNP in 1976, 1995, 2006, and 2015. They have also worked with a task team comprised of the Kou Kamma municipality and SANParks to reopen the TNP in 2006, 2014 and 2015. The TAF actively protested SANParks in 2007, when 70 members fished illegally in the Tsitsikamma MPA.

Over time, the community has become increasingly mobilized and in 2015, following workshops between the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Oceans and Coasts Branch, the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), SANParks, the local municipality (Kou Kamma) and representatives from TAF, a decision was made to open specific areas within the MPA for fishing with restrictions. The plan to reopen certain areas was approved in December 2015 through promulgation of a government gazette but was then blocked by the Friends of the Tsitsikamma, an association that obtained a court interdict against SANParks, DEA and TAF in January 2016⁽⁹⁾.

Figure 3: Map depicting the three coastal control zones within the Tsitsikamma MPA

Legal recognition of historically disadvantaged residents

Following the closure in January 2016, the TNP MPA was rezoned later in December 2016 in the new government gazette 40511⁽⁸⁾ to allow three controlled fishing areas to be opened (Figure 3). However, the MPA re-opening process has been questioned as consultation was not carried out with local community members and was poorly conceptualized with little practical changes for community member’s food security or livelihoods.

At present, community members are required to purchase a permit. However, older fishers and minors are either prohibited or unable to fish under the new gazette ruling, halting the multi-generational transfer of knowledge. This prevents the oral traditions and teachings of the older generation from passing down to the present. The subsequent absence of SANParks at the controlled zones prevents fishers from communicating effectively with rangers and leads to miscommunication and further resentment towards SANParks.

The challenges and lack of capacity within SANParks reveal the vulnerability of the Tsitsikamma fishing communities and the need to incorporate local ecological knowledge (LEK) and community members into partnerships with researchers and authorities to better manage MPAs.

Practical outcomes

The Tsitsikamma community have issues of food security and a lack of economic opportunities or alternative livelihoods (Figure 4). The creation of the no-take MPA has disrupted a reliance on fish as a contribution to food and cultural practices^(1,5).

The community members have identified five solutions that would be the most beneficial towards restoring trust between community fishers and SANParks (Figure 5).

(1) Collaboration

(2) Transgenerational access to the Tsitsikamma MPA

Figure 4: The Stormsrivier mouth which is located centrally in the park and would be accessible to fishers, however is reserved for tourists.

(3) Education

(4) Communication

To empower fishers and effectively promote collaboration, communication is necessary between relevant government departments, SANParks, and working groups made up of interested parties, scientists and elected community members. Increasing the capacity of and empowering local fishers to participate in decision-making processes leads to practical, real solutions that strengthen ownership and promote care of the resource.

(5) Acknowledgement of customary rights and access rights

In order to improve management, increased understanding of government officials of the fishers’ customary rights and importance of access will foster respect and promote conservation, as well as help reduce tensions and conflict between the two parties.

Future concerns

Dialogue between the community and the regulating authorities is improving; however, for there to be a successful conservation impact, policy makers need to widely consult on proposed changes before implementing them. Top-down processes of government control only serve to further marginalise the community and promote resentment. A working partnership is necessary to establish trust and understanding with an emphasis on local ecological knowledge combined with scientific expertise for better policy and practice.

Figure 5: The Thornham Focus Group members with their list of practical outcomes

References

Acknowledgements

Check out this CCRN funded video produced by CCRN student Ella-Kari Muhl.

Listen to the accounts of local community members as they describe and express the struggles and challenges related to the implementation of the marine protected area, and how the current challenges are endangering the future of the community. The video highlights the values and needs of the local residents, and, through those values, demonstrates indicators and practices that would lead to success

View the complete CCRN’s São Luiz Community Story as a PDF

Camila A. Islas, Alice R. de Moraes, Juliana S. African & Cristiana S. Seixas

Key Messages

• Severe land degradation and environmental disasters can act as triggers to new community conservation and development initiatives and as stimulus to existing ones.
• Bridging organizations can foster community initiatives through projects addressing environmental conservation and restoration in parallel to local capacity building and community development.
• Cultural identity plays a central role in engaging communities in projects of nature conservation.

Community Profile

São Luiz do Paraitinga (hereafter São Luiz) is a municipality with about 10,000 inhabitants, located in Eastern São Paulo State of Brazil, near the Atlantic coast (Figure 1). The municipality is situated within the Paraíba Valley, which links the two largest metropolitan areas in Brazil (São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro). Out of the ~730 km² of the municipality’s area, 10% are encompassed by Serra do Mar State Park, a protected area, and 13% are in its buffer zone. The main land uses/cover are pasture (53%) and fragmented forests (37%), while cattle breeding for dairy, forestry and agriculture are the main economic activities⁽²⁾. The municipality is also embedded in the Atlantic Forest biome – a hotspot for biodiversity conservation, i.e. one of the highly threatened biomes in the world⁽⁵⁾.

Figure 1. A) The State of São Paulo highlighted in the Brazilian map. B) São Luíz do Paraitinga Municipality highlighted in the State of São Paulo map.

The landscape of São Luiz has been shaped by specific material and immaterial cultural features that were strongly influenced by coffee plantations from the early 20^th century and by the Caipira way of life, a local designation to a rural livelihood which involves typical food, music, tales, dances and festivities (see Figure 2).

The city’s architectural ensemble is the largest historical collection of the State’s architectural heritage, and its population proudly keeps alive several displays of immaterial culture⁽³⁾. The local economy currently depends on public services, and the Human Development Index (HDI = 0.690) is among the lowest of the State’s municipalities. In this context, cultural tourism and eco-tourism are promising alternatives for economic development.

Rural communities in Brazil are important SES, specifically in south-eastern states such as São Paulo, where landscapes are highly fragmented and urbanised. Landscapes there sometimes have patches of native vegetation that are especially important to wild animals, serving as habitat and ‘stepping-stones’, which generate various ecosystem services and are also home to human communities and their livelihoods⁽³⁾. The vast majority of rural properties (96%) in the municipality of São Liuz are owned by smallholders⁽²⁾.

In this context lies Catuçaba, a rural district in São Luiz comprising a village with around 1,000 inhabitants and its surrounding rural neighbourhoods. Most inhabitants make their living from small-scale animal husbandry and other smallholding activities⁽³⁾.

Figure 2: Traditional dance presentation at the central square, in front of the main church, during the festivity of the Holy Spirit in São Luiz do Paraitinga, 2016.

Until a few decades ago, the village was partially isolated from the urban center due to poor road access. However, the road connecting the village to downtown was paved by the year 2000, facilitating outsiders’ access and products transportation, and improving the access of villagers and rural inhabitants to infrastructure, education and health. Tourism-related activities have been modestly flourishing in the territory, supported by its beautiful landscape, pleasant climate and historical farms.

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

Land degradation is longstanding in the region. Agriculture has been practiced since the settlement of the first colonisers in the late 17^th century, in spite of the hilly landscape and low nutrient availability and permeability of the soil⁽²⁾. Economic cycles (cotton, coffee, agriculture and cattle), along with poor soil management techniques, contributed to land degradation, impoverishing the soil, and most recently covering the land with Brachiaria, an invasive exotic grass that feeds the cattle and worsens soil permeability. As a result, cattle productivity has declined and many landowners fell back on other activities to complete their income.

Meanwhile, due to the promises of better job and education opportunities in urban centres, rural out-migration hampered the availability of rural workers and lowered social cohesion. Currently, land degradation in such social context threaten most of the traditional livelihoods.

On January 1st, 2010, São Luiz suffered from a flood of great magnitude, when the river crossing the downtown area raised over 11 meters above its regular level in a matter of hours, largely damaging the historical buildings and affecting the whole population, both urban and rural. Fortunately, there were no fatalities. Other than the high precipitation registered in end-2009, this flood was caused by factors linked to land degradation in rural areas, such as soil compaction in degraded and poorly managed pastures, fires commonly used to clear land, scarcity of forests near watercourses, and human occupation of floodplains.

Community Initiatives^*

In the face of the disaster’s intensity and tremendous material losses, the population of São Luiz showed a remarkable capacity to self-organize in order to cope with the emergency situation and, later, to rebuild and restore the functioning of the city⁽⁵⁾. Since the floods, the territory as a whole has been targeted by diverse projects focusing on forest restoration, agro-ecological production and capacity building.

The 2010 disaster stimulated new and ongoing community initiatives, mostly with the help of local and regional NGOs and government organizations. During the post-disaster reorganization phase, the community actively participated in decisions regarding the reconstruction of historical buildings and other issues. In addition to engineering work conducted at the government initiative, most post-disaster initiatives focused on keeping the vibrancy of local cultural manifestations⁽⁵⁾.

Figure 3: The scenic landscape around Catuçaba district: degraded pastures and patches of biodiversity-rich Atlantic forest covering its hills and valleys.

The community also showed a remarkable sense of place and attachment to both São Luiz, similarly to Catuçaba and its surrounding area (Figure 3). The tragedy seems to have reinforced this sense of place and local people’s capacities of coping and recovering their community life with their own hands, and at the same time acknowledging and being grateful for all the solidarity and help they received from external people and institutions⁽⁵⁾.

One of these community initiatives working to improve conservation and livelihoods was the Comunidade da Vila (Village Community). In 2012, the Learning Community initiative began in Catuçaba. The main goal of the project was to promote an environment for reflection about nature conservation and local development, and to facilitate the planning of collective actions^(1,3). Together with local people, the initiative planned and organised several cultural events and community actions over three years⁽¹⁾. Although the project ended in 2015, the community continued to meet until 2017, focusing on a street market with local products, tourism-related activities and festivities ^(3).

A local NGO, Akarui, has been developing projects for nature conservation integrated with socio-economic development in the region since 2003. After the 2010 flood, their prominence increased as Akarui members’ attachment to and knowledge about the territory, in addition to their technical expertise, led efforts to sustainable development of rural areas of the municipality. Akarui has carried out projects regarding socio-environmental characterisation, forest restoration, agro-ecological transition, pasture management and improvement of farmers’ income. The NGO is still working in the territory, currently expanding their initiatives to encompass environmental education and food security and sovereignty.

After the extreme events of 2010 (flood) and 2013/2014 (severe drought), more community members got interested in taking part in restoration projects, and a growing number are willing to adopt agro-ecological principles to their production chain. An Agenda 21 plan, built through participatory methods for the watershed, including guidelines for its sustainable development, is a featured product of Akuri. The NGO acknowledges rural communities as their main partners⁽²⁾.

Finally, another initiative named Rede para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Alto Paraíba (Upper Paraíba River Sustainable Development Network), or REDESUAPA, began their work after the 2010 floods. The network encompasses diverse stakeholders including local leaders, local and state government, local and regional NGOs and researchers, who met voluntarily in the municipality. In addition to project development, REDESUAPA created synergies among ongoing efforts and aimed at influencing public policy based on a systemic view of the territory, promoting ecological restoration, sustainable farming and community-based tourism. For instance, in 2016, REDESUAPA wrote an open letter addressed to the candidates running for Mayor asking for their commitment to priority guidelines for urban and rural sustainable development in the municipality. The network played a key role in the efforts to bring investments of a big project to the region, which is funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The Recovery and protection of climate and biodiversity services in the Paraíba do Sul Basin of the Atlantic Forest of Brazil project is based on Payments for Environmental Services (PES) and other incentives for sustainable land management and conservation in private lands. The members of REDESUAPA are still in touch with each other, but the network itself is on ‘standby mode’. However, the synergies created by REDESUAPA are reflected in a number of other initiatives concerning local development, conservation and ecological restoration.

^*The data and analysis on the social-ecological system of São Luiz and Catuçaba refer to the period 2012-2017. The authors acknowledge that changes have occurred in the system since then. Although they are not analysed here, we have added some information about the current situation, based on non-systematic observation.

Practical Outcomes

The development of initiatives is neither easy nor fast, but they have certainly been flourishing and creating arenas for community learning, empowerment, and development in São Luiz do Paraitinga (including Catuçaba). Although the 2010 flood was an important trigger to various initiatives, it is still unclear how successful they will be in terms of self-maintenance and mitigating the risk of floods in the future.

These bottom-up initiatives have valorized rural livelihoods and fostered opportunities for people to remain in rural areas. Inhabitants have been self-organizing to strengthen the Caipira identity, preserve local traditions (e.g., festivities and foods), and promote local development, with an overall understanding that their good quality of life depends on nature conservation⁽³⁾. Small, low-cost initiatives triggered improvements in the community capacity to organize and act collectively for a common goal⁽⁴⁾, although leadership and broader participation of community members in such initiatives remains a challenge.

Bridging organizations, such as NGOs and university teams, play a crucial role in linking local stakeholders with one another and with outside institutions (i.e. State Environmental authorities and funding agencies), facilitating learning opportunities, fundraising and providing access to technical advisory⁽¹⁾. In the course of creating environments where diverse local and outside stakeholders can interact and collaborate (Figure 4), the initiatives have generated a feedback loop, which is attracting more and more initiatives.

Figure 4: Caipira meeting in January 2017, where members of Catuçaba community and their external supporters discussed local development, nature and culture.

Until 2017, several stakeholders were joining efforts to work synergistically, for instance through REDESUAPA, to positively transform the region’s landscape at the watershed level. The efforts were benefitting from both bottom-up and top-down initiatives, taking into account both local knowledge and technical/scientific expertise, and involving stakeholders with different levels of political power. Above all, these efforts involve a diverse array of individuals who believe in a more sustainable and just society, and struggle year after year to accomplish their vision.

In face of socio-ecological change over the last decade, various community initiatives towards conservation and social development have emerged in São Luiz do Paraitinga^{(3, 4)}. Many tourism-related activities have been developing, especially those regarding ecotourism (e.g., farm hotels and rafting) and cultural tourism (e.g., religious, art and local food festivities). More recently, other community initiatives were established as local markets of agro-ecological products and craft fairs. After the 2010 floods, the municipality drew the attention of many governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) favouring the emergence of new environmental and social initiatives. The success of these initiatives has depended on population engagement and participation, as well as aligning to local demands and inherent dynamics of the local SES. The question ahead may be if and how these initiatives will thrive or perish in the long term, and which factors will determine their course.

References

Acknowledgements

We thank the population of São Luiz do Paraitinga and, in particular, of Catuçaba community, the NGO Akarui, and REDESUAPA for their commitment and availability for our projects. We also thank SSHRC/CCRN, CAPES, CNPq, PREAC/UNICAMP and FAPESP for funding. The project also received a strong support from our entire CGCommons Team (The Commons Conservation and Management group at University of Campinas, Brazil).

View the complete CCRN’s Haruku Village Community Story as a PDF

Ahmad Mony and Arif Satria

Key Messages

• Haruku village is a coastal community that uses sasi laut a local knowledge and culture-based practice of coastal resource conservation.
• Sasi laut was weakened in the 1980s and the early part of the 2000s, due to a lack of government concern about destructive fishing activities as well as the Maluku conflict in 1999-2002. Subsequently, starting in early 2004, through the cooperation of multiple stakeholders, the sasi laut system has strengthened, helping local fishing communities to consider global issues related to conservation practices.
• Cooperation of multiple parties at multiple levels is the best approach for sustainable sasi laut practices.

Community Profile

Haruku Village is located in the island of the same name, in Malaku Province, Indonesia (Figure 1). Most of the island is hilly terrain and nearly all of the population is along the coast. The island consists of four Muslim villages and seven Christian villages ⁽¹⁾. The people of Haruku Island depend on the plantation sector as their main livelihood. Marine resources are not yet used as the main support system for livelihoods due to limitations on local utilisation of fishery commodities.

In the island, an indigenous practice of coastal resource protection, called sasi laut, has been used for hundreds of years. Sasi laut is a form of traditional institution regulating the management of coastal resources based on the knowledge, norms and value systems of the Indigenous people of Maluku.

Figure 1: Location of Haruku Island

This system regulates the rights and obligations of the indigenous peoples in utilizing and protecting coastal resources. As defined by Harkes and Novaczek (2000, pp.1-3), sasi laut “…prohibits the use of destructive and intensive gear (poisonous plants and chemicals, explosives, small mesh lift-nets), but also defines seasonal rules of entry, harvest and activities allowed in specific parts of the sea. The regulations are guarded and enforced by an institution known as the kewang, which functions as a local police force. Their legitimacy, as well as that of the sasi institution itself, is based on adat or customary law”.

Sasi laut has been implemented by the Harukunese for over 400 years. This practice is related to the establishment of Haruku Village and their motivation to save lompa fish (Thrissima balema), a sacred fish species relating to the history of the founding of the village (Figure 2) ⁽⁴⁾.

Figure 2: Harvesting Lompa Fish

Climate change in these coastal areas, which is characterised by ecological and seasonal changes, has provided an understanding for indigenous peoples about the importance of maintaining sasi laut as a local institution to protect coastal areas. Maintaining sasi laut, amidst the impacts of climate change and social transformation, will have an important impact on the preservation of coastal and inland resources, the preservation of culture, and ensuring the availability of fish in the waters.

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

Recently, the practices of sasi laut has weakened due to the external and internal pressures of the actors involved. The external factors that threatened the existence of the legal practice of sasi laut were modernisation and commercialisation, which resulted in the erosion of traditional values⁽²⁾. Within the Haruku society, sasi laut practices were faced with challenges, such as internal political conflicts, competition in the local economy, regeneration of kewang, and the power of outsiders who did not consider the social and cultural conditions of the indigenous community. In addition, locals spoke of such factors as access to fishery commodity markets, capital limitation, and lack of human resources as the main constraints to switch the orientation of their livelihood income from the plantation to fishery systems (i.e., fishing/aquaculture).

The actors involved in the development of sasi laut had three main interests, economic, ecological and cultural. The economic interests were normally represented by communities, businesses, and local governments. The ecological interests were represented by the traditional leaders, NGOs, universities, donor agencies, environmentalists and researchers. Meanwhile, cultural interests were represented by the indigenous communities, universities, and government. This mixture of interests in the region created uncertainty about the implementation of sasi laut, as kewang were unsure of which motivations to follow, thus weakening sasi laut practices.

Community Initiative

The indigenous community of Haruku, which had been more moderate and adaptive to the issues of coastal resource management, drew on cooperation among actors to further develop sasi laut. Advocacy of relationships with outside parties aroused a new awareness to expand the scope of sasi laut, and the adaptation of new values in sasi laut gained the support of the community. Furthermore, the people were actively involved in such programmes as a mangrove nursery and rehabilitation of mangrove areas in the estuary of the Learisa Kayeli River, one of the lompa fish habitats. The importance of mangrove rehabilitation had been increasingly recognized after the occurrence of coastal erosion in the last few years, which directly threatens human settlements and other public infrastructure.

Practical Outcomes

Due to both external and internal pressures, changes in the political, governance, natural resources and societal livelihood systems have affected the orientation of the sasi laut management system in Maluku, resulting in some positive and negative changes:

First, there has been an increasing awareness of efforts to protect coastal areas and the natural resources therein. This awareness encouraged the emergence of the kewang, assisted by outside parties, such as NGOs and donor agencies, to widen the area protection of the sasi laut system on other resources.

Figure 3: Village Leaders of Haruku

Second, the emergence of gender awareness has encouraged women’s involvement in the sasi laut institution. The involvement of women in the institution was based on the consideration that one of the dimensions of indigenous sasi is female, providing a certain space for the presence of women in the sasi institution pertaining to the processes of law enforcement against woman offenders on sasi.

Third, as a social institution, sasi is vulnerable to family economic problems during its implementation. To overcome this problem, kewang have been provided a business unit in the form of economic management of marine tourism. Kewang have some guest houses with some units rented to researchers and tourists (local and foreign) visiting the Haruku Island, thereby providing additional income locally.

Figure 4: Gosong Bird Conservation

Fourth, there has been a decline in involvement in kewang that is needed to perform surveillance on resources. Some NGOs and donors have noticed problems of kewang regeneration through education and training.

Fifth, the rise of awareness of kewang, and their experience in dealing with outside parties (NGOs, universities and donors) has encouraged kewang empowerment. Kewang of Negeri Haruku have established the Foundation of Haru-Ukui Kalesang to empower kewang in Maluku and coordinate implementation of inter-kewang of sasi laut in Haruku Island. Through this foundation, the kewang in Haruku Island have facilitated some kewang leaders from other villages to attend national seminars on coastal conservation and empowerment of indigenous people (Figure 3).

Recently sasi laut has been developed by expanding the objects of conservation, including mangrove ecosystems, the Gosong bird (Eulipoa wallacei, or Moloccan scrubfowl), turtles, and other coastal resources (Figure 4). In addition, sasi luat is supporting marine tourism through a sasi laut festival in Haruku Village (Figure 5). Gender discourse has also been adopted through the representation of women in the local police corps, kewang. This was facilitated through the efforts made by such external parties as NGOs, donor agencies, and universities.

Figure 5: Sasi Laut Festival of Haruku Village

In terms of legislation, the practice of local wisdom in Indonesia, such as sasi laut, has been recognized by the state through various laws and regulations. Political and natural resource governance changes, coupled with the strengthening of marine conservation discourse in Indonesia, make sasi laut more effective for coastal area protection and resources therein.

In Maluku, the strengthening of sasi laut practices is able to answer the challenges of sustainability in the local system, particularly in implementing Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), amid global efforts to develop marine conservation networks. Therefore, the authority of sasi laut management must be responsive to the dynamics of the political system, economy, law, governance, science and technology. In conclusion, the transformation of sasi laut should be aimed at strengthening the capacity of human and institutional resources that are adaptive and responsive to external changes.

References

Acknowledgements

Our gratitude is expressed to the community of Haruku Village who has assisted us a lot in collecting data for this research.

View the complete CCRN’s Koh Sralao Community Story as a PDF

Furqan Asif, Jason Horlings and Melissa Marschke

Key Messages

• The Koh Sralao community work together to safeguard their mangrove forests which form a critical link to their livelihood.
• Community activism concerning coastal resource management issues and resistance to sand dredging contributed to the termination of nearby dredging activities.
• The development of a Special Economic Zone in the provincial capital has provided valuable economic opportunities for young women, contributing to livelihood diversification.

 Community Profile

Figure 1: Map showing select fishing villages including Koh Sralao (bottom right) in relation to Koh Kong town and the SEZ. Map: Google (modified by Furqan Asif).

Koh Sralao is a small 300 household mangrove-estuarine fishing village on the southwestern coast of Cambodia (Figure 1), approximately 22 km from the provincial capital Koh Kong. The village is accessible only by boat. Given the remote nature of the community, most goods and products need to be shipped in and out.

Villagers rely heavily on the marine environment, with fish making up the bulk of their dietary protein. The local marine resources have been the source of sustenance and livelihood for many decades. Although the main activity is crab fishing, a diversity of fishing activities are found, including green mussel culture, shrimp and grouper fishing⁽⁶⁾.

Local fishers use mechanized boats and gill nets or crab traps to harvest the marine resources in and around the mangrove estuarine area, or within a few kilometers of the coastline.  Households work together, with men (sometimes with their wives) going out to fish daily or spending a few days on their boats and women sorting,  processing  and  selling  aquatic   products to   a   handful   of  local  traders  (aquatic  products typically go to the provincial town, and then may move to Cambodia’s capital or into Thailand).

However, sustaining a small-scale fisheries livelihood is challenging⁽⁵⁾ and livelihoods have diversified within and beyond the village. For example, households may have family members working (temporarily or permanently) in construction or factory jobs.  While this work has typically been in another province, in Cambodia’s capital or in Thailand, there are now wage-labour opportunities particularly for young women in the provincial capital at the Special Economic Zone (SEZ), near the border with Thailand.

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

Declining fish populations

Figure 2: The sun sets on houses at Koh Sralao coastal fishing village in Cambodia (Photo: Furqan Asif)

Fishers have spoken about fish declines for decades⁽⁵⁾ and continue to be concerned about fish stocks. The observations made by Koh Sralao fishers are consistent with statistics for the Gulf of Thailand which shows a dramatic decrease in catch per unit effort (an indirect measure of fish abundance) over the past decades.

The declines observed in Koh Sralao‘s aquatic resources may be due to a number of different factors. Fishers have observed an increase in foreign fishing vessels in the nearshore area. Thai fishing vessels may have moved into Cambodian waters as a result of Thailand’s fisheries reform⁽⁹⁾.  Fishers also talk about the impacts of climate change on aquatic resources.  Although the direct effects of climate change on fisheries in Koh Sralao are not yet clear, it seems that rains are less predictable, and storms may be more frequent. Ocean warming may be impacting fish migration routes and reproduction⁽⁸⁾.

Sand dredging

In addition to the persistent decline in catch, sand dredging, which began in the Koh Sralao area in late 2007, has had an impact on the aquatic resources surrounding the Koh Sralao community (Figure 3). The short term impacts of this dredging are clear⁽⁵⁾:

• Fish habitat is being destroyed. Dredging deepens shallow channels, impacting fish and other aquatic habitat in the process.
• Fish migration routes are being disturbed, and the water is said to be more turbid.
• Boats have been dredging near the edge of the mangroves, partially damaging some trees and completely ripping out others.

Community Initiatives

Koh Sralao is a village with a history of community organization around resource management⁽⁵⁾. This means that villagers have been able to organize formally but also use informal channels to express their concerns.

Figure 3. A barge carrying sand from sand mining operations in Koh Kong (Photo: Furqan Asif)

Sand dredging

Villagers have been concerned about the sand dredging since it began in 2007, and have been involved in protests, public consultations and meetings with sand dredgers.  At one point the sand dredging came within eyesight of Koh Sralao, which mobilized villagers yet again. The Koh Sralao community has received support from NGOs, including an activist NGO that initiated an anti-sand mining campaign in 2015.

Mangrove conservation

The Koh Sralao community has worked together to safeguard their natural environment. They have become aware of the importance of conserving the mangrove forests that form a critical link to their livelihood. For example, annual mangrove replanting has become a community tradition since the late 1990s. The area is known for its mangroves which span 23,750 hectares in a protected area and features an ecotourism site set up near the Peam Krasop community.

Livelihood diversification

Households have responded to marine resource degradation by shifting livelihood activities within and beyond the village, with regional factory wage work emerging as another diversification strategy.  It is predominantly young women in Koh Sralao that go to work at the Koh Kong SEZ located near the provincial town, since SEZ factories mainly hire women between the ages of 18 to 25⁽⁷⁾.  However, there is no maternity leave for women, and it is difficult for them to return to the SEZ after the age of 28.  Thus, while young women are gaining more opportunities beyond the fishing village, such gains are time-sensitive, and it is unclear how many young women may return to the village at another point in their lives.

Practical Outcomes

Sand dredging

One of the outcomes of the initial protests to the sand dredging was that the dredging activities moved to another area, out of sight of Koh Sralao. Even so, the community wanted the activity to stop altogether, since the negative impacts of the sand dredging continued to be felt. Community members worked with a local activist NGO, providing interviews to media and spearheading a social media campaign, to share the impacts of a decade of continuous sand mining on coastal livelihoods. In November 2016, the Ministry of Mines and Energy announced that they had halted sand dredging operations in Koh Kong, with a total ban on coastal sand dredging for export emerging in mid-2017⁽⁴⁾.

The ban on sand dredging is certainly welcome news to the villagers and for the conservation of the mangrove ecosystem. More broadly, this story not only highlights the challenges of natural resource-based livelihoods and the pressures that coastal communities face (shaped by socio-economic and political forces), but also the importance and impact of grassroots community activism for coastal ecological conservation.

Livelihood diversification

Local factory labour opportunities continue to provide a higher, more consistent income than would otherwise be the case for most young women in Koh Sralao. Women are sending remittances home, and for these households this is an additional source of income (even if time sensitive), all the more important given the challenge of small-scale fisheries livelihoods ⁽³⁾.  The longer term implications of such wage work, in the sense of helping to sustain coastal livelihoods and villagers’ well-being, remains to be seen.

References

Acknowledgements

Community Conservation Research Network

Saint Mary’s University

Halifax, Nova Scotia

B3H 3C3 Canada

Phone: 902.420.5003

E-mail: ccrn@smu.ca

View the complete CCRN’s Les Village Community Story as a PDF

Humayra Secelia Muswar and Arif Satria

Key Messages

• Les Village’s marine environment was devastated by a cyanide traditionally used for catching marine ornamental fish, leading to a decline in the local economy and fishers’ livelihood.
• Local conservation began when eco-friendly approaches to catching fish were introduced to restore local marine resources.
• Local fishers easily adapted to these new community-based conservation approaches as they were in line with karma (Hindu-Bali’s belief) and their way of life.

Community Profile

Les Village is a fishing community located in the east of Buleleng Regency of Indonesia (Figure 1). Les Village consists of 25.57km of coastline comprised of rock, gravel, and sandy beaches. Locals mostly depend on fishing for their livelihood, as the land is very dry and not fertile enough for agriculture. However, residents can find other work as construction workers, merchants, businessmen or in the non-formal employment sectors of farming and animal husbandry. Tourism is not a significant livelihood source for locals.

Figure 1: Map of Les Village (circled), Buleleng district (outlined). (Adopted from Google Map)

Marine ornamental and seafood fishers have fundamental differences in the way they fish, such as fishing gear, fishing time, fishing pattern, fishing location, the post-capture treatment of fish and their income scheme (Table 1). One important characteristic of the marine ornamental fishers of Les Village is their closeness to their religion. One of the most fundamental belief-systems for Hindu-Bali is ‘karma’, the idea of a balance of life: if  Mother Nature is respected, nature will give you the best of what it has, and vice versa. The belief system also plays a role in characterising the fishers, such as their knowledge, role of women, the social structure, and social position of fishers⁽¹⁾.

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

Initially, nets were used to catch ornamental fish in Les Village. However, an increasing demand in the 1980s prompted the fishers to look for ways to improve their catch. In 1985, the cyanide method of fishing was introduced to support marine ornamental fish market demand^(2,3,4). Fishers discovered that cyanide makes fish lethargic, thereby making them easier to catch^(2,3). Fishers kept the cyanide in a bottle (Figure 2) and sprayed the cyanide in the ornamental fish habitats⁽⁴⁾.

Table 1 Key differences between seafood fishing and ornamental fishing

Beginning in the 1990s and into the 2000s, marine ornamental fish began to be a lucrative commercial commodity. Fishers concentrated on fulfilling their household needs and generating income, while exploiting Mother Nature to satisfy marine oriental fish markets⁽⁵⁾. The use of cyanide made fish easier to catch; however, environmental deterioration began to be felt by fishers in the 2000s. The use of cyanide negatively impacted the local marine environment as live coral coverage fell below 10%, ornamental fish population decreased to under 20% and population of all species decreased to an estimated 10% of their 1986 population⁽⁶⁾.

Figure 2: Fisher sprays the cyanides directly to the reefs to make fish lethargic.

Coral reefs became bleached and only unique ornamental fish were left. Not being able to meet market demand, this development depleted fisher’s income and devastated their social and economic life. Lack of government concern created a sense of abandonment among marine ornamental fishers. Fishers said that the government is only punishing them because of their use of cyanide, but gave no instructions on how to change their ways or preserve the environment. Three reasons, in particular, relate to the root causes of the destructive fishing methods:

1. Fisher’s knowledge. Les Village fishers did not know of any other way to catch fish. Locals possessed limited information about fishing methods, especially since they have no senior high school or higher education. This concern was most frequently raised by fishers. Using cyanide had become transmissible knowledge. Fishers faced a dilemma to survive and had to choose to keep catching fish with cyanide or not be able to eat at all. The use of cyanide eventually became unlawful and Les Village fishers were often detained for violation of the law of using cyanide in an attempt to catch fish. Yet, the government offered no solution, without which fishers would continue to violate the law in order to support themselves and their families. The combination of lack of education and lack of guidance from the state thus established a livelihood dilemma for fishers.

2. Market demand. The ornamental fish trade is part of the global and international market, and whether wanted or not, local fishers are a part of globalised market system. To maintain a livelihood, they must meet a demand that comes from first-world countries. The greater the market demand – in this case, via the middlemen (Figure 3) – the more fish must be caught. Thus, Les Village fishers and the local environment are exploited and marginalized in order to meet the demand of more powerful countries and peoples⁽⁵⁾.

Figure 3: the middlemen and the collected fish.

3. Lack of public and stakeholder awareness and involvement. The marine ornamental fish trade is part of international trade, which involves stakeholders. This means that capitalist industrialisation brings constant pressures on individual firms (big or small) to keep down costs⁽⁷⁾. One of the main ways firms do this is by “externalizing” the costs of their impacts (including environmental, social, and health impacts) – in other words, finding a way to make someone else pay those costs. In fisheries, firms benefit from the environment – they profit from the fish – but they do not pay the full costs of the impact their fishing has on the local fisheries or the environment. In the case of Les Village, fishers were pressured to continue to use cyanide in order to meet market demand. Fishers were put in a difficult dilemma: wanting to conserve the environment when it began to degrade, but lacking the education to know the negative impacts of cyanide and, even worse, lacking support or knowledge about solutions. However, fishers continued to fish as they needed to support their livelihood. Others would profit from their environment and take whatever they conserved if they did not ^(5,7).

Community Initiatives

This situation continued for nearly 20 years. In the early 2000s, when reefs were already damaged and degradation reverberated, government still did not come to help; however, the NGO Yayasan Bahtera Nusantara (YBN) came and provided much needed support to the fishers. Originally engaging the fishers under the guise of a buyer, the YBN provided fishers with training and new equipment for environmentally friendly fishing, thus moving from cyanide to using nets and barriers only. The approach that the NGO helped to implement was particularly successful since it acknowledged the fisher’s belief system, thus helping Les Village fishers transform from the destroyer to the guardian.

The value of environmentally-friendly fishing that was implemented brought back fishers’ consciousness about the balance of life. They realized that using cyanide meant demolishing their own natural resources, since they suffered from the effects of using cyanide: diminished fish stocks, disappearing coral reefs, and heavy debt. Thus, Les Village’s ornamental fishing community worked with the NGO to restore their marine livelihood.

The initiative consisted of the following actions:

1. Establishment of a new marine ornamental fish group that committed to ecologically-friendly fishing practices (no cyanide), and community-based marine environmental management.
2. Creation of artificial reefs to enhance Les Village’s marine diversity.
3. Designing a community-based no-take zone.
4. Improvement of the belief that ‘karma’ does exist, and that “if we treat our nature good, nature will give us good fish”.

Around 2005, YBN worked with the Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) to legitimise the environmental-friendly transformation on marine ornamental fish trade in Les Village. Not only fishers, but also the middlemen and exporters were certified as eco-friendly actors. Although the certification expired in 2008, fishers continued to apply the sustainable eco-friendly fishing methods. Now, LINI (Indonesian Nature Foundations), an environmental NGO, works with Les Village fishers to continue this sustainable way.

Practical Outcomes

The success of this conservation movement by Les Village’s communities of marine aquarium fishers was a collective effort. Several factors and important actors were involved:

Leadership – The NGO’s leadership was the most powerful tool for motivating this community to move from using cyanide to using environmental friendly fishing practices.
Community Social Capital – The community has very high social capital and unity due to their interrelatedness and common history (Figure 4). Together, they inadvertently destroyed their marine environment, suffered, and are recovering their livelihood. Togetherness and trust is the biggest part of this community’s social capital.
Fisher’s Belief System – Their beliefs as Hindu-Bali teach them to put trust on ‘karma’.
Support Networks – The village has an extensive support network with NGOs, researchers (from universities) and trade chain actors that buy and sell their eco-fish.
Timing – The conservation was done just in time. The NGO came in at a critical ecological time, when fishers were getting more confused and frustrated from suffering from their sinking livelihood and questioning what they were doing to their environment.

Figure 4: Fisher’s family starts their day.

References

View the complete CCRN’s Olifants Estuary Community Story as a PDF

Merle Sowman

Key messages

• Fishers of the Ebenhaeser and Papendorp communities in Olifants Estuary have strengthened their voice in negotiations and decisions affecting the estuary and their livelihoods.

• Increased understanding of the importance of the estuary for conservation, livelihood and culture — amongst fishers, government officials and other stakeholders — has led to a greater willingness to work together to achieve socio-economic and conservation objectives.

• Proposed mining activities in the vicinity of the Olifants estuary pose a new threat to the communities and require ongoing vigilance, mobilisation and collaboration to defend rights and the environment.

Community profile

The people of Ebenhaeser were forcibly removed from their farmlands near Lutzville in the Western Cape of South Africa in 1926 and relocated to unfertile lands adjacent to the Olifants Estuary (Figure 1). These communities have been reliant on the estuary for fishing for generations although in recent years reduced catches have resulted in many seeking supplemental livelihoods^(4,5).

Figure 1: Map of the Olifants River Estuary

There areapproximately 120 fishing families that rely on fishing for food and as a contribution to livelihoods. They live in two main villages adjacent to the estuary – Ebenhaeser and Papendorp. The fishers use rowboats and gillnets and mainly fish at night. The main target species is mullet but there is also an incidental catch or “bycatch” comprising a few linefish species such as elf and silver kob.

Conservation and livelihood challenges

The Ebenhaeser and Papendorp communities face several challenges to their livelihoods, including threats to close the fishery and proposals to build a mine adjacent to the Olifants estuary.

Closure of the gill net fishery 

Over the past 20 years, traditional small-scale fishers at the Olifants estuary have been facing threats from fisheries scientists and conservationists to close the gillnet fishery. A government policy published in 2005 required that gillnetting be phased out by 2014, while a draft estuary management plan (EMP) published in 2008, recommended the estuary be declared a no-take marine protected area (MPA). The community rejected both the policy and the draft plan on the basis of inadequate participation in the decision-making process and failure to recognise their socio-economic and cultural rights.

Figure 2: Two of the older fishers from Olifantsdrif with dried fish (bokkoms) in background

Proposed mining adjacent to the estuary 

In April 2016, an Australian mining company, with various subsidiaries in South Africa, submitted a mine prospecting application for heavy mineral sands, including zircon, phosphates, garnet, precious stones and diamonds on two farms that lie adjacent to the north bank of the Olifants Estuary. The proposed mining area is located on land identified as a critical biodiversity area. The southern boundary of the mining area borders on the sensitive Olifants estuary and associated habitats (approximately 15 km in extent) while the western boundary is adjacent to the seashore and extends northwards for approximately 18 km. To the north of the proposed mining area an existing mine is currently operating under the same Australian company.

Fishers at the Olifants estuary, as well as other community members, are particularly concerned about the negative impacts that the proposed mining activities may have on estuarine habitats, water quality and sediment movement as well as scenic views and sense of place. Of particular concern is its effect on local livelihoods and plans for conservation as well as a community tourism development at the mouth of the estuary.

Although the Basic Assessment Report (BAR) for the prospecting phase has indicated that no drilling of experimental holes will take place on the estuary banks⁽³⁾, fishers are concerned that once approved, environmental controls will be ignored. Fishers are also concerned that should prospecting yield favourable results and mining be approved, the company will request permission to extend the mining operation into the estuary and out to sea, as it happened at the existing mine site.

The lack of accessible information, consultation and transparency associated with the initial basic environmental assessment process led civil society to submit objections questioning the integrity of the process and the initial assessment report. Despite these objections, the Minister approved the report, which led to a formal appeal procedure in 2018 where fishers, with support from their local partners, raised objections to shortcomings in the public participation process and the quality of the assessment report. Two of the appeals were upheld by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and the applicant was required to undertake further public consultation and prepare a biodiversity assessment of the estuary. However, a revised report has not changed the fisher community’s steadfast opposition to mining in the area.

Although there is a policy and legislative framework in place to regulate the mining sector, the increasing power of that sector in South Africa (with strong political backing), presents a serious threat to coastal communities like those living adjacent to the Olifants estuary. The people of Ebenhaser and Papendorp are facing threats to their livelihoods and way of life – this time due to mining proposals.

Community initiatives

Working with their community partners, the Olifants Estuary fishing communities are addressing the challenges facing their community.

Challenging threats to close the gillnet fishery

Figure 3: Discussing the boundaries of the Community Conservation Area at a meeting of fishers with social partners, in Ebenhaeser, June 2016

Challenging the mining proposition

Figure 4: Fishers, university researchers and students meeting together on the banks of the Olifants estuary (September 2016)

Legal recognition of fishing communities

Practical Outcomes

• A much greater appreciation of the rights and interests of different users and stakeholders in the Olifants fishery has emerged, which has been useful in discussions with the government regarding future management of the estuary and fishery.

• Increased understanding amongst fishers and government officials of the importance of the estuary for conservation, livelihoods and culture and an initiative to declare a community conservation area at the mouth of the estuary.

• A greater willingness amongst fishers and conservation agencies to work together in a co-management arrangement to achieve livelihood and conservation objectives.

• Increased capacity and empowerment of fishers to challenge unjust proposals, plans and policies and participate in planning and decision-making processes.

• Revision of the Olifants Estuary Management Plan to include fisher’s proposals for management of the fishery.

• The gillnet fishery has not been closed despite government’s intention to close it at end of 2014.

• Strengthening of partnerships between fishers, university researchers and other social partners.

Figure 5: Two fishers with their dried fish catch (locally known as “Bokkoms”)

References

Acknowledgements

View the CCRN’s Bali Community Story as a PDF

Samantha Berdej (a), Derek Armitage (a), Arif Satria (b)

University of Waterloo, Canada (a), Bogor Agricultural University, Indonesia (b), smberdej@uwaterloo.ca

Key Messages

• Coastal and marine environments are socially complex, made up of diverse actors, interests and views.Bridging organizations are designed to cope with diversity in order to span these differences.
• Bridging organizations can be significant to enabling community voices and leadership in conservation efforts.
• Bridging organizations can help to generate conservation outcomes that are integrative and better reflect the full spectrum of actors and interests-inclusive of communities-in a given context.

Community Introduction

The Indonesia province of Bali is located in the westernmost end of the Lesser Sunda Islands, between Java to the west and Lombok to the east (Figure 1). It is situated in the southwest corner of the Coral Triangle, a region home to the highest marine biodiversity on Earth. The province supports close to four million inhabitants, many of whom are intimately linked to the sea as a source of livelihoods, food security and culture. Marine resources are a cornerstone of the region’s economies and societies, supporting activities such as tourism, local and commercial fisheries, ornamental fisheries and mariculture. Indonesia as a whole has the largest reef-associated population of any country in the world(1), making coastal communities here among the most vulnerable to current and future environmental changes.

This community story focuses on three sites: the Bali Marine Protected Area Network (head office located in the provincial capital of Denpasar), the Nusa Penida Marine Protected Area, and the East Buleleng Conservation Zone.

Figure 1: Map of local sites in Bali Province, Indonesia

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

As elsewhere in Indonesia, Balinese waters face a combination of threats that include overfishing and destructive fishing practices, uncoordinated coastal development, sewage and garbage disposal at sea, dredging and reef channel development, and other damaging practices(2). Intensive utilization of coastal areas by different and sometimes competing interests has meant that the reality of coastal-marine conservation here is remarkably complex and the potential for conflict is high. Options for conservation in this region are confounded by the challenges of a still-evolving decentralization movement, and social, economic, and political complexities such as overlapping authorities, multiple interests and policy domains, and unresolved boundaries of customary tenure(3,4).

In light of these challenges, the success of conservation initiatives will depend in part on navigating the ‘messiness’ inherent in dynamic and socially complex coastal-marine environments. Innovative strategies are needed to facilitate collaborative and adaptive decision-making, and to better engage and integrate social dimensions such as culture, stakeholder values and local practices into conservation initiatives.

Community Initiative

Coastal and marine environments are of importance to a wealth of social actors and groups in Bali, such as local resource users, commercial interests, government agencies, NGOs and universities. Yet, in many cases actors do not interact with one another, and cooperation with regards to resource management can be poor. Furthermore, the presence of multiple actors with different interests implies significant trade-offs in the face of diverse, and potentially conflicting, objectives such as food security, livelihood development and biodiversity conservation.

Figure 2: Members of the local fishing association in north Bali

Figure 3: Seaweed farmers at low tide, Nusa Penida MPA (Photo: S. Berdej)

This situation can be improved through bridging organizations – independent entities that are designed to connect diverse actors or groups through some form of bridging process, such as knowledge-sharing(5).

Bridging organizations can contribute to a more balanced conservation effort through collaboration, communication and resource sharing – all of which include and resonate with local communities.

This community story focuses on five bridging organizations in Bali Province – four NGOs and one government entity. Each has adopted a series of roles and functions to ‘bridge’ diverse actors. Some of these roles include:

• Fostering social networks that cross scales (from community to international) and sectors (between fisheries, tourism and biodiversity conservation).
• Introducing and mobilizing outside ideas and expertise in community settings.
• Providing community groups access to outside resources (human, technical, financial).
• Building capacity and capabilities among different actors, including community groups.
• Fostering regional institutions and local leadership.

Figure 4: Multiple and overlapping uses in the Nusa Penida MPA (Photo: S. Berdej)

Practical Outcomes

Overall, bridging organizations are significant in navigating socially complex coastal-marine environments, leading to more robust and inclusive conservation outcomes. Their involvement in conservation efforts across Bali Province has resulted in a number of important insights for policy makers, managers and practitioners that are of relevance to developing and ongoing conservation efforts. We speak to some of these insights below, with specific attention to what they mean for communities.

Bridging organizations have helped to broaden and strengthen roles for communities in conservation. In facilitating key learning opportunities – such as ecology workshops or skills development – bridging organizations have improved community capacity in conservation planning, implementation, and monitoring/enforcement. For example, community members in the East Buleleng Conservation Zone have been trained in marine ecology and monitoring techniques, and have been certified in underwater diving to carry out autonomous coral reef monitoring. Some bridging organizations have also advocated and fostered local leadership (and not just involvement) in conservation processes by, empowering local institutions or embedding key community/traditional leaders on decision-making teams. Community-based organizations were created and supported to, for example, take on a majority responsibility in the implementation and management of Local Marine Management Areas in East Buleleng.

Through their involvement, bridging organizations have generated, or are expected to generate, more representative and integrated conservation efforts. Planning and decision-making in the Nusa Penida MPA and Bali MPA Network, for example, is carried out via multi-stakeholder management units composed of representatives from government, fishers’ associations, traditional council, community groups, tourism operators, NGOs and so on. These have produced conservation efforts – such as MPA zoning plans and management strategies – that better account for the wealth of actors and their interests.

Bridging organizations are positioned at the nexus of where actors meet and information flows, and so they are better able to bring together multiple interests and values, as well as engage in trade-off negotiations. In doing so, these organizations provide pathways and platforms for communities to more fully and meaningfully engage in conservation efforts that meet and sustain their needs. Conservation outcomes in these sites to-date have included management plans that reflect joint objectives for biodiversity conservation, livelihoods and community welfare; and zoning strategies that balance the needs of seaweed farmers, tourism operators, fishers, and culture(6,7).

The conservation of coastal and marine resources is a global issue with enormous implications for future human welfare. Bridging organizations can and do have a significant role to play here. In particular, the value of bridging organizations has been demonstrated to communities – in strengthening community voices in wider forums, empowering local leadership, and in helping to balance community needs with regional priorities.

Figure 5: Fishing boats in north Bali – pelagic and ornamental fishing make up a large part of livelihoods here

References

Burke, L, K Reytar, M Spalding and A Perry. 2012. Reefs at Risk Revisited in the Coral Triangle. Washington, USA: World Resource Institute.

Mustika, PL, IMJ Ratha and S Purwanto. 2013. The 2011 Bali marine rapid assessment. 2nd English edition. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 64. Bali Marine and Fisheries Affairs, South East Asia Center for Ocean Research and Monitoring, Warmadewa University, Conservation International Indonesia, Denpasar.

Welly, M., W. Sanjaya, D. Trimudya and W.G. Yanto. 2011. Profil Perikanan Nusa Penida, Kabupaten Klungkung, Propinsi Bali. Pp. 28.

Wardana, A. 2015. Debating spatial governance in the pluralistic institutional and legal setting of Bali. The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology, 16(2): 106-122.

Crona, BI and PN Parker. 2012. Learning in support of governance: theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecology and Society, 17(1): 32.

Berdej, S and D Armitage. 2016a. Bridging organizations drive effective governance outcomes for conservation of Indonesia’s marine systems. PLOS ONE, 11(1), e0147142. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147142

Berdej, S and D Armitage. 2016b. Bridging for better conservation fit in Indonesia’s coastal-marine systems. Frontiers in Marine Science, 3:101. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00101

Acknowledgements

This research is being carried out with the aid of a Doctoral Research Award from the Canadian International Development Research Centre, a doctoral award from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada, a SSHRC grant held by Dr. Derek Armitage as part of a Coastal-Marine Transformation Project, and support from the SSHRC-funded Community Conservation Research Network.

View the complete CCRN’s Chilika Lagoon Community Story as a PDF

Prateep Kumar Nayak

Key Messages

• Fisher communities in the Chilika Lagoon should be an integral part of policy creation for lagoon governance.
• Current community based institutions can be reviewed and re-engaged in the management of capture fishery in order to strengthen fishery-based community livelihoods and food security.
• In Chilika Lagoon, the majority of outmigration is temporary or seasonal in the nature, which makes it possible for migrating fishers to reoccupy their customary fishing spaces if aquaculture is vacated.

Community Profile 

Connected to the Bay of Bengal in the south, with the Eastern Ghats Mountain ranges forming most of its catchment on the north and the west, Chilika Lagoon is a Ramsar Site of international conservation importance and a biodiversity hotspot (Figure 1).

Rare, vulnerable, and endangered species inhabit the lagoon. It is the largest wintering ground for migratory waterfowl found anywhere on the Indian subcontinent and home to Irrawaddy dolphins and the Barkudia limbless skink.   The total number of fish species is reported to be more than 225. Along with a variety of phytoplankton, algae, and aquatic plants, the lagoon region also supports over 350 species of non aquatic plants. A survey carried out by the Zoological Survey of India in 1985-87 recorded over 800 species of fauna. This represents a solid ecological foundation to the lagoon’s small-scale fisheries system.

The Chilika community

Conservation and livelihood challenges

Due to large-scale forest and land degradation, subsistence based on agriculture and forestry is on the decline. Consequently, a number of non-fisher caste members have now turned to aquaculture, and in some cases regular capture fishing, as a growing source of income.

Figure 2: Chilika Aquaculture.

Conservation consequences

• Disturbance of the salinity regime and the fresh water/saltwater balance.
• Random changes in water depth.
• Increase in sand deposits, especially in the lagoon’s outer channel areas near the new sea mouth.
• Changes in the nature of the water inflow and outflow during high and low tides.
• Infestation of barnacles affecting both fishers and their equipment.
• Sudden appearance of what local people call sea creatures, such as the stingray, octopus and jelly fish.

Social and livelihood consequences 

• Fish production reached an all-time low, and the small-scale fisher economy, efficiently run by caste-based fishers and their organisations for centuries, began to collapse.
• Household incomes dropped as a result of the decline in fish production, contributing to the loss of fishery-based livelihoods.
• Local subsistence and household economies came under stress, severe food insecurity in fisher communities became evident, increasing fishers’ dependence on staggering amounts of cash loans with interest rates of 60-120% per annum.
• More than one-third of adult fishers and their families were occupationally displaced from fishing and either migrated to urban centers as unskilled workers or took up daily wage labor.
• Elite capture of customary fishing areas through encroachment acted as a vehicle for the growth of aquaculture in Chilika. Influential people took control of the lagoon resulting in serious issues around fishers’ access rights and entitlements.

Community Initiatives

Fishers use a well-known metaphor which best explains the level of their response to these challenges and initiatives: “For the poor, when hunger becomes unbearable, movement and protest becomes our last resort.” This suggests that social and political struggles and movements are the ultimate options for the fishers when social, economic, political and environmental problems become rampant. Fishers realise that when everything seems to be going against them and nothing really works in their favour, coming together to protest the acts of the external forces becomes an obligation.

Figure 3: Chilika fisher protest movement.

Practical Outcomes

A series of specific proposals arose from community meetings, including:

• Fishers expressed their desire for priority to be given to community level institutions, while also recognising that other institutions at multiple levels can work together with local institutions.
• Communities feel that the dominance of higher-level government institutions can be minimised and bottom-level institutions, who often do not get an opportunity to participate in fishery related decision-making, should gain some much-required political space and voice.
• The fishers also noted the need to revise some of the earlier institutions that have been dissolved by the government, such as the Central Fishermen Cooperative Marketing Society, or those that have become dysfunctional such as the Primary Fishermen Cooperative Societies at the village level.

Figure 4: Fisher presentation at a policy workshop.

References

1. Nayak, P. K. and F. Berkes. 2010. ‘Whose marginalisation? Politics around environmental injustices in India’s Chilika Lagoon’. Local Environment 15(6): 553–567. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2010.487527

Additional Reading on Chilika Lagoon

Acknowledgements

See below for the Odia language abstract for this community story.

View the CCRN’s Maya Zone Community Story as a PDF

Karla Diana Infante-Ramírez, Malloni Puc-Alcocer and *A. Minerva Arce-Ibarra El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Mexico (ECOSUR), *aarce@ecosur.mx and aibarra@dal.ca

Key Messages

• The Maya Zone’s tropical rainforests in Quintana Roo state of Mexico provide many provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services.
• Both the government and the Maya people themselves have their own meanings of conservation and their own motivations for conservation.
• Community conservation initiatives must be part of national and international conservation programs.

Community Introduction

Quintana Roo’s “Maya Zone”, located in the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico, is a biocultural region with inhabitants who speak the Maya-Yucatec language in their daily lives. The Maya people rely on rainforest resources and agriculture as their main livelihoods. Maya communities also practice slash-and burn-cultivation (“milpa”) which is regarded as a cultural tradition. The communities are organized into common holdings called “ejidos”. Here we focus on the ejidos of Noh Cah and X-Maben (Figure 1), particularly their main towns (“Noh Cah” and “Señor”), with 86 and 3,095 inhabitants, respectively. In socio-economic terms, these communities are highly marginalized.

The Maya Zone is located in well-preserved tracts of tropical rainforest which provides a portfolio of ecosystem services1,2 to the users and communities dependent on it, including: a) provisioning services such as food (e.g., small-scale game, gathering of medicinal plants, and fish from water-filled sinkholes called “cenotes”); b) regulating services such as protection from hurricanes; c) cultural services such as using the sacred “cenotes” for baptism, and recreational inland fisheries; and d) supporting services including CO2 sink source.

The Maya people from these communities utilize these various services, and engage in conservation activities that help to maintain the services. The complex meanings they have for such conservation, as well as their motivations for conservation, are important factors in the social subsystem of the Maya Zone.

Figure 1. Study area in Quintana Roo´s Maya Zone.

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

The Maya Zone area has been impacted by the effects of climatic variability (climate change). Over the last three decades, people in the communities have reported that rains have not arrived at expected times or in usual quantities. This has affected the productivity of traditional agriculture (“milpa”), a rain-fed system, resulting in insufficient harvests of staple foods to support local needs3. In addition to this challenge, several species are endangered in the region, for instance, the jaguar and the peccary, affecting biodiversity and the local residents.

In the 1990s, the federal government launched an international initiative on biodiversity conservation called the “Mesoamerican Biological Corridor”. However, that conservation program was based on a top-down approach, and hence did not (and still does not) take into account the kind of local conservation activities practiced by the local people. Being descendants of the ancient Maya civilization, and depending heavily on rainforest resources, people in communities of this area still actively look after those resources.

Community Initiative

Local authorities in the Maya Zone actively explore opportunities to receive support for environmental activities. A recent example was the possibility of applying for funding to a federal ‘payment for environmental services’ program. The local authorities recognized that many locals did not understand (from a Western-science perspective) what “an environmental service” was, and thus engaged with the CCRN-ECOSUR team to organize a seminar on ‘what is an environmental service’ and the ‘payment for environmental services’ program. Other seminars have been held, on topics suggested by the local residents and others suggested by the CCRN-ECOSUR team. Another was about “Climatic variability in the Yucatan Peninsula” (Figure 2) and addressed the influence of major weather events, for example the “El Niño Southern Oscillation” (ENSO), which affects mainly primary activities in the region.

These seminars aimed to improve the capacity of the communities in dealing with climate variability. This capacity building is being accompanied by monitoring of the Maya social-ecological system using indicators focused on climate variability and its impact on livelihoods, such as slash and burn-shifting cultivation.

Figure 2. Seminar presentation on “Climatic variability in the Yucatan Peninsula” delivered to inhabitants of Noh cah and “Señor” Maya communities by Karla Infante Ramírez (Photo credit: Karina Chale Silveira).

The capacity building activities that locals and community groups participated in also looked at the local meanings of conservation and motivations toward conservation. The results, presented back to the communities, provide feedback based on their experience and local knowledge (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Presenting results on the meanings of ‘Conservation’ back to Noh Cah inhabitants by Malloni Puc Alcocer. As local people from Noh cah prefer to discuss in the Maya language, Mr. Xool (red cap) worked in the research team as a translator (Photo credit: A. Minerva Arce-Ibarra).

Practical Outcomes

Understanding the meanings and motivations of the Maya people towards conservation is a complex subject. Research results indicate that there are two types of motivations for conservation in these Maya communities, namely extrinsic and intrinsic motivations. The former derives from government-based conservation programs, whereas the latter are people’s own motivations. According to Puc-Alcocer4, two types of conservation of the rainforest are in place in this region: one referring to the conservation programs implemented by the government and the other (the Kanan K’áax) which is a type of Maya community-based conservation. “Kanan K’áax” is a Maya phrase and literally means “to look after the rainforest” (Kanan means ‘look after’ and K’áax means ‘rainforest’).

Local Maya conservation initiatives that are in place need to be included in national and international conservation programs. Therefore, it is suggested that the improved understanding of Maya meanings and motivations for conservation reflected here be taken into consideration by conservation initiatives such as the “Mesoamerican Biological Corridor” and also by state institutions dealing with development programs in the Maya area and elsewhere in Mexico.

References

1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment synthesis report. Island Press. Washington, D.C.

2. Infante-Ramírez, K. D. and Arce-Ibarra, A.M. (2015). Percepción local de los servicios ecológicos y de bienestar de la selva de la zona maya en Quintana Roo, México [Local perception of the ecological services and well-being of the Maya Zone’s rainforest from Quintana Roo, México]. Investigaciones Geográficas, Boletín del Instituto de Geografía, 2015(86), 67-81.

3. Bello-Baltazar, E. (2001). Milpa y madera, la organización de producción entre Mayas de Quintana Roo. Doctor of Science Thesis in Social Anthropology. Universidad Iberoamericana, México, DF.

4. Puc Alcocer, M. 2015. Conservación comunitaria de la selva maya en los ejidos Noh-Cah y X-maben, Quintana Roo. [Community-based conservation of the rainforest at the common holdings of Noh Cah and X-Maben, Quintana Roo]. Masters Thesis. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur. Chetumal.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Maya people and their local authorities for granting us consent to undertake research on their lands. Our main source of funding came from the SSHRC-CCRN project. We thank all the support received from Saint Mary´s University and CCRN staff. Partial support for our research came from ECOSUR and CONACyT fiscal funds. CONACyT also granted scholarships to pursue the graduate studies of K.D. Infante-Ramírez and M. Puc-Alcocer.