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 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 CCRN’s Galapagos Community Story as a PDF

Castejon Mauricio (a.b) , Viteri Cesar (b) , Moreno Jerson (b), Vera Mariana (b) , and Luis Suarez (b).

(a) Dalhousie University; (b) Conservation International

Key Messages

• Fishers in three fishing communities of the Galapagos Islands are working in collaboration with NGOs. Local Management Authorities and other Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) to improve the spiny lobster fishery, which is showing clear signs of recovery after a period of over exploitation.
• The global financial crisis, which concurred between 2007 and 2009, triggered the diversification of products and markets in the spiny lobster fishery from the Galapagos Marine Reserve, which is leading to greater economic benefits of fishery

Community Introduction

The Galapagos Archipelago is located about 1,240 km west of mainland Ecuador. This archipelago is recognized worldwide for its particular oceano-graphic and geological features, which influenced the origin of unique terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Such features inspired the naturalist Charles Darwin to conceive his famed theory of evolution by natural selection, following his visit in 1835. Additionally, the unique nature of the archipelago led to its designation as a World Heritage site by UNESCO in 1978. In 1998 the Galapagos archipelago, and its surrounding open ocean, was declared a multiple use marine reserve of 138,000 km2, known as the Galapagos Marine Reserve(1).

The People and Communities

There are approximately 25,144 residents inhabiting only 4% of the total land area, distributed across five islands (Santa Cruz, San Cristobal, Isabela, Floreana and Baltra, Figure 1). The main economic driver of the archipelago is tourism, which employs 40% of local residents and produces approximately 65.4% of Galapagos’ gross domestic product (GDP). The fishing industry employs approximately 3.6% of the active economic population and its contribution to Galapagos’ GDP is approximately 1.9%. There are three main fishing ports (Baquerizo Moreno, Puerto Ayora and Villamil), with currently 1,105 license holders and 318 fishing vessels.

The most valuable shellfish species commercially harvested are the red and green spiny lobsters (Panulirus penicillatus and P. gracilis), and the sea cucumber (Isostichopus fuscus). They are harvested exclusively by artisanal hookah and skin divers mostly in sub-tidal rocky habitats (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Hooka diver from Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island, with a red spiny lobster (Photo: Mauricio Castrejón)

Of all fishers in the Galapagos, only 42% of them (and 54% of vessels) remain active in the spiny lobster fishery. Of the four fishing cooperatives, one of them, COPROPAG, has shown a long term commitment to improve the spiny lobster fishery.

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

The overcapitalization of the small scale artisanal fishing fleet, driven by the boom and bust exploitation of the sea cucumber fishery, caused an exponential growth of the number of license holders and vessels between 1999 and 2002. Consequently, fishing effort increased in the spiny lobster fishery leading to its over-exploitation(3). Decreasing trends in abundance and yield (Figure 3) were also caused by the catching of lobsters below the minimum landing size, catch of egg-bearing lobsters, and illegal fishing during closure season (January-August). As spiny lobster stocks declined, the race for fish intensified resulting in more illegal fishing and more restrictive management measures, including implementation of a total allowable catch and reduction of the fishing season from 8 to 4 months.

In addition to overexploitation, the economic performance of the spiny lobster fishery was negatively affected by the global financial crisis which occurred between 2007 and 2009. This crisis reduced the consumption of lobsters in the United States and the European Union – the main foreign markets for Ecuador. In the Galapagos, the sharp worldwide decline in lobster demand produced a price drop of 32% between 2008 and 2009(2).

Figure 3: Landings and catch time series from 1997 to 2015(4)

Community Initiative

During the economic crisis, middlemen refused to buy landings at higher prices. This resulted in declines of total fishing effort, catch, and exports to mainland Ecuador by 20%, 23% and 45%, respectively(3).

Galapagos fishers reacted individually to the economic crisis, in three ways:

1. Abandoning the fishery
2. Diversifying their product by trading whole fresh lobsters instead of lobster tails
3. Diversifying their market by selling their product directly to the local hospitality sector and general public instead of middlemen(5).

While the economic crisis was detrimental for Galapagos fishers, it was beneficial for spiny lobster stocks. Two years after the official end of the recession, lobster CPUE (catch per unit effort) and catch increased 91% and 102%, respectively (while fishing effort only increased 6% between 2009 and 2011). Since then, these indicators have remained remarkably high. Price also increased, although it remains below the value registered before 2007.

During this period, technical and scientific assistance has been provided to the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) and the local fishing sector, by environmental NGOs (Conservation International and World Wildlife Fund), to improve the management and marketing system of the spiny lobster fishery.

There was also an initiative, led by Conservation International, to design, in a participatory way, a Fishery Improvement Project (FIP) for the spiny lobster fishery. A FIP can be defined as an alliance of multiple fishery stakeholders that come together to agree upon an action plan, which specifies the activities required to facilitate the transition from over-exploited or collapsed fisheries toward fisheries that are ecologically sustainable, economically profitable and socially fair and equitable in a specified timeframe. The FIP for the lobster fishery was created with the participation of representatives of the fishing cooperatives from Santa Cruz, Isabela and San Cristobal, as well as authorities from the GNPS, other government agencies, and researchers from the above-noted environmental NGOs, Charles Darwin Foundation, and universities.

Management strategies were defined, which took into consideration input from local fishers and the results of several studies concerning the status, management and marketing system of the Galapagos spiny lobster fishery(6). As a result, a series of strategies were agreed upon by participants to improve the management of the fishery in an integrated way, including activities to improve the value chain, fishery monitoring and the social capital of fisher´s organizations. These actions have resulted in the diversification of products and markets, resulting in higher revenues for fishers.

Practical Outcomes

Since May 2014, the following concrete actions have been taken to improve the spiny lobster fishery(6):

Stock Assessment: An integrated stock assessment of the red spiny lobster stocks has been recently conducted(7), based on data-poor and traditional assessment methods. Based on these studies, reference points and harvest control rules have been agreed upon for the spiny lobster fishery, using a precautionary “traffic light” approach.

Biological Monitoring: Length and weight data for the spiny lobster, gathered at the three main ports of Galapagos, has improved.

Social Marketing Campaign: Since 2012, one fishing cooperative (COPROPAG) has worked to put in practice a social marketing campaign called “Cuidamos lo nuestro para los nuestros” to encourage local consumption of whole lobsters and the adoption of responsible fishing practices (Figure 4). This initiative has contributed to an increase in the proportion of total production consumed locally at provincial level from 10% to 48% in 2013 (Figure 5). This initiative has been complemented since 2015 with the annual organization of a “Galapagos Lobster Festival” with the support of Santa Cruz Municipality, MAGAP, the Tourism Chamber, Minister of Education, and a local gastronomy school.

Figure 4: Social marketing campaign to promote local consumption of whole lobsters and the adoption of responsible fishing practices in Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz, Galapagos. Credit: Conservation International-Galapagos Program

Figure 5: Landing market share for the Galapagos spiny lobster fishery from 1998 to 2015(4)

Local Fishery Certification System: Locally known as Sello Galápagos, the certification system is being created by the local fishing sector, GNPS, World Wildlife Fund, and Conservation International. This is a participatory process that initiated in 2014 and it is expected to conclude in 2017. COPROPAG is receiving technical and economic support to fulfill all the requirements needed to be certified. In turn, COPROPAG has promoted the adoption of Sello Galapagos through social media.

Tourism: Even though lobster ex-vessel prices have rebounded since 2009 increasing from 8 to 9.7 US$ / tail kg, most of lobster production is remaining in the local market, particularly in Puerto Ayora where demand for whole lobsters is higher due to a strong local demand from high-end tourists arriving in increasing numbers (more than 200,000 visitors arrives each year to the islands).

Trading Whole Lobsters

Restructuring of the value chain and diversification of products (now fishers from Puerto Ayora sell whole lobsters instead of only lobster tails) sold at local level are generating strong economic impacts throughout the value chain at Puerto Ayora. Viteri and Moreno(8) found that trading whole lobsters at the local level has improved fishers well-being in two ways:

1. In 2013 a whole lobster was worth US$12.24, three times higher than the revenue received from one lobster (US$4.8) when just its tail was marketed. Therefore, fishers obtained higher revenues per lobster
2. Fishers’ bargaining power increases when they sell their product in the local market rather than through intermediaries, which helps them to obtain better prices. According tohese authors, more benefits will be obtained gradually as fishers sell a higher percentage of their landings as whole frozen lobster and/or live lobster. These authors estimate that trading exclusively whole lobsters could increase the total revenue of the entire fishery by 30% from US$1.23 million to US$1.6 million.

Figure 6: A parade and prepared lobster at the Galapagos Lobster Festival (Photos: Mariana Vera)

Local management authorities, fishing cooperatives and NGOs continue work on improving the management and marketing system of the spiny lobster fishery by the implementation of the FIP agreed upon for this fishery.

References

1. Castrejón M, Charles A (2013) Improving fisheries co-management through ecosystem-based spatial management: The Galapagos Marine Reserve. Mar Policy 38:235–245.
2. Ramírez J, Castrejón M, Toral-Granda MV (2012a) Mejorando la pesquería de langosta en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos. World Wildlife Fund, Quito, Ecuador.
3. Defeo O, Castrejón M, Pérez-Castañeda R, Castilla JC, Gutiérrez NL, Essington TE, Folke C (2016) Co-management in Latin American small-scale shellfisheries: assessment from long-term case studies. Fish Fish 17: 176–192.
4. Dirección del Parque Nacional Galápagos (2016) Evaluación integral de la pesquería de langosta espinosa (Panulirus penicillatus y P. gracilis) 2015 en la Reserva Marina de Galápagos”. Informe Técnico. Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz, Galápagos.
5. Castrejón M, Defeo O (2015) Co-governance of small-scale shellfisheries in Latin America: the role of institutional adaptive capacity to cope with climatic and human drivers of change. In: Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R, (eds) Interact. Gov. small-scale Fish. Glob. Reflections. Springer, New York, p 605-625.
6. Castrejón M (2015) Marine Stewardship Council Plus (MSC+) pre-assessment for the spiny lobster (Panulirus penicillatus and P. gracilis) fishery from the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Conservation International. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos, 90 pp.
7. Szuwalski CS, Castrejón M, Ovando D, Chasco B (2016). An integrated stock assessment for red spiny lobster (Panulirus penicillatus) from the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Fisheries Research. DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2016.01.002
8. Viteri C, Moreno J (2014) Estudio de impactos socio-económicos de la comercialización de langosta entera en Galápagos. Puerto Ayora, Galápagos, Ecuador.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the financial support provided by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust to improve the spiny lobster fishery from the GMR. We also acknowledge the long-term support provided by COPROPAG, GNPS, MAGAP and Galapagos Governing Council during the execution of this project.

View the complete CCRN’s Bolivia’s Northern Amazon Community Story as a PDF

Alison Macnaughton

Key Messages

• Introduced fish species in the Bolivian Amazon could provide Indigenous communities with livelihood opportunities, but may also be a threat to their critically-important subsistence fisheries through predation and territorial exclusion.

• Local fishery organizations can be strengthed through ongoing dialogue, leadership training, and technical assistance.

• Engaging with local, regional and national level actors and promoting open spaces of dialogue (workshops, round table groups) can help identify common interests, resolve conflicts and support discussion on future planning.

Community Profile

Figure 1: Map of Bolivia showing the Pando and Beni departments(10)

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

Figure 2: Traditional houses in Baketi community, TCO Cavineño, 2015), and low returns to producers.

Community Initiatives

Since 2011, indigenous communities have worked with researchers from the Asociación Faunagua, World Fisheries Trust, and the University of Victoria (Canada), to better understand the fisheries situation, and identify pathways to improve livelihood and food security in the region.

Figure 3: Explaining local fishing areas, catch and effort, community workshop, TCO Chácobo, 2015

Much of this work has focused on the paiche; providing key information on abundance and impacts, as well as potential for development. So far, these efforts have provided important information on:

• Nutritional status and food security of rural and urban populations and key determinants, including the contributions of fish⁽¹⁾;
• Fisheries and other livelihood activities, and local perspectives about paiche; and
• Fishery value chains, and mechanisms to improve transparency and promote greater economic equity between fishers, middlemen and markets^(7,5)

Figure 4: Mapping the spread of the introduced paiche fish, community workshop, TCO Chácobo 2015

There have also been a range of practical initiatives including:

• Pilot initiatives for value-added fish production, for example the establishment of a cooperative in one of the indigenous communities, where paiche fillets and skins (for leather production) are produced and sold at improved prices;
• Strengthening local fisheries organizations through ongoing dialogue, leadership training, and providing technical assistance, e.g. consolidation of the regional fishers association; and
• Engaging with local, regional and national level actors and promoting open spaces of dialogue (workshops, round table groups) to identify common interests, resolve conflicts and discuss future planning^(8).

Practical Outcomes

Figure 5: Preparing roasted tucunaré (peacock bass), a traditional dish, TCO Cavineño, 2015

• Capacity-building for communities and local organisations to identify and articulate local needs and priorities for development and conservation.
• Development and implementation of resource management plans and other governance tools at a local level.
• More effective engagement in regional planning.
• Support for greater transparency, communication and cooperation between agencies responsible for regulating fishing and fish markets.
• Improving returns to fishers, for example through value-added opportunities or improved pricing structure.

Figure 6: Returning with the day’s catch, TCO Cavineño, 2015

References

Acknowledgements

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 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 complete CCRN’s Clayoquot Sound Community Story as a PDF

Tawney Lem,  West Coast Aquatic; tawney@westcoastaquatic.ca

Key Messages

• In order to sustain livelihoods and conserve biodiversity, decision-making must be integrated; that is, ecosystem based, with the participation of all affected interests, and inclusive of indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge.

• Co-management Roundtables have been a successful tool in bringing parties together to discuss their salmon management concerns. An online marine ecosystem reference guide is being developed for Barkley and Clayoquot Sounds to support integrated decision-making.

• The desire to benefit from economic opportunity can be the common ground for successful indigenous and non-indigenous community collaboration and partnership.

Community Introduction

West Coast Aquatic’s geographic scope reflects the ‘Ha-houlthee’ (territorial wealth) of fifteen Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations. Stretching approximately 300 kilometers along the West Coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI), from Brooks Peninsula northwest of Kyuquot Sound to southeast of Sheringham Point including Port Renfrew, this area is a unique and rich marine ecosystem that provides food, energy, economic opportunity, water, culture, tourism, recreation, biotechnology, transportation routes, and knowledge to residents, Canadians, and the international community.

Figure 1: Map of Clayoquot Sound (Photo Credit: West Coast Aquatic “Coastal Strategy”, 2012)

The WCVI offers countless opportunities for every type of activity, including: fishing in Port Alberni (named by the World Fishing Network as the “Ultimate Fishing Town” in 2010); outdoor activities such as kayaking in the pristine Broken Group island and hiking Della Falls, the tallest waterfalls in Canada at 1443 feet; and viewing a diverse amount of wildlife. Fishing areas on the WCVI (Clayoquot, Barkley and Nootka) account for three of the top four areas in the Pacific with the highest landed value per hectare(1). There are a number of finfish, shellfish, and marine plant aquaculture operations in the area, producing over 20% of BC’s total aquaculture volume.

The Clayoquot Sound, a sub-region of WCVI, is home to the Ahousaht, Tla-o-qui-aht and Hesquiaht First Nations. Extending from Estevan Point on Hesquiaht Peninsula in the north to Pacific Rim National Park Reserve in the south, it encompasses lush rainforests, magnificent beaches, and several large islands including Flores, Vargas and Meares. Clayoquot Sound is the largest area of ancient temperate rainforest left on Vancouver Island. Marine species and wildlife thrive in this region of ancient forests, where trees can grow to over 15 feet in diameter and as old as 1,500 years. Clayoquot Sound is considered to be one of the most spectacular wilderness areas on the continent and has been declared a United Nations Biosphere Reserve.

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

Despite the region having tremendous natural assets and opportunities, the area also faces significant challenges. In the mid-1990s, leaders from the West Coast of Vancouver Island came together to discuss key issues: declining fish stocks and increased species at risk; pollution; lack of coastal community access to adjacent resources; unresolved First Nations title, rights, and reconciliation; increased debt and declining funding; lack of governance credibility; social problems; climate change; marine hazards; invasive species; conflicting coastal uses; and food security. The leaders came to the conclusion that there was not one single cause, and not one single cure. Everything is connected. To affect change, a collective effort was required and the West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board (now known as ‘West Coast Aquatic’) was born.

Since the mid-1990s, the area has seen some notable advancements: conflicts have decreased; collaboration has increased; rights and title have gained some definition through a treaty and ongoing court cases; risk assessments guide stewardship work; and multi-sector governance models continue to evolve. However, communities continue their efforts to: increase local benefit from resource use; build struggling fishery stocks; preserve the local culture of artisanal and sustenance fishing; and diversify the economy, amongst other issues.

Meanings & Motivations
Viewing the actions of its partners, West Coast Aquatic understands resource conservation in the region to mean sustainable use with respect (iisaak) and active stewardship. Conservation is different from preservation, a term that carries a stigma in the region as being related to those who “say no to everything”. In the past, the region has seen significant conflict between sectors. However, some long-time adversaries are now working together, and long held perspectives are changing as opportunities increase for open dialogue around critical questions. Protocols between First Nations and the aquaculture industry in Clayoquot Sound is a good example.

Community based resource users are conservation motivated by the increasing volume of resource use benefits that are leaving the communities (e.g. a large number of fishing licenses are held by a few corporations), but the environmental impacts are largely felt by those inside the communities. There is an interest in having the inclusion of local knowledge improve decision-making and increasing local benefits.

These users are also interested in giving back to/supporting the resource that is at the heart of their businesses/sport, as they don’t want to lose economic and/or recreational opportunity. Many community based resource users are also multi-generational. They want to continue what their families have done for years, and hope to pass on the practice to their children.

The motivations of First Nations include: regaining their traditional roles of stewardship and management; ensuring the environment can support the full exercise of aboriginal rights and economic aspirations; having management reflect traditional values of hishuk ish tsawalk (everything is one, taking care of the resources is taking care of ourselves and vice versa); and wanting local/traditional knowledge to improve decision making.

Local governments are motivated by the desire to change the perception of what their towns’ identities represent (not just resource economies). Several governments in the regional district are looking to reinvent their brand, and healthy ecosystems are needed to support their new image (e.g. tourism).

Community Initiative

Recognizing the size and interconnected nature of these issues, local groups created West Coast Aquatic as a forum to pool resources and work towards collective solutions. The formation of West Coast Aquatic was right around the same time that Canada passed the Oceans Act (1997), one of the first pieces of national legislation to recognize emerging challenges in oceans and coastal health and also aimed at mandating collective action.

In this context, West Coast Aquatic set out to produce an integrated strategy to improve the health and wealth of the west coast of Vancouver Island. Through interviews with over 700 organizations and individuals, the Coastal Strategy was developed. Central to the strategy is bringing together knowledge from different sources about the West Coast of Vancouver Island area to create a common understanding of what is happening, why, and what needs to be done.

Governance Related to Challenges Being Addressed
West Coast Aquatic provides several consensus-based forums for involving First Nations and other local communities in decision-making. These include a Governance Board that makes policy recommendations to government, and multi-sector roundtables for salmon management. The Governance Board includes representatives from all levels of government, Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations, and all sectors with an interest in aquatic resource management (e.g. commercial fishing, aboriginal fishing, recreational & sport fishing, aquaculture, environment, processing, labour, tourism & recreation, marine transportation and forestry) (see Figure 2). The Salmon Roundtables include representatives from the Federal Government, Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations, all salmon fishing sectors, and stewardship organizations.

Figure 2: Collaborative, consensus-based governance (Photo Credit: Tawney Lem)

Both the Governance Board and Roundtables incorporate diverse tools and methods (including the Nuu-chah-nulth management principles of hishuk ish tsawalk and iisaak, values based discussion, and consensus) for truly representative and collaborative decision-making that produces lasting results. Through inclusive representation, the Governance Board and Roundtables empower users and groups to have more authority over managing the resources in their communities.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Outcomes
Monitoring of West Coast Aquatic’s work is done both formally and informally. The Governance Board has set four strategic priorities: collaborative governance, ecosystem approach, access to resources, and stewardship. For each priority, outcomes, outputs, activities and indicators are developed that are guided by the Coastal Strategy. At the end of each year, the Governance Board reviews areas of success and opportunities for advancement in the coming year. Some of the outcomes that are monitored include:

Governance:
• Improvement in the quality and inclusiveness of marine resource based decisions.
• Reduction in the potential for conflicts between users.

Ecosystem Approach:
• Marine Ecosystem Reference Guide recommendations are harmonized with government advisory processes.
• Marine Ecosystem Reference Guide information is accessible, up-to-date, and is factored into the development and review of applications.
• Planning is ecosystem based.

Access to Resources:
• Improved community access to seafood.
• Expanded economic diversity and activities, and increased economic stability.

Stewardship:
• Areas that are integral to marine ecosystem health and abundance are protected.
• Stewardship actions of resource users are increased.

For the Roundtables’, the Terms of Reference and goals are reviewed annually, and a post-season evaluation is conducted by all Roundtable participants to assess the success of the harvest plans. Feedback is then incorporated during joint development of the coming year’s plans.

Practical Outcomes

Since 2001, the West Coast Aquatic Governance Board has maintained the participation by all governments, First Nations and sectors. Recently, the Terms of Reference was amended so that the appointment of First Nations’ representatives was more reflective of the First Nations’ governance structures. This has increased the number of First Nations’ seats from two to eight, and this is anticipated to increase their connection to the Governance Board.

Access to resources and community benefit from resource use are two important issues for the Governance Board. WCVI fishers continue to struggle with the impacts of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which has led to a 52% reduction in Chinook catch and 28% reduction in the regional troll fleet. This has the potential to profoundly change trolling as an economic component of coastal livelihoods and as a historic aspect of the fishing industry.

West Coast Aquatic is facilitating discussions between troll groups with the goal of bringing a consensus proposal to the Federal government on the use of the remaining Chapter 3 (Chinook) mitigation fund, and is also hosting WCVI wide discussions so community interests can be documented and included in the negotiations of a new version of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

One action item identified in the Coastal Strategy was the need for marine spatial planning. The goal was to be able to assess the intersection between activities and values, thereby promoting the conservation of significant ecological, cultural and social values as the ‘right activities are matched to the right location’.

Over a three-year period, West Coast Aquatic embarked on an extensive process with its community partners to conduct extensive interviews that documented new knowledge, verify existing information through community experts, and carry out modeling using the Marine InVEST and Marxan models. Another year was spent gathering additional feedback through sector and public review sessions.

After thoughtful discussions about West Coast Aquatic’s role, and in order to ensure that the authority of decision makers was maintained, it has been decided that the end product of these efforts is not a “plan”, but more of a resource that will guide ecosystem based decision making that is inclusive of indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge (Figure 3). The 300 data layers and associated decision-making recommendations will be available online in an interactive platform later in 2016.

The salmon Roundtables continue and have been cited up and down the coast as a successful model and regional solution that can contribute towards the federal government’s mandate to “work with provinces, territories, Indigenous Peoples, and other stakeholders to better co-manage our three oceans.”(1) Based on the success of the salmon Roundtables, discussions continue on the potential of using the Roundtable model for the management of other species.

Figure 3: Community-Based Planning (Photo Credit: West Coast Aquatic staff)

West Coast Aquatic also facilitated the Pacific Rim Education and Tourism Committee through a year of research and strategy development on Education Tourism opportunities for four central west coast communities. Agreeing on the viability of the opportunity, communities are now inviting other communities and several strategic partners to join them in the implementation phase that will be led by the Clayoquot Biosphere Trust. While a new economic opportunity is progress in itself, perhaps the even greater success was having two indigenous and two non-indigenous communities form a partnership around a common interest.

Next Steps:
Within the Marine Ecosystem Reference Guide (tentative name, previously known as the Marine Spatial Plan), ecologically significant areas (ESA) were identified. Currently, 31% of the Clayoquot Sound is formally protected, however another 28% has been identified as being ecologically significant. As the next step, West Coast Aquatic will initiate a multi-sector engagement process that investigates what conservation measures (e.g. ranging from protocols through to formal marine protected areas) might be desirable and effective for the new ESAs. This initiative can also contribute towards the federal government’s mandate of “increasing the proportion of Canada’s marine and coastal areas that are protected to five percent by 2017, and ten percent by 2020”(1).

On the ground monitoring was initiated in the Clayoquot Sound based on data gaps identified in the Chinook Risk Assessment (e.g. water quality, temperature, pH, and alkalinity). The next major undertaking will be the development of a comprehensive monitoring program to ensure that goals in the Coastal Strategy are being met, and that use of the Marine Ecosystem Reference Guide is in fact leading to the desired conservation goals. A series of workshops will be held to identify what monitoring is already taking place, what indicators are most meaningful for communities, and which partners will take on the implementation of monitoring which indicators

References

1. Office of the Prime Minister. 2015. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard mandate letter.

Acknowledgements

West Coast Aquatic recognizes that our work would not be possible without the generous participation and contribution of many knowledgeable First Nations, community organizations, non-governmental organizations, government ministries and departments, academics, and community members.

Thank you to the CCRN for its financial support, which has been directed towards community engagement and capacity building. We are grateful to the Alberni Clayoquot Regional District for their grants towards the core of our organization, the West Coast Aquatic Governance Board. And, the ability to facilitate the salmon Roundtables is due to the Pacific Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative (PICFI) Co-management Element.
West Coast Aquatic also extends special appreciation to the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for its commitment to marine conservation, and for generously funding the development of the Coastal Strategy and Marine Ecosystem Reference Guide.

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 (CCRN).

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

Phil Deardena and Dachanee Emphandhuba

Key Messages

• Conservation initiatives such as habitat creation and fishing restrictions have improved the biodiversity around Koh Pitak Island.

• Establishing a community-based tourism industry enabled further development of lower-consumptive activities to support island livelihoods and reduce dependence on marine resources.

• Community conservation on Koh Pitak Island was successful due to leadership, social capital, distributional equity, tourist attractions, media interest, village culture, support network, and timing.

Community Profile

Koh Pitak is an island ecosystem located approximately one km off the coast of Chumporn Province in the Gulf of Thailand in Bang Num Jeud Sub-District, Luang Suan District. The area of the small, relatively steep island is 113.92 ha, about one-half consisting of natural vegetation and the rest mainly coconut plantation or housing. The island is inhabited by about 45 related households, the majority of whom are Buddhist. Koh Pitak was established over a hundred years ago by fishers who took shelter along its coasts. The abundant sea resources surrounding the island allowed the community to flourish⁽¹⁾.

Figure 1. Map of Koh Pitak Island

Conservation and Livelihood Challenges

The marine environment around Koh Pitak Island was formerly very productive and diverse but suffered rapid declines around 20 years ago due to over-fishing and pollution. The decline in marine resources led the island community heavily into debt – a situation faced by many Thai fishing communities during this period⁽¹⁾. Senior levels of government were unresponsive to the plight of the community.

Community Initiatives

Conservation was seen at Koh Pitak as being an essential element of livelihood recovery. The community, under charismatic leadership, recognized that they themselves were partially to blame for the environmental degradation that had occurred and designed initiatives to reverse this trend. Some of these initiatives included⁽¹⁾:

• Establishing a community-based tourism industry that enabled further development of lower-consumptive activities to support island livelihoods and reduce dependence on marine resources.

• Creating an artificial reef which enhanced marine biodiversity and provided supplemental income for fishers.

• Protecting marine resources through seasonal closures, zoning and the use of grow nets.

• Designating a local no-take zone where villagers seed giant clams; this site has become popular for dive and snorkel tourism.

• Restoring mangrove populations along Koh Pitak’s shoreline.

• Improving waste disposal through the use of micro-organisms that rapidly digest organic waste. The treated wastewater from this system is then used to develop and water home gardens. These gardens have become a popular tourist attraction, where the village teaches visitors how to create such gardens.

• Initiated a study to understand the tourism carrying capacity of Koh Pitak by monitoring water quality, waste and the quality of visitor experience.

Figure 2: Mangroves replanted by the community

“I want it to be like it was 30 years ago, with the seas full of fish…” – Headman of Koh Pitak regarding their main goal for conservation

Figure 3: Interview with two of the main exponents of the “garden culture” of the Island

Influencing Marine Policies

As for all other coastal communities in Thailand, Koh Pitak is ostensibly governed by the same fisheries laws, rules and regulations of the country. However, through their own initiative, the community has managed to create unprecedented flexibility in this respect that is of national importance. One example is the stewardship of a local island, Koh Kram, about 1 km further offshore Koh Pitak.

Koh Kram has the best remaining biodiversity in the area and is part of a larger national park, Mu Koh Chumporn. Nevertheless, the administration of Mu Koh Chumporn has allowed the villagers to have stewardship over the island who, in turn, have developed a no-take fishing zone and oversee a reseeding and enhancement of giant clams in the area. They are allowed to enter and leave as they wish and take tourists there. This kind of practical relationship between the Thai National Parks Department and local communities is very rare.

Another important example is the current revision of the Thai National Fisheries Law to recognise the abilities of communities, such as Koh Pitak to manage their own fisheries. Although Koh Pitak figures prominently, it is not the only fishing community to be recognised in this area. Interestingly, the community has elected to have a smaller ocean area than permitted under the proposed bill, due to a practical recognition of their own limitations in patrolling a larger area.

Figure 4: View of fishing boat from Koh Pitak Island

Practical Outcomes

The success observed on Koh Pitak Island can be attributed to several factors:

Leadership – A charismatic, far seeing and powerful village leader was critical to the transformations.

Community social capital – The community has very high social capital and unity due to their inter-relatedness and common history.

Distributional equity – Activities are undertaken by groups; a proportion of all income is returned to the community fund with full transparency.

Tourist attractions – Koh Pitak does not offer the coastal tourism attractions typically associated with Thailand, such as long, white sand beaches and azure blue seas. Had it done so it is quite likely that it might have already been consumed by mass tourism. The attractions are more suited to the kind of community-based tourism that has developed there.

Media interest – There has been significant media interest in the transformation of the village, providing ample free marketing for tourism.

Village culture – The village enjoys a slow pace of life that is well suited to low-key tourism development.

Support network – The village enjoyed an extensive support network ranging from government agencies, institutions (such as universities) and other villages developing community-based initiatives.

Timing – The conservation and tourism initiatives coincided with the growing popularity of the Thai King’s “Self Sufficiency” philosophy which promotes small, local, low-impact development and living a moderate, self-dependent life without greed or overexploitation of, for example, natural resources.

Figure 5: A homestay extended out over the water

“For me […] conservation cannot be done by only one person, or by one community. It must have collaboration among communities and organizations that we call it “our conservation network”. It is a network of conservation in many aspects: giving ideas, supporting each other, and working together. Conservation is not only at our homeland but covers from mountain to the sea. This conservation network is like a jigsaw that missing one piece can bring a whole mission down.” – Koh Pitak village head concerning his thoughts on conservation

References

We thank S. Songpornwanich and A. Ruksapol for their ongoing work with the villagers and for granting access to their field work results.

See below for the Thai language abstract for this community story, “เกาะพิทักษ์, ประเทศไทย การฟื้นฟูวิถีชีวิตและทรัพยากรทางทะเลโดยการอนุรักษ์ของชุมชน”

A video report on the inhabitants of the scenic Koh Pitak island and their efforts to manage local ecotourism