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. For more information, check out the CCRN Tsitsikamma community story.

Britta Sjöstedt’s presentation will focus on the World Heritage Convention and its application to World Heritage Sites during and after armed conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Elaine Hsiao further explores this and other issues around conservation and conflict focusing on transboundary protected areas of the Greater Virunga Landscape between DRC, Rwanda and Uganda and the Kidepo Landscape between South Sudan and Uganda. Together, in this webinar by Britta Sjöstedt and Elaine Hsiao, we have an opportunity to look at the community dimensions of conflict and conservation in protected areas and to discuss opportunities for conflict transformation and ecological peacebuilding.

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

Mayalibit Bay is a giant lagoon situated in the eastern part of Waigeo Island, West Papua Province, Indonesia. This area is inhabited by the indigenous people of the Maya tribe, who inhabit 12 villages spread throughout two sub-districts known as Teluk Mayalibit and Tiplol Mayalibit. The waters of Mayalibit Bay have been established as a Marine Conservation Area within the Raja Ampat KKPD Network, through the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Decree No. 36/KEPMEN-KP/2014, with an area of​​ 53,100 hectares.

The establishment of Mayalibit Bay as a conservation area would not have been possible without the assistance of several NGOs, including Conservation International Indonesia (CI Indonesia) and RARE Indonesia. The Maya tribe that inhabit the 12 villages around the area has supported Mayalibit Bay conservation efforts through the Declaration of Indigenous Fisheries Area (KPA), as well as the ratification of the Maya Customary Council’s Decree (SK) on aspects of regional management.

Figure 1. Activity of Focus Group Discussion with the Indigenous People of Maya tribe

To strengthen the efforts in managing the community-based Mayalibit Bay watershed area, the Sub-Directorate of Customary Law Community of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries initiated the strengthening of local institutional capacity. The initial phase of this activity was mapping the customary law relating to the management of coastal resources that exists within the Maya community. This mapping was conducted through three methods: focus group discussion, in-depth interviews, and observation.

The mapping found that the indigenous Maya tribe inhabiting the surrounding waters of Mayalibit Bay were very dependent on coastal resources, especially on the Lema fish (Rastrelliger sp), which is an important commodity in supporting the livelihood system of the society. To preserve this species, the Maya tribe has set a local institution, known as sasi laut, to regulate the use of lema fish by using an open-close system. Currently, this local institution has also been applied to other types of economic biota, such as sea cucumbers, clams, and groupers.

Figure 2. In-depth interview with fishermen of Maya tribe

Based on the mapping and analysis of the local social, cultural, economic, livelihood, and institutional systems of Maya community in the Mayalibit Bay area, Raja Ampat District, there are several conclusions:

• The Maya community inhabiting the bay area is an indigenous and tribal community characterized by a clear history and origin, control over communal agrarian resources, and structure of indigenous institutions in governance and governance of natural resources;
• There are three socio-political pillars that support local governance and governance of natural resources: indigenous council, religious authority, and village administration. These three pillars work in a synergistic and harmonious way to maintain and organize the social, cultural and governance systems;
• Such indigenous institutions governing political and natural resource management as sasi laut are still established verbally, and are vulnerable toward the local socio-political dynamics. Thus, it is necessary to strengthen the institutional capacity to ensure its existence and sustainability;
• The indigenous customary rights claims by the community, whether ethnic, clan, or clan claims, have not been clearly mapped out and could result in potential future conflicts; and,
• The community income systems are still subsistent, requiring assistance from the government and other stakeholders in developing the livelihood system to improve the welfare of the community.

Figure 3. Observation of the waters of Mayalibit Bay with the Head of Customary Warsambin Village

Featured image: Mayalibit Bay community held a custom procession in establishing the indigenous Mayablit Bay fishing area (Photo: kompas.com).