Breaking or following the fishing rules and regulations: motivations, benefits and incentives for Kia Islanders,

Fiji

Presented by

Lui Hepworth

A thesis submitted to the University of Brighton in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

MSc Environmental Assessment and Management

September 2011

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

i

Abstract

Although illegal fishing is prevalent, few studies have attempted to understand

people’s motives behind it. This study seeks to address this gap in the

literature by investigating motives for breaking the fishing conservation rules

and regulations, as well as researching incentives for following them.

This study takes place on Kia Island, Fiji where the community is heavily

dependent on its fishing grounds for their livelihood and hope to benefit from

the recent establishment of a Marine Protected Area (MPA). Illegal fishing has

now become a major problem in this area and inadequate enforcement of the

fishing grounds and MPAs is a key issue.

Methods included, surveys with householders and semi-structured interviews

with experienced fishers to empathise and understand people’s needs to break

the rules. A participatory approach was taken to ensure that those being

studied also learnt from the experience.

Results found that people’s motivations for breaking the rules fell under three

main themes; ‘Economic’; ‘Monitoring and enforcement’; and ‘Social and

cultural aspects’.

The primary motive for illegal fishing was found to be economic, with a lack of

education and awareness exacerbating the problem. It was found that some

were desperate for money due to the high cost of living. This was found to be a

national problem following coops and a flood, which have left the country in

economic decline. To make up for this shortfall, some fishers break the rules

and regulations as these methods bring in more money than legal ones.

Amongst other examples given, it was said that nets bring in a greater catch

and fishing in the MPA is easier as there are more species there.

The level of education on the island is low, which exacerbates the issues of

illegal fishing, and a lack of enforcement by authorities, NGOs and Fish

wardens allows it to continue.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

ii

This primary motive is consistent with previous studies, however disparities

were found between the secondary and underlying motives. It was concluded

that underlying motives for illegal fishing will be different for each situation and

can be based on many factors such as economics, education level, insularity,

alternative livelihood options, tourism, funding, government regime and political

climates. Motives therefore, cannot be assumed as each situation has its own

unique set of complexities and requires its own research to fully understand

local motives for illegal fishing.

This study has uncovered motives for illegal fishing and found incentives to

help prevent it. The recommendations made will help reduce illegal fishing

practices in Kia’s fishing grounds.

19,000 Words

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my dissertation supervisor Dr Rebecca Elmhirst for all her

support and guidance during the course of this project.

I would like to thank Community Centred Conservation (C3) for giving me this

opportunity to work on Kia Island. In particular, Chis Poonian for his remote

support and guidance, and Maleli Quera for his local support and for being a

good ‘mum’ when I was unwell.

I give a warm thank you to the community of Kia for welcoming me into their

community and making me feel so at home. I hope that my work will benefit

you and your future generations.

Finally I would like to thank Charlie Bennett for my introduction to grog party

etiquette and Jonathon Syron-Pain for sharing in the ups and downs of our Kia

experience.

C3 Acknowledgements

Akosita Rokomate-Nakoro, Programme Coordinator, Fiji and South Pacific

Islands Programme is supported by an Indigenous Leaders Fellowship from

Conservation International

We are grateful to the University of South Pacific (USP) for active collaboration

and advice.

Our heartfelt thanks to the people of Kia for warmly hosting us and

enthusiastically participating in the project

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

iv

Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................iii Contents ................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures ........................................................................................................ v List of Plates .......................................................................................................... v List of Tables ......................................................................................................... v

Chapter 1 - Introduction ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 – Aims and objectives ...................................................................................... 4 1.3 - Thesis Structure............................................................................................. 5

Chapter 2 - Literature review ..................................................................................... 6 The worldwide fisheries management problem ...................................................... 6 What is an MPA?................................................................................................... 7 The benefits of MPAs ............................................................................................ 8 Suitability of MPAs for fisheries management ...................................................... 10 MPA suitability for study site ................................................................................ 11 Community reliance on coastal and marine resources ......................................... 12 Enforcement issues and illegal fishing ................................................................. 13 Corruption in Pacific island fisheries .................................................................... 13 Motives for illegal fishing...................................................................................... 14 Incentivizing legal fishing ..................................................................................... 16 Community rights and involvement ...................................................................... 17 Tenure ................................................................................................................. 19

Chapter 2 - Site description ..................................................................................... 21 Chapter 4 – Methodology ........................................................................................ 25 Chapter 5 - Results and Discussion......................................................................... 36

Importance of fishing ........................................................................................... 36 The threat of illegal and environmentally unfriendly fishing methods .................... 38 Following or Breaking the Rules and Regulations: Motivations, Benefits and Incentives ............................................................................................................ 42 Economic............................................................................................................. 42 Enforcement and monitoring ................................................................................ 50 Social and Cultural Aspects ................................................................................. 55 Presentation back to the community .................................................................... 60 5.1 Recommendations ......................................................................................... 62

Chapter 6 - Conclusion ............................................................................................ 66 Bibliography............................................................................................................. 69 Appendix ................................................................................................................. 74

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

v

List of Figures Page Figure 1: Location of Kia Island. 24 Figure 2: Kia Island’s location within the Qoliqoli Cokovata fishing grounds.

24

List of Plates Plate 1: Photograph of a hand drawn simplified map of Yaro village

25

Plate 2: Kia fishermen arriving at Yaro with their catches.

26

List of Tables Table 1: Number and percentage of fishers interviewed from Kia villages.

32

Table 2: Household Survey Results: Primary and secondary sources of income.

39

Table 3. Household Survey Results: Perceived threats to the coastal and marine resources of Kia.

42

Table 4. Household Survey Results: Perceived Coastal and Marine Management Problems

43

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

1

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Kia’s Story

A mother and her two sons, whose father had been killed and

their home destroyed in tribal warfare, were searching for a new

home. As they stood on the hill on the north coast of Vanua

Levu, looking out across the sea, their sights fell on a small,

uninhabited island. The younger of the two sons pointed and

said, “I want to live there (Ki)”. “I want to live…,” and all three

members of the party said, “over-there (Ki-a).” And so Kia’s

name was born.

When the eldest son returned from visiting Kia, he reported back,

“Plenty fish, but no water”. The younger of the two sons decided

to face the water problems and inhabit the island, starting its

community.

(Osea Masiniqa, Village Elder)

Today, the now much larger community of Kia Island (Kia) still face water

difficulties, but the bountiful supplies of fish are gone. Fishers have to travel

further and catch more fish to provide for their growing community.

This research takes place on Kia, Fiji and aims to understand motives for

breaking the fishing conservation rules and investigate incentives for following

them. This is a particular issue for the setting of this study, where the

community is heavily dependent on its fishing grounds for their livelihood and

illegal fishing has become a major problem (Veitayaki, 1997; Teh, 2009).

Kia is enveloped by The Great Sea Reef, known locally as ‘Cakaulevu’ or

‘Bainivauliku’ the ‘Wall to the North’ (WWF, 2009a). The Great Sea Reef is the

third longest continuous barrier reef in the world and in terms of biodiversity is

considered of global importance (Heaps, 2005). The importance of the South

Pacific’s coastal zone is recognized by Lam (1998) as containing “some of the

most biological diverse ecosystems in the world” and has been identified as a

‘‘major priority’’ for Marine Protected Area (MPA) implementation (Bartlett et al

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

2

2009).

Working closely with the Provincial Chief (Tui Macuata) and Fiji Local Marine

Managed Areas network (FLMMA), WWF have set up a network of MPAs in

the traditional fishing grounds ‘Qoliqoli Cokovata I Macuata.’ Kia is one of 37

villages from five districts of the Macuata province that are involved in the

development of one of Fiji’s first network of MPAs covering 30% of Fiji waters

by 2020 (Heaps, 2005). It is hoped that MPAs will target illegal fishing activities

such as over-fishing, fishing with small net size, use of hookah in beche-de-

mer harvesting, catching endangered species, the use of fish poisoning, and

prevent damage to the near shore environment caused by sand dredging from

coastal zones, coastal erosion, development activities and waste output (C3,

2011c).

Traditionally the people of Macuata have rights over this part of the Great Sea

Reef with overall governance by the Tui Macuata, Ratu Aisea Katonivere.

Traditionally communities have fishing grounds ‘Qoliqolis’ assigned to them

and each Qoliqolis is governed by that community. The governmental,

Fisheries Department assist with the enforcement of legislation (C3, 2011c).

Unfortunately, the Fisheries Department is believed to be under-funded, which

has hampered the control of unlicensed fishing, sale of undersized and

protected species, (Hunt, 1999; dynamite fishing and the use poisonous vine

(duva) (Hunt, 1999; Teh, 2009). Protected species which are targeted for the

food trade are humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus, Labridae), coral

groupers (Plectropomus areolatus, P. leopardus, and P. laevis) and other

groupers (Epinephelus spp.), which have status as IUCN Red Listed species.

(Teh, 2009).

Illegal fishing has now become a major problem in areas close to main urban

centres. Commercial fishers continually encroach into fishing grounds owned

by others using contemporary fishing gears such as underwater torches and

speedboats. Disputes are now common over the utilization on their resources.

(Veitayaki, 1997; Teh, 2009). Inadequate enforcement of MPAs has been a

key issue in both developing and developed countries (McClanahan 1999;

Evans & Russ 2004). Enforcement issues can arise due to many factors such

as lack of surveillance due to remoteness of site, failure to assign enforcement

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

3

responsibility, lack of funds for policing or lack of public support, which leads to

socially accepted poaching (Jones 2002) (Lundquist and Granek, 2005).

Although illegal fishing is prevalent, a review of the literature reveals few

studies that have sought to understand the motives behind it. Two studies that

look to understand the motives for illegal fishing are by Wood (2004),

conducted in the Seychelles and by Heuer et al (2008) in the Philippines.

Wood (2004) concludes the motives for poaching are primarily economics

exacerbated by lower levels of education amongst poachers. Heuer et al’s

(2008) results all appear to be mostly economically based, with a lack of

awareness of the rules exacerbating the problem. Although both studies reflect

the same primary motive for illegal fishing, the secondary reason was different

in each; poor education in Wood’s (2004) study and lack of awareness in

Heuer et al’s (2008). Wood’s (2004) study also uncovered several other

motives for illegal fishing, which did not come to light in Heuer et al’s (2008)

study, showing a disparity between results. This lack of research and

disparities between studies demonstrates and gap in the literature that requires

further study. This study seeks to address this gap in the literature by

investigating motives for breaking the fishing conservation rules and

regulations, as well as researching incentives for following them.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

4

1.2 – Aims and objectives

The aim of this research was to understand motives for breaking the fishing

conservation rules and investigate incentives for following them.

This is a particular issue for the setting of this study, where the community is

heavily dependent on its fishing grounds for their livelihood and hope to benefit

from the recent establishment of an MPA.

Objectives

Using surveys and interviews with members of the community, the primary

objectives of this study were to determine;

• The economic significance of various marine goods and services.

• Attitudes, perceptions and needs in terms of awareness raising and

opportunities for management.

• People’s understanding of illegal and restricted fishing.

• Motives for breaking the rules and regulations.

• Incentives for following the rules and regulations.

The secondary objectives were to;

• Present findings to local community stakeholders to ensure two-way

inclusive engagement.

• Ensure inclusion of marginalised stakeholders and demonstrate gender

awareness.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

5

1.3 - Thesis Structure

• Chapter 1 - Introduction – Sets the scene, briefly describing the

background area of this research.

• Chapter 2 - Literature Review – Reviews current literature relevant to

this study and exposes gaps which require further research.

• Chapter 3 - Site description – Sets the scene in a geographical context

and in relation to local fishing grounds.

• Chapter 4 - Methodology – Details data collected and methods used.

• Chapter 5 - Results and Discussion – Analysis of results and discussion

of findings. Recommendations for further research.

• Chapter - 6 Conclusion – States conclusions of key findings.

• Chapter - 7 Bibliography – List of references cited.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

6

Chapter 2 - Literature review MPAs have great potential in the fight to save the world’s marine biological

diversity (Lam, 1998). They have been viewed as the savior of global fisheries

and a solution to fisheries mismanagement failures by some fishers, managers

and conservationists (Roberts et al. 2001; Gell and Roberts 2003). Kaiser

(2005) however argues that while MPAs have been used successfully for

particular species in certain locations (Gell and Roberts 2003; Roberts et al.

2005), they are not the cure-all solution that some claim (Halpern 2003; Zeller

and Russ 2004).

This literature review researches the suitability of MPAs as a tool for fisheries

management and discusses their application in the South Pacific. The

difficulties with enforcing MPAs is highlighted and motives behind illegal fishing

are uncovered while looking for incentives for fishers to adhere to their

restrictions. There is a particular focus on tenure systems that are prevalent in

the study area. This review also exposes gaps in the literature requiring further

research.

The worldwide fisheries management problem

In 1982 the United Nations (UN) Third Conference on the Law of the Sea

extended management jurisdiction over fisheries resources to 200 nautical

miles (370.4 km), know as Exclusive Economic Zones EEZs. It was thought

that 90% of marine fisheries would be encompasses by these zones and

therefore be economically managed (Kaitala and Munro 1995) (Lauck et al,

1998). In spite of this the worlds fish stocks continued to decline and many

stocks collapsed including those within EEZs. An example of this is the

collapses of the Northern cod (Gadusmorhua) at Grand Banks, Canada, in the

1980s, the cause of which remains under fierce debate (Myers et al. 1997).

In 1995 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) declared;

"69% of the world's marine [fish] stocks ... are either fully to heavily

exploited, overexploited, depleted ... and therefore are in need of urgent

conservation and management measures" (Lauck et al, 1998).

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

7

Lauck et al (1998) discussed that although many factors affect fish stock

including environmental fluctuations, declines and stock collapses result in

large from over-fishing. Fish populations have survived for thousands of years

without collapsing from environmental changes and the level of fishing is

excessive for maintaining sustainable stocks. Lauck et al (1998) believes that

one of the factors associated with over-fishing is the inaccuracy of sustainable

catch calculations, which are set to provide optimum catch, but may not allow

for natural fluctuations and therefore lead to over-fishing. Additionally by-

catches, unreported catches, discards and incidental morality all increase the

actual mortality above the target level Lauck et al (1998) making predictions

more complex. Although fish stock assessment is now highly sophisticated,

further research will be needed until results can be reliably achieved over the

long-term leading and sustainable fisheries achieved (Lauck et al, 1998). Being

realistic about what scientific predictions can achieve in a complex natural

system such as the marine (Mangel et al, 1996), Lauck et al (1998)

recommends use of MPAs to diversify the fisheries management strategy.

Lauck et al (1998) recommends that MPAs should become a part of all marine

fisheries in a strategy that exploits part of the resource and protects the

remainder.

What is an MPA?

There are many different terms for MPA, however the primary growth of

protected area knowledge was commenced by the International Union for

Conservation Nature (IUCN) (Chape et al, 2005). The IUCN definition of a

protected area is:

“An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and

maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural

resources, and managed through legal or other effective means.” (IUCN,

1994)

Although over 1,000 terms exist for Protected Area, this definition has been

widely adopted and used by the United Nations Environment Programme

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) for recording protected

area information. Protected areas are now one of the most significant forms of

land use by human’s covering 12% of the earths surface. The commitment to

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

8

the marine however is an inadequate, with only 0.5% of the earth’s oceans

being protected (Chape et al, 2005). The concept of protecting marine areas

and development of MPA framework has trailed terrestrial equivalents by

nearly a century (Lam, 1998). The IUCN more specifically defines an MPA as;

“Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and

associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been

reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed

environment.” (IUCN, 1994)

This definition of an MPA is the most widely accepted. In the Pacific Islands,

the words taboo, reserve, conservation area, protected area, and marine

protected area (MPA) are all used to refer to the community-based marine and

coastal closures (Bartlett, 2010). Most islands in the South Pacific refer to

these closures as Taboo (tabu or tapu spelling used by ni-Vanuatu people)

(Bartlett, 2010). In Fiji the most widely terms used are Taboo and MPA, which

are used interchangeably (Field Notes) In this paper such areas are referred to

as MPAs.

The MPA concept of excluding fishing activity from parts of the sea in order for

species to reproduce and repopulate is simple for non-specialists to

understand and makes them an attractive alternative to current complex

marine management tools (Roberts et al. 2001; Gell and Roberts 2003).

The benefits of MPAs

The basic principle of an MPA is to protect an area of the marine environment

from overexploitation allowing species to “re-charge” (Lam, 1998).

“Novaczek (1995) lists eight important advantages of MPAs;

1) to protect biomass and population structure of commercial species,

2) to limit by-catch of juveniles,

3) to protect ocean biodiversity,

4) to protect essential life stages of commercial species,

5) to protect and enhance productivity,

6) to provide a location for marine research,

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

9

7) to protect artisanal and community fisheries, and

8) to enhance public education and encourage non-destructive

enjoyment of the sea.” (Lauck et al 1998)

By using MPAs particularly vulnerable species can be protected in the marine

reserves allowing them to rebuild their population (Lam, 1998). The overall

benefits of MPAs to fisheries (increased fish populations, survivorship and

amount of legal sized fish) have been validated throughout the world (e.g.,

Rowley 1994; Gell & Roberts 2003; Halpern 2003). Non-target fish have also

been shown to increase in abundance (Halpern 2003). Numerous field studies

have shown a higher abundance of fish present in fished reefs adjacent to

protected areas (McClanahan and Mangi, 2000). This benefit is due to

‘spillover’ (Rowley, 1994) as larvae are released or species migrate from

MPAs into surrounding areas, which can be fished. Bioeconomic models have

substantiated this claim (Costello and Kaffine, 2009).

Coastal communities benefit from improved livelihoods due to increased fish

sizes and abundance in the adjacent areas (Halpern and Warner, 2002). MPA

also allow degraded coral reefs to be restored benefiting the biodiversity of the

reef and increase their desirability for ecotourism, underwater photography,

recreation and scientific studies (Lam, 1998). The economic benefits of

conserving reefs for tourism such as scuba diving and snorkeling has been

demonstrated (Gomez, 1997).

MPAs have been successfully used on the Great Barrier Reef as a fisheries

management tool and their role has been recognized in preserving special

marine areas. MPAs can increase support and public awareness for marine

conservation and can provide sites for monitoring and research (Lam, 1998).

In the developing world, the Philippines have been at the forefront of

establishing community-based MPAs since the early 1980s, with many

exemplary success stories being case studied (White et al, 1994; Ferrer et al,

1996; Christie and White, 2000; Salm et al, 2000; White et al, 2002. Christie

and White (2007) conclude that MPAs have the potential to improve coral reef

ecological conditions while simultaneously providing better lives of the

dependant.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

10

Suitability of MPAs for fisheries management

Kaiser (2005) argues that scientific evidence chosen to support the success of

MPAs is sometimes only drawn from studies that have a positive outcome

(Halpern 2003; Zeller and Russ 2004) (Kaiser, 2005). More studies are

therefore needed that draw from unsuccessful application of MPAs in order to

understand their limitations (Kaiser, 2005). Kaiser (2005) continues to discuss

that the majority of successful studies draw from coral and rock reef systems

and are not valid for many commercial temperate species, which may move

considerable distances within a year, are widely spread across a variety of

habitats or exhibit different behaviors between sea basins (Kaiser, 2005).

The unsuitability of MPAs for wide ranging species is strengthened by

Horwood’s (2000) study of Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua). Calculations show

that even if 25% of the North Sea was protected this would have little effect on

protecting their spawning stock biomass (Horwood, 2000). Amongst other

ecological concerns, closing off fishing from one area of the sea may lead to

greater ecological damage as fishing is displaced to previously undisturbed

and perhaps unknown essential fish habitats (Kaiser, 2005). However, Kaiser

(2005) promotes their use for closures on nursery areas, spawning

aggregations, or at migration bottlenecks, as the negative effects of

displacement are likely to be offset by the benefits. Kaiser (2005) goes on to

state that “The scientific community is split regarding the efficacy of the

unilateral use of MPAs to achieve sustainable exploitation of fish and shellfish

stocks” (Steele and Hoagland 2003, 2004; Zeller and Russ 2004).

Kaiser (2005) argues that when stock assessment or the available effort

controls (eg days at sea) are implemented effectively with suitable catch

controls, fisheries have been managed successfully. This has been the case

for Thames herring (Clupea harengus) fisheries, Western Australian rock

lobster (Palinurus cygnus), New Zealand hoki (Macruronus novaezealandiae)

and Alaska salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), which have achieved Stewardship

Council certification as sustainable fisheries.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

11

MPA suitability for study site

Disparities, however arise between the success of these fishing controls in

developed countries, such as the examples given by Kaiser (2005), versus

their use in developing ones. Developed countries such as Australia have far

more advance public awareness, infrastructure and law enforcement than

developing countries such as the Philippines (Gomez, 1997) and are therefore

more able to manage such practices.

Due to their physiological requirements, coral reefs are concentrated in the

tropics and are therefore mostly located along the coasts of developing

countries (Gomez, 1997), which may be less able to manage fisheries using

contemporary controls. Additionally in the South Pacific where this study takes

place, it has already been recognized that such contemporary management

systems have failed to provided effective fisheries management, since the

colonial late 1950s (Doulman, 1992). Attempts to manage fisheries via

centralized systems in the South Pacific, since the colonial period did not

involve fishers in the decision-making and failed as a consequence (Lam,

1998). Due to these failures, the introduction of different methods to diversify

the fisheries management approach, as Lauck et al (1998) recommends is

needed. Though MPAs may not be suitable for all species, they have clear

benefits for coral and temperate rock reef fish species, and are the only

method for protecting sensitive habitats such as deep-water corals and

calcareous algae (Lauck et al, 1998). This shows MPAs as an ideal solution

for the protection of coral reef fisheries in the South Pacific and Fiji, the

location of this study.

The importance of the South Pacific’s coastal zone is recognized by Lam

(1998) as containing “some of the most biological diverse ecosystems in the

world” and has been identified as a ‘‘major priority’’ for MPA implementation

(Bartlett et al 2009). Lam’s (1998) recommends a combination of smaller highly

protected reserves and lager multiple use management regimes in a system

that complements. As described below, these must be set-up in conjunction

with local communities, by re-establishing traditional rights or Customary

Marine Tenure system and adapting them to accommodate MPAs.

A decade after Lam’s (1998) paper the South Pacific region has seen a rapid

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

12

increase community established MPAs, which is historically unprecedented

Bartlett (2009). Despite this rapid increase Bartlett (2009) reports highlights

questions their compatibility with local ideologies. (This compatibility is

discussed further in section: Tenure).

Recent reviews suggest that Pacific islanders motivations for MPAs is

grounded in food security and not abstract biological conservation concepts

and it has been agued that these communities lack a historical conservation

ethic (Bartlett et al 2009). Few studies have been carried out to determine

people’s expectation, motivations and ideological support for MPAs (Bartlett,

2009). To address this gap in the literature, Bartlett (2009) investigated how

local reserve assessments and decisions in Vanuatu are made Bartlett (2009)

found that the motivation behind establishing marine reserves was mostly

conservation-oriented and non-utilitarian. In a review of the literature, no such

studies were available for Fiji, where this study was held. The results from the

Vanuatu study will however, provide useful benchmark data to this study,

which looks in part at the community’s motives for adhering to MPA

restrictions.

Community reliance on coastal and marine resources

These reefs have extremely important economic value to these countries,

although this has only become recognized in recent years (Gomez, 1997). The

marine environment provides vital resources for Pacific Islanders with 90% of

their protein consumption coming from the sea (Lam, 1998). In Fiji 80-90% of

this from the reefs. (Lam, 1998). Coastal fisheries account for more then 80%

of livelihood activities for Fiji’s coastal communities with over 70% of recorded

catch sold for income (Institute of Applied Sciences, 2009). Most (80%) people

in Fiji live on the coast (Jenkins, et al 2004) and actively participate in some

form of fisheries activity for sustenance, medicine, shelter and income.

The study site, Kia Island is located within the province of Macuata and the

community their fish within the Qoliqoli Cokovata (Cokovata Fishing Grounds).

The present catch per unit effort (CPUE) values for the Qoliqoli Cokovata, in,

show a healthy fishery status, however with 60% of total fin fish sold, an

increasing population and demand may lead to declines in fish stock for

Macuata coastal communities (WWF, 2009b).

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

13

Enforcement issues and illegal fishing

Inadequate enforcement of MPAs has been a key issue in both developing and

developed world (McClanahan 1999; Evans & Russ 2004). Enforcement

issues can arise due to many factors such as lack of surveillance due to

remoteness of site, failure to assign enforcement responsibility, lack of funds

for policing or lack of public support, which leads to socially accepted poaching

(Jones 2002). Government and resources instability can lead to a breakdown

in enforcement infrastructure and compromising enforcement of MPAs

(McClanahan 1999; White et al. 2002). The limiting effect this has on MPAs

has been well documented (White et al, 2002; Yasue, 2010). Additionally,

empirical research demonstrates that MPA effectiveness rapidly deteriorates

when conflict resolution mechanisms and collective action break-down

(Christie and White, 2007).

In Fiji, the Fisheries Department, which is responsible for enforcing fishing

rules and regulations, is believed to be under-funded. This has hampered the

control of unlicensed fishing, sale of undersized and protected species, (Hunt,

1999; dynamite fishing and the use poisonous vine (duva) (Hunt, 1999; Teh,

2009). Protected species which are targeting for the food trade are humphead

wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus, Labridae), coral groupers (Plectropomus

areolatus, P. leopardus, and P. laevis) and other groupers (Epinephelus spp.),

which have status as IUCN Red Listed species (Teh, 2009). Illegal fishing has

become a major problem in areas close to main urban centres. Commercial

fishers continually encroach into fishing grounds owned by others using

contemporary fishing gears such as underwater torches and speedboats.

Disputes are now common over the utilization on their resources. (Veitayaki,

1997; Teh, 2009).

Corruption in Pacific island fisheries

Corruption in the fisheries sector is thought to be widespread throughout the

Pacific islands fisheries. It has been found to occur from ‘low level’ – gifts of

fish and small-scale nepotism. To ‘grand level’ regular large-scale financial

transactions, organized criminal behavior and political interference in official

processes. The three areas within Pacific island fisheries where corruption

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

14

impacts are most significant are: issuing of licensing; giving access rights to

foreign companies; and ‘turning a blind eye’ during monitoring and inspection.

(Hanich and Tsamenyi, 2009). Political instability, low economic growth and

governmental and institutional weaknesses have left Pacific island fisheries

vulnerable to corruption (Hanich and Tsamenyi, 2009). The United Nations

Development Programme (UNDP) recently reported that “corruption siphons

off scarce natural resources and weakens national institutions”. This reduces

the Pacific island’s ability to benefit from their fisheries resources (Hanich and

Tsamenyi, 2009)

In Fiji, corruption allegations have been made against senior officials and

Fisheries Ministers. These mostly regarded the granting of licences to foreign

charter companies, when resources were over-fishing and capacity reduction

was needed. In 2005, the director of Fisheries and another senior official were

jailed having been found guilty of corrupt issuing of licences. Further cases

within the Ministry of Fisheries are currently pending (Hanich and Tsamenyi,

2009).

Motives for illegal fishing

Although illegal fishing is prevalent, a review of the literature reveals few

studies that have sought to understand the motives behind illegal fishing.

Wood (2004) studied motives for illegal fishing in the Seychelles using semi-

structures interviews with fishers, classifying poachers and non-poachers with

Discriminant Function analysis (DFA) on questions responses.

Results from this study showed poachers motive for fishing in the MPA;

• Those near MPAs feel they have lost fishing grounds

• Economic incentives

• Decline in legal fish, therefore incentive to fish illegally (Sutinen, 1990)

• Higher catch per unit effort inside MPA

• Many felt they were not receiving the MPA benefit of spillover

• Optimism for the future of fish stocks

• No alternative income available to poachers and poachers were less

educated than non-poachers

• 75% said they would poach more if fuel price increased

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

15

• MPAs were for tourist not fisheries and displaced them from fishing

grounds

• Corruption prevented regulation being imposed uniformly and large

complexes were allowed to cause damage to reef

• Non-poachers say poachers have a lack of respect for the law

(Wood,

2004)

Wood (2004) concludes the motives for poaching are primarily economics

exacerbated by lower levels of education amongst poachers, a generally

higher (and perhaps false) optimism for the future of fish stocks and the socio-

political environment in which MPAs are managed in the Seychelles.

In a study in Panaon Island, Philippines Heuer et al (2008) found reasons for

illegal fishing were;

• More catch (15.6 %)

• Laziness (9%)

• Direct need (6.6%)

• Insufficient catch otherwise (6.6%).

• (36.9 % would not comment)

Most fishermen fishing illegally stated that it was for their own consumption,

however the policed believe it is mostly for selling. Some fishers also claim not

to know where the sanctuaries are due to lack of markers Heuer et al (2008).

When asked about illegal fishing, fishers only regarded illegal practices such

as dynamite, cyanide and hooka. They were unsure of other illegal practices

and didn’t consider fishing in the MPA to be illegal even though it is not allowed

(Heuer et al, 2008). Heuer et al’s (2008) results all appear to be mostly

economically based, with a lack of awareness of the rules exacerbating the

problem. These results concur with Wood’s (2004) main finding that motives

for poaching are primarily economics.

Wood’s (2004) study however uncovered several other reasons for illegal

fishing, which did not come to light in Heuer et al’s (2008) study. Reasons for

this may be due to the different methods employed during each study. Wood’s

(2004) study was focused specifically to understand motive for illegal fishing

and semi-structured interviews were design around this topic.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

16

Heuer et al’s (2008) study was part of a wider socioeconomic study, which

then unveiled high level information about illegal fishing, but was not

specifically designed to investigate this topic. It is also likely that as the studies

took place in different situations and locations they yielding different motives

for illegal fishing. Further research in the Panoan Islands is needed to uncover

more in-depth motives for illegal fishing.

Understanding motives for non-compliance is imperative for successful MPA

management (Wood, 2004), however few studies set out to determine them.

This lack of knowledge regarding illegal fishing motives and stakeholders

ambiguous understanding of fishing rules and regulations is a distinct gap in

the literature, which this study seeks to address.

Incentivizing legal fishing

As an alternative to enforcement, other approaches look at incentives such as

payments or subsidies to encourage conservation practices. These

approaches recognise that although the benefits of sustainable management

are of great global importance the cost of their implementation usually falls on

the resource users through restricted access and loss of income. Decision

makers at the local level need to see tangible benefits if they are to support

such measures and to achieve conservation of biodiversity (Balmford et al.

2002). Economic incentives such as funds for education, alternate livelihood

and leasing of fishing rights offer great potential to offset losses incurred. Other

economic incentives include schemes such as scholarships, jobs in return for

resorts leasing land and money placed in community funds. Additionally,

species specific schemes can include payments to villagers for spotting turtles

and nests, with additional payments made if eggs successfully hatch (Gjertsen,

2010).

The majority of studies looking into incentives for legal fishing regard economic

motives as the main drivers and suggest economic incentives. Many initiatives

exist to generate income needed to fund MPAs such as user fees, levies,

surcharges, leases, government appropriations, donations, bio-prospecting,

corporate sponsorship concessions, debt-for-nature swaps and international

donors (Cesar, 2004). Most schemes however, are still reliant on external

funding from parties such as NGO or government. Current 2-3 year NGO and

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

17

Government funding cycles hamper long-term commitment (Poonian et al,

2008) and can lead MPA failure if funding is discontinued.

Lessons can be learned from Mohéli Marine Park (Parc Marin de Mohéli,

PMM) in Comores, which was initially regarded as a flagship in MPA co-

management (Poonian et al, 2008). Due to an end to funding however, the

park is now operating at a vastly reduce capacity (Wells, 2005) and local

community stakeholders have become disillusioned as to the benefits of the

MPA and are de-motivated (Hauzer et al, 2008).

Although initially well funded the lack of sustainability was seen once funding

ceased and enforcement was greatly reduced. This led to the re-emergence of

destructive fishing practices and turtle poaching (Poonian et al, 2008).

Borrini-Feyerabend et al (2004) has shown that stakeholder-inclusive projects

work better on a decentralized scale with longer term small infusions of money.

Donors should therefore consider spreading funding over five or ten years as

the MPA develops (Poonian et al, 2008).

Literature on incentives generally assumes economic drivers for illegal fishing.

More studies need to be done that specifically explore these motives. As seen

by Wood’s (2004) study, economic drivers are not the only motives for

breaking the rules. Gaining a better understanding of motives will aid the

formation of suitable incentives, which this also study seek to address.

Community rights and involvement

A solution to illegal fishing is the involvement of communities and other

stakeholders in establishment of MPAs. Involving community stakeholders at

the early stages of planning is essential, and gives stakeholders a sense of

ownership, leading to acceptance of regulations and assistance with their

enforcement (Lundquist and Granek, 2005). This approach has been seen as

key to increasing the number of MPAs and improving their long-term success

(Yasue, 2010).

Involving fishers in problem solving exercises associated with fisheries

exploitation, such as illegal fishing makes them active agents for change. They

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

18

understand the issues better and are more likely to support initiatives even if

the measures proposed appear detrimental to them (Lam, 1998). Involving

communities in the establishment and enforcement of MPAs is more cost

effective as, as fishers are more likely to comply with restrictions and also

participate in surveillance (Lam, 1998). This also makes them more cost-

effective and less reliant on government funds (Yasue, 2010). This use of

such bottom-up approaches have become popular in coastal zone

management schemes such as ASEAN/US Coastal Resources Management

Project Gomez, 1997), where resource users are involved in the management

effort (Gomez, 1997).

Cinti’s (2010) study in the Gulf of Mexico study not only demonstrates these

arguments, but also recognizes that resource rights are needed for the

success MPAs. In this study Cinti (2010), argues that the current licensing

system provided the wrong incentives for sustainable fishing. Fishers

themselves were far too removed from any decision making, leaving this is the

permit holders who tended to be businessmen more concerned with profits

rather than conserving the resources. In an open fishing ground fishers had no

incentive to conserve resources as anything they didn’t catch, it was felt would

be caught by someone else. Cinti (2010) argues that the only way to

successfully promote sustainable fishing practices is to grant rights to the

fishers and communities. In this way fishers who are closest to the resources,

would have an incentive to manage their fisheries more sustainably for their

own futures Cinti (2010). It has been recognised that defining and formalizing

access rights is one of the most critical steps in engaging and empowering

local people to manage and defend their resources (Cinti, 2010).

Cinti (2010) discusses that granting exclusive rights has been shown to have

promising results in the Northern Gulf of California, Mexico and territorial use-

rights in fisheries (TURFs) have been shown to promote sustainable harvests

in Chile.

Other studies have been conducted in Cambodia’s Tonle Sap region, where

fisheries management has been hindered by; lack of enforcement (Lamberts,

2001; Sophat, 2005), lack of attention to public participation, poor local support

and corrupt officials (Sophat, 2005). Here recommendations include; full

access rights for the communities including rights to protect the area from

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

19

illegal fishing (direct enforcement); decentralized local conflict resolution

mechanism; access to education (Sophat, 2005) and diversified economic

alternatives (Kosal, 1998). Initiatives must include collaboration of all

stakeholders for their success (Kosal, 1998).

Tenure

Many South Pacific islands have traditional marine tenure systems or

‘customary rights.’ These rights give ownership of near-shore areas and reefs

to local tribes (Lam, 1998). Traditionally these rights were practiced extensively

and management was promoted at the community level, with a communities

fishing grounds extending from the shore to the outside edge of the reef (Lam,

1998, Veitayaki, 1997).

Fishing areas were owned by a clan, family or chief that regulated its use and

those that did not comply would be treated harshly, which was an effective

deterrent. Anyone wishing to use the fishing grounds would seek permission

from the owners (Veitayaki, 1997). Additionally decisions would be based on a

consensus ensuring cooperation of the community and reducing the need for

formal enforcement (Veitayaki, 1997). This traditional system formed part of a

framework that regulates political and social relationships as well as defining

cultural identities (Lam, 1998). They come with centuries of empirical

knowledge of the fishing grounds and their traditional management (Veitayaki,

1997).

Unfortunately, the strong traditional systems have been eroded by the uptake

of contemporary exploitive fishing methods (Veitayaki, 1997; Caillaud, 2004),

breakdown of chiefly authority (Caillaud, 2004; Clarke, 1990; Matthews et al,

1998), the adoption of money-based economies, increasing population

pressures and new political and legal systems. Additionally, a lack of interest in

the young (Caillaud, 2004) and children being educated in schools away from

the tribe, exacerbates the loss of traditional knowledge, which would

historically be passed down from the elders (Clarke, 1990; Matthews et al,

1998). Pacific island communities have however only recently modernized and

still have remnants of traditional management practices, which make them apt

for the restoration of such systems (Veitayaki, 1997). Restoration of the tenure

system not only involves the community stakeholders in the planning, but also

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

20

empowers them to take ownership of managing their own resources (Lam,

1998, Veitayaki, 1997). Restoration of the tenure system also revives features

of their culture and tradition, which are otherwise being lost (Veitayaki, 1997).

Although known as ‘traditional resource management’ or ‘customary law’ this

does not mean that they are static. These systems have strong roots in local

history and experience, but their unwritten, uncodified form allows flexibility to

adapt changing circumstances such as political, environmental and economical

ones (Lam, 1998). Traditionally sustainable resource use was easier to

achieve as populations were lower and having a lower consumption capacity

[21] (Veitayaki, 1997). The success of MPAs in tenure systems will depend of

the stakeholders being able to satisfy both their growing sustenance and

economic needs (Lam, 1998). The flexibility and ability to adapt to changing

needs described by Lam (1998) is demonstrated in Bartlett’s (2010) study in

Vanuatu, where local communities have embraced the input of western

scientific knowledge and adapted it to their own systems to create hybrid ones.

As Lam (1998) proposed, these traditional community based systems are ideal

for such adaptation and it is these hybrid systems that are most successful in

the South Pacific islands (Bartlett’s, 2010).

The success of such systems is also being demonstrated in Fiji where

customary owners of fishing grounds have banned the use of gillnets and

employed fish wardens to patrol their grounds. These communities are

showing that traditional resource management practice is effective for the

future (Veitayaki, 1997).

Caillaud, (2004) comcludes that recognition by government is needed to

empower traditional laws and that a hybrid of modern law, traditional law and

science is needed along with meaningful stakeholder participation at all stages

(science, planning, legislation and implementation).

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

21

Chapter 2 - Site description

Fiji background

Fiji is an archipelago in the South Pacific, made up of 844 islands, cays, and

islets (Teh et al, 2009), covering an area of 18,333 sq km (11,385 sq miles)

(FCO, 2011). 106 of these islands are inhabited (Teh et al, 2009) with a

Population of 837,271 (Fiji National Census of Population, 2007) . Suva is the

capital of Fiji and is located on the largest island Viti Levu (FCO, 2011).

Fiji’s main ethnic groups are Fijian, Indian, European, other Pacific Islanders

and Chinese. English is the official language (FCO, 2011) and the standard

Fijian dialect is Baun, however different regions have their own dialects (C3,

2011c). Hindi is also spoken (FCO, 2011), mainly by Indian decedents.

Kia Island

This study took place on Kia Island (Kia), which is situated in the Northern

Territory off the north coast of Vanua Levu, Fiji’s second largest island after Viti

Levu. Kia lies 24km from the mainland with a land area of approximately 2km2

(C3, 2011c).

In fair sea conditions, Kia is approximately 1.5hrs travel by fiberglass boat with

outboard motor from its main trading town Labasa (Field Notes). Figure 1

shows Kia’s location.

Figure 2 below shows how the Great Sea Reef envelopes Kia and the islands

position within the Qoliqoli Cokovata (Cokovata Fishing Grounds). The Qoliqoli

Cokovata stretches from the coast of Vanua Levu to the north west seaward

side of the Great Sea Reef (WWF, 2009a). On the map, Marine Protected

Areas are shown in red, the nearest to Kia lies to the west of Ligua and Daku

villages. It is this protected area that is generally being discussed throughout

this study, when interviewees refer to ‘the MPA’ or ‘the Taboo’.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

22

Figure 1: Location of Kia Island. (Google Maps)

Figure 2: Kia Island’s location within the Qoliqoli Cokovata fishing grounds.

The Network of Protected Areas are outlined in red. (WWF, 2009)

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

23

The island has a rocky topography with areas exposed to the elements

growing only grasses, but more sheltered areas and valleys are densely

populated with tropical plants.

The island has a total population of 262 split between three villages, which are

located in sandy bays on the coast. Ligau is the original village of Kia and as

the population grew Yaro and Daku villages were formed. C3 are based in the

Yaro village, the largest of the three villages with a population of 143. Ligua

and Daku have populations of 96 and 35 respectively. Household size varies

greatly from 1-15, however not all members may be present at one time as

some may be schooling or married elsewhere (C3, 2011c).

Plate 1 shows the central position of C3’s Base in Yaro village.

Plate 1: Photograph of a hand drawn simplified map of Yaro village (not to

scale). C3 Base is labelled ‘C3’ (C3, 2011).

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

24

Fishing methods

Kia fishers use a variety of fishing methods including; hand-line, spear gun,

nets, reef gleaning, beche-de-mer diving. Travel to the fishing grounds is by

fiberglass boat with outboard motor (plate 2).

Plate 2: Kia fishermen arriving at Yaro with their catches.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

25

Chapter 4 – Methodology

This research project was designed to understand motives for breaking the

fishing conservation rules and regulations and investigate incentives for

following them. The study was conducted in conjunction with Community

Centred Conservation (C3), an international non-profit organization established

in 2002.

C3 has the following mission statement:

To develop conservation efforts worldwide by building the capacity of local

individuals and institutions through grassroots research and training initiatives.

C3 works closely with community resource user groups basing themselves

within the community for the long term (C3, online).

C3 employ staff locally to co-ordinate the programme. On Kia, the Programme

Officer, Maleli Qera co-ordinates research locally while being permanently

based on island. Maleli acts as liaison between C3 and the different

stakeholder groups such as village elders and the Head Mistress of the school.

International interns and Masters students, who must hold relevant

qualifications, join the team on a temporary basis to conduct research projects.

Masters research projects are overseen remotely by C3’s Research and

Development Manager, Chris Poonian.

Participatory observation

During the study period I lived in Yaro Village on Kia following their local

practices and customs, such as cooking Fijian foods, bathing at the ponds,

collecting water and fire wood and attending local church services.

By immersing myself into community life I gained first hand experience of

villager’s daily life and its challenges. Adopting their lifestyle enabled better

understanding and empathy to the community’s needs, priorities and

aspirations. Spending significant periods of time with those being studied and

engaging in their everyday life is known as ‘participatory observation’. This

method of research acknowledges that the research is an intervention in the

world of those being studied. This intervention is used positively to ensure all

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

26

parties to learn from the process (Pryke et al, 2004). The daily contact I had

with villages also built trust and openness with them. This was seen during

interviews and surveys, as interviewees were relaxed and comfortable and felt

they were able to talk openly about sensitive issues such as illegal fishing.

Project Approach

The overall project approach was to;

• Gather literature on fisheries management issues, MPAs, illegal fishing

issues of MPAs and incentives for following the fishing rules and

regulations.

• Primary data collection; socioeconomic surveys and semi-structured

interviews with community members.

• Data analysis; analyse results from socioeconomic surveys in-line with

SEM-Pacifika guidance. Textual analysis was conducted on the semi-

structured interviews.

• Discuss results; Discuss results of the data analysis highlighting

concurrence with literature.

• Recommendations; make recommendations for further work.

• Conclude findings; Draw overall conclusions from the study.

Surveying Methodology

This research was initiated by conducting socioeconomic surveys following the

SEM-Pacifika guidelines to socioeconomic monitoring (SEM-Pacifika).

Following analysis of these surveys, semi-structure interviews were developed

to explore illegal and restricted fishing in more detail. These surveys were

developed in-line with SEM-Pacifika, while drawing on techniques from other

research literature (such as Mikkelsen, 2005; Pryke et al, 2004; Clifford, 2010).

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

27

SEM-Pacifika

SEM-Pacifika socioeconomic monitoring guidelines have been developed for

Pacific sites. Socioeconomic assessment is a method of gathering information

such as cultural, social, economic and political conditions as well as

information on households, groups, communities, organisations and resources.

It is a method of gathering information about individuals and communities and

common topics are; resource use patterns, resource governance,

demographics, stakeholder characteristics and perceptions, local knowledge

and market attributes.

SEM-Pacifika supports participatory, process-orientated assessment, which

encourages stakeholders to be involved in the participatory process and all

learn from it.

Socioeconomic assessments can be used to establish baseline information

and can be repeated over time for monitoring change. By following a standard

set of guidelines, SEM-Pacifika assessment reports can be compared and their

leanings shared with other study sites across the Pacific (Wongbusarakum et

al, 2008). These guidelines are in-line with Global SocMon, which is

implemented at both the global and regional levels (SocMon, 2011)

Data sources

Primary data sources were from socioeconomic surveys conducted with

householders, semi-structured interviews with fishers and field notes.

Secondary data sources were used for background information and included

C3 data and maps sourced from the internet and WWF reports.

Consent and Confidentiality

All survey and interview work was carried out with the permission of the village

elders, which was sought by C3.

In-line with C3’s guidance, all surveys and interviews commenced with a

confidentially statement, which sought consent from the participant to use the

information given for research purposes. Consent was also sought to record

Illegal and Restricted Fishing Interviews with a Dictaphone.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

28

Throughout this report names have been replaced with pseudonyms to protect

the identity of individuals.

Translation

Translation of surveys and interviews was done by the Programme Officer,

Maleli Qera. Maleli is qualified in;

- BA Literature and English Language, University of the South Pacific

- Postgraduate certificate in education, University of the South Pacific

With expertise in;

- Ethnobiology

- Socioeconomic research

- Environmental education

Maleli has 10 years teaching experience followed by working as a research

assistant for USP, including conducting socioeconomic surveys.

Although 300 regional dialects exist, the standard form of Fijian is Bauan (also

known as vosa vakabau or standard Fijian), which is spoken between those

with different dialects (C3, 2011c).

Maleli is from the island of Koro that has its own local dialect. The interviewees

have their own Kian dialect. Interviews were held in Bauan, meaning that

Maleli needed to translate from English into Bauan and translate responses

back into English. On occasion villagers would respond to questions in the

local Kian dialect, complicating the translation process.

There was a great reliance on the translator’s ability, as textual analysis was to

be carried on the Illegal and Restricted Fishing Interviews. It was extremely

important to ensure accurate translation otherwise meanings maybe lost in

translation. Question were discussed in detail before commencing the

interviews to ensure understanding and avoid frustration (Clifford et al, 2010).

Household Survey

The purpose of this survey was to gather socioeconomic data on resource use

patterns, resource governance, demographics, stakeholder characteristics and

perceptions, local knowledge and market attributes.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

29

Surveys were highly structured and conducted with a representative from each

of the 49 households on the island. See appendix 1 for the complete

Household Survey.

Interviewees were selected based on the following criteria;

• Head of the household or most senior person available.

• One person from each Household.

Survey questions were asked in English and translated into Bauan. Answers

were given in Bauan and translated back to, and written down in English.

Analysis

Results were grouped into categories and the percentage of respondents who

noted each problem was calculated. Results were then ranked to display

results in order of greatest importance.

Illegal and restricted fishing Key informant interviews

The purpose of the Illegal and Restricted Fishing Interviews was to ascertain;

• people’s understanding of illegal and restricted fishing

• why people may need to break the rules

• what the advantages and disadvantages of breaking the rules are

• what the advantages of following the rules are

• ways to incentivizing legal fishing and how to get the whole community

to participate

Semi-structured interview questions were carefully designed to develop an

understanding of people’s motives for breaking the rules, without assigning

blame. Open-ended questions were asked and further probing used as

needed, to divulge further information and make the interview more dynamic

(Mikkelsen, 2005). In some cases a choice of questions or question wording

was available to use dependant on the outcome of the previous question. See

appendix 2 for the complete Illegal and Restricted Fishing Survey.

Interviewee criteria

Interviewees were selected based on the following criteria;

• Fishers who were experienced and fished on a regular basis.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

30

• Have good knowledge of local fishing areas and practices.

• Were originally from Kia and were currently long term residents.

• Were available for interview.

Participants were selected to include a range of;

• Older fishers (over 30 years old).

• Younger fishers (whose ages ranged 22-24 years old).

• Women fishers.

16 interviews were conducted in total, with members of each of the three

villages. More interviews took place in the larger villages (table 1).

Table 1: Number and percentage of fishers interviewed from Kia villages.

Village Total population

No of fishers

No fishers interviewed

% fishers interviewed

Daku 35 25 3 12.1 Yaro 131 90 8 8.9 Ligau 96 62 6 9.7

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

31

Translation

Survey and interview questions were asked in English and translated into

Bauan. Answers were given in Bauan and translated into English with brief

notes being made. Interviews were recorded using a Dictaphone and later

translated into English for full transcription.

Analysis

Textual analysis was conducted on the interview transcripts;

• Sections, phrases or individual words were marked and assigned a

code.

• Coded sections were grouped according to themes that emerged.

• Themes were organised into important trends, categories and common

elements for discussion (Clifford, 2010).

• Quotes that best exemplify the topic are used in the discussion.

Further interview techniques

• Before interviews took place, questions were discussed in detail with

Maleli, until a complete understanding of the meaning of each question

was agreed. Results of initial interviews were discussed afterwards and

adjusted where needed to ensure understanding by interviewees.

• It was important not to lead interviewees eg by giving examples

(Mikkelsen, 2005)

• For their comfort and privacy, interviewees were interviewed in their

own home where possible or in another private location (Mikkelsen,

2005) eg the C3 base or relaxing under a tree.

Feedback to the community

The results from the Illegal and Restricted Fishing Interviews were fed-back to

the community via a two-way presentation (Plate 3). The presentation was held

at the end of a community meeting for the whole island, which ensured good

representation from all villages.

The presentation took the form of prewritten flipcharts containing the results

from the Illegal and Restricted Fishing Interviews. During presentation the

audience was encouraged to ask questions and provide their views. These

responses were captured on additional flip charts, prepared for this purpose.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

32

Cultural traditions were adhered to with grog being drunk by participants during

the presentation.

Plate 3: Presenting results of Illegal and Restricted Fishing

Interviews back to Kia community. In this photo Lui Hepworth (red shirt),

Jonathon Syron-Pain (white t-shirt), passing a bowl of grog and Maleli Qura

(green shirt, left).

The presentation was done in English and translated into Baun. Responses

were translated back into English. The presentation was recorded via two

Dictaphones, being worn by the presenter and translator to ensure all

comments were captured.

Field notes

During the course of this study notes were kept regarding;

• Informal conversational interviews

• Informal key informant interviews

• Everyday conversations

• Observations made

Informal conversational interviews were unplanned interviews that occurred

during the course of the study (Mikkelsen, 2005). For example these included

conversation which were struck up in a bar or in the waiting queue for the

barbers. These conversations began with locals interested in the purpose of

my visit. These conversations lead on to topics based on my research and

sometimes lead to interviewees discussing their views on the subject. Informal

key informant interviews were carried out when specific information about a

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

33

particular topic was needed. These were carried out with elders of the

community and C3’s Programme Officer as required.

Throughout this report these notes are referred to as ‘field notes’.

Limitations

The scope and depth of this study was limited to the time in the field, which

was three months. This factor was based on my availability and dissertation

deadline. Organising studies in developing countries always takes a lot longer

and extra time must be factored in (Mikkelsen, 2005). Reliance on an

interpreter adds to the organisational time (other difficulties, which caused

delay are discussed below). Once all Household Surveys had been completed,

as many Illegal and Restricted Fishing Interviews were conducted as time

permitted.

Skewing of Results and Contentious Issues

Presence of C3 in the village will lead to a skewing of results as some

interviewees may be giving answers that they feel C3 want to hear (Mikkelsen,

2005). Recent activities such as rubbish awareness, beach-clean and tree

planting for coastal erosion project will have raised awareness of these issues

shortly before the socioeconomic surveying began. These activities are likely

to have been brought up in surveys far more than if the surveying had taken

place before they took place.

My focus on the contentious issue of illegal fishing led me to be concerned

about how my research could cause tensions between the villagers, jeopardise

C3’s position or compromise my own safety. It was important to discuss each

step of the way with Maleli and my more experienced, C3 and University

project supervisors. It was also important to keep a neutral position, not to

assign blame and try to gain understating of the issues faced by empathising

with all parties.

Translation

While conducting Household questionnaires it appeared that Maleli may be

giving more information than just translating, and I feared he may be leading

interviewees. I discussed with Maleli how well the interviewees were

understanding the questions and if he had to give them examples in order to

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

34

understand. He stated that some English words don’t have equivalents in Fijian

and they take a whole sentence or even 2 to explain. He also stated that you

mustn’t give examples and that he tries to guide them until he knows that they

understand. This may take a while as sometimes he has explain the question

in several different ways before they understand. Following this conversation I

was confident that Maleli was not leading the interviewees.

Difficulties

Internet connection using an internet dongle ‘Flashnet’ was unreliable and it

was not possible to browse the internet. To overcome this it was best to use an

email client (eg Outlook for PC or Mail for Mac). These send emails without the

need to download graphics heavy webpages. Saving files as reduced PDFs

increased their chances of sending. C3 should however, research possible

alternatives, such as a fixed-line connection.

Electricity supply is unreliable; the generator is scheduled to run for 3-4hrs per

evening (1 galloon of fuel), however villagers not paying their fuel turn and

breakdowns mean that electricity is not provided daily. This could be frustrating

and caused work delays due to lack of lighting or laptop charge. The village

hall and a few houses have solar panels, which work consistently well in the

climate. C3 should invest in solar panels to ensure a daily supply and ease

working conditions.

The relationship with the translator was at times difficult due to the working

relationship and local laid back working attitude. As the interpreter worked for

C3 and not for me it was difficult to exert control on his availability for

translation – “we’ll go in a minute,” could mean anything from half an hour, to

several hours or eventuate into not at all. Unreliable interviewees and

disappearing interpreter frequently added to the frustrations of organising

surveys and interviews. Being English and not liking to shout at people, it took

a long time to realise that if you want something done may need to shout at

people to get it done. After observing Maleli organising locals, I learnt that this

is not at all rude and quite the normal way of communicating to get things

done.

Grog drinking is a traditional custom in Fiji and on Kia it is drunk most

evenings. Grog is made from the root of the yagona plant, which is pounded

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

35

and mixed with water. The resulting mixture is strained through cloth before

being drunk. Grog is drunk during meetings and social occasions and its

effects are soporific. When drinking grog regularly I found it hard to get

motivated the next day. It is difficult to refuse drinking grog as it is such a part

of the culture. I found that this can be combated by drinking smaller amounts

‘low tide’ and not drinking every round.

Interruptions are frequent and C3 interns are still a novelty on the island, with

villagers frequently coming into the base to chat. Being firm and letting

villagers know that you will join them after finishing work appeases their

curiosity. Headphones are essential for concentration as shouting is a usual

form of communication.

With all the limitations, difficulties and frustrations that were part of everyday

life, the most important virtue was patience.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

36

Chapter 5 - Results and Discussion

Importance of fishing

Table 2 displays household’s primary and secondary incomes as revealed by

the Household Survey. It can be seen that fishing was recorded as the primary

income in 82% of Kian households and the secondary income in 8%. These

findings are consistent with the literature which finds that coastal fisheries

account for more than 80% of livelihood activities for Fijians (Institute of

Applied Sciences, 2009).

Employed jobs on the island represent the primary income for 14% of

households and the secondary income for 4%. Of these; teaching, nursing and

working as a pastor all require a higher level of education and qualifications,

which are beyond the level of most fishers on Kia. These roles are filled by

individuals originating from outside of Kia (Field Notes). Other sources of

income such as running a shop, canteen or selling goods such as pastries,

cigarettes and grog are mostly sources of secondary income (2% of primary

incomes and 14% of secondary), as they do not bring in as much money as

fishing (Field Notes). Incomes that make use of the land; farming, selling pigs

and weaving mats (using pandanus leaves grown on the island) only represent

12% of secondary incomes and are not used as primary incomes.

Other secondary incomes included:

• Hiring out fishing boat

• Paid army weekends

• Remittances

• Social welfare

These incomes rely on either having the money to buy a boat, army

experience, family or health circumstances and therefore may not be

immediately available as alternative incomes for fishers.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

37

Table 2: Household Survey Results: Primary and secondary sources of income.

Income Percentage Primary (%)

Percentage Secondary (%)

Fishing 82 8

School teacher 4 School Teacher (wife) 4

Nursing (wife) 2 2 Working for Gold Hold Company 2 2

Having a shop 2 Hires out fishing boat 2

Work as pastor 2 None 49 Small canteen/selling, cigarettes, grog, pastries 14 Farming 6

Selling pigs 4 Fishing and selling grog 2

Paid army weekends 2 Remittances 2

Social welfare 2 Weaving mats 2

Fishing and remittances. 2 Selling grog, has small canteen and own private fishing company 2

Total 100 100

During the Household Surveys interviewees commonly stated that it was

important to protect the marine resources, as they are their main source of

income. Laakea’s comment echoes these beliefs;

“It is everybody’s duty to see to the protection of marine resources as it

is providing everything eg education, vanua1 and church.” – Laakea

These Household Survey results demonstrate the limited number of alternative

incomes the community has and how heavily reliant they are on fishing.

1 The meaning of vanua is land; a holistic view of the land, people, leadership and social structures.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

38

The threat of illegal and environmentally unfriendly fishing methods

Household Survey results showed that illegal and environmentally unfriendly

fishing methods were perceived as major threats to the community’s main

livelihood. When asked to list the five most major threats to the coastal and

marine resources of Kia, a number of illegal and environmentally unfriendly

fishing methods were raised. These were;

• Night divers

• Compressor diving

• Poachers

• Catching endangered species

• Catching undersized

• Nets

• Poisonous Vine

• Environmentally unfriendly fishing gear/methods

• Dynamite

• Illegal fishing

• Catching spawning fish

• Extraction of live coral

The illegal fishing methods revealed by Kia fishers is consistent with those

reported in Fiji by Hunt (1999), Teh (2009) and Veitayaki (1997).

When all ‘Illegal and environmentally unfriendly fishing methods’ are grouped,

this issue ranks the highest Perceived Threat to Coastal and Marine

Resources (table 3). Some interviewees even listed more than one illegal or

environmentally unfriendly fishing method within their five most major threats,

leading the total percentage to be higher than 100%.

Interestingly, when asked about Coastal and Marine Management Problems

(table 4), the top three issues related to lack of monitoring, to uphold the rules

and regulations of fishing. The fourth highest ranked was ‘Illegal and

unfriendly fishing methods’ (results of different methods combined). These

results show that the highest areas of concern for coastal and marine

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

39

management are illegal and restricted fishing and the lack of its prevention by

monitoring. These results combined with the Perceived Threats results, show

how great a concern the community has for these practices.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

40

Table 3. Household Survey Results: Perceived threats to the coastal and marine resources of Kia.

Threat summary

Percentage of threats raised (%)

Percentage of interviewees* (%)

Illegal and environmentally unfriendly fishing 32.8 161.2

Dumping of rubbish 16.2 79.6

Hurricanes / Cyclones 7.9 38.8

Over-fishing 7.9 38.8

Anchor, polling, fishing hooks damage coral 5.4 26.5

Outboard motor / Oil spillage 3.7 18.4

Pig pens by coast / pig waste - eutrophication 2.9 14.3

Outboard motor / noise pollution 2.1 10.2 Storm surges / spring tides / Tsunami / strong waves 2.1 10.2

Burning 1.7 8.2

Changing weather / Climate change 1.7 8.2

Coastal erosion 1.7 8.2

Many boats - pollution / damage 1.7 8.2

Increase in temperature 1.2 6.1

Spear gun 1.2 6.1

Abuse of fishing grounds / resources 0.8 4.1

Cutting down of trees / Deforestation 0.8 4.1

Fish Wardens 0.8 4.1

Lagoon getting shallower 0.8 4.1

Change in wave action - higher and stronger 0.4 2.0

Coral death 0.4 2.0

Damage from large vessels 0.4 2.0

Disappearing of marine species 0.4 2.0

Forestry treatment process 0.4 2.0

Goldhold - bad for environment and health 0.4 2.0

Light from the village generator 0.4 2.0

Over-population 0.4 2.0

People not respecting each other 0.4 2.0

Reef gleaners break coral when walking on reef. 0.4 2.0

Soil sedimentation due to bad weather 0.4 2.0

Too many fishermen 0.4 2.0

Too many outboard motor 0.4 2.0

Too much grog 0.4 2.0

Use of herbicides on land 0.4 2.0

Waste from mainland 0.4 2.0

Total 100.0 491.8 * Note: Percentage of interviewees totals more than 100% as interviewees raised more than one threat.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

41

Table 4. Household Survey Results: Perceived Coastal and Marine Management Problems

Management Problem Summary Total

Percentage of problems raised %

Percentage of interviewees* %

Fish Wardens not doing job 28 29 57 Fish Wardens/community - lack of funding/facilities to monitor 16 16 33 Authorities not monitoring/providing facilities 14 14 29 Illegal and unfriendly fishing methods 12 12 24 Community members not participating 7 7 14 Lack of environmental knowledge / communication 4 4 8

Dumping of rubbish 3 3 6 Provincial chief 3 3 6

Abusing ocean 1 1 2 Communication between fishing wardens and authorities. 1 1 2

Fisheries management not effective 1 1 2 Fishermen - lack of knowledge 1 1 2

Fishing ground owned generally 1 1 2 Goldhold right in village 1 1 2

Loss of coastal trees 1 1 2 Over-fishing 1 1 2

Too far from authorities 1 1 2 Too many fishing licences given 1 1 2

Too much grog 1 1 2

Total 98 100 200 * Note: Percentage of interviewees totals more than 100% as interviewees raised more than one threat.

How illegal and environmentally unfriendly fishing methods are threats to the

marine resources, was revealed by the Illegal and Restricted Fishing

Interviews. Reasons given were:

• Nets catch any species and size

• Undersized and spawning fish are caught before they reproduce

• Dragging nets and dynamite damage the reefs/fish habitats

• Night divers torchlight can kill corals

• If the taboo/MPA is broken they won’t receive its benefits

• Endangered species like turtles and humphead wrasse will become

extinct

• Poisonous vine kills all species present

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

42

• Compressor diving allows beche-de-mer to be taken from deep water

before reaching maturity

These actions will lead to;

• A decrease in the fish population and other marine species

• Future generations not benefiting

Following or Breaking the Rules and Regulations: Motivations, Benefits and Incentives

Although illegal and environmentally unfriendly fishing methods are seen as a

major threat, some members of the community continue to break the rules.

People’s motivations for breaking the rules were uncovered by the Illegal and

Restricted Fishing Interviews, which revealed the main themes to be;

• Economic

• Monitoring and enforcement

• Social and cultural aspects

Economic

Background

Fiji’s economy is based on small internal markets inhibiting economies of scale

and delivering few employment opportunities. Fiji’s remote location inhibits

trade and the island’s economies are vulnerable to climate change and natural

disasters (World Bank, 2011).

Coups in 2000 and 2006, plunge the country into economic decline; tourism

dropped, business confidence collapsed, and many skilled Indo-Fijians

emigrated. Heavy flooding in 2009 further damaged the fragile economy as

crops and infrastructure were damaged. Flood relief assistance is being

provided, however Fiji’s relationship with key external partners is strained as

restoration of full bilateral relations depend on its return to democracy (World

Bank, 2011). Although elections have been proposed for 2014 (Field Notes),

the interim Prime Minister has confirmed that elections will not take place until

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

43

his regimes ‘People Charter’ is adopted (World Bank, 2011). Investment is

likely to remain constrained due to the political uncertainty (FCO, 2011). Food

and fuel account for nearly half Fiji’s merchandise imports and its current

account deficit is vulnerable to rising fuel and food prices in 2011 (FCO, 2011).

Kia’s remote location means that it is dependant on the cost of fuel for fishing

and transport. On a typical day fishers can make F$50-80, of this F$15 will go

towards shared fuel costs. The fuel cost for a return trip to Labasa on the

mainland to trade fish or buy supplies is F$120 and this cost is usually spread

between boat occupants (Field Notes).

A limited amount of vegetables are grown on the island. In previous times

more crops were grown on the island, however continuous slash and burn

techniques left the island barren. Cassava is the main crop grown, which

thrives in arid and low nutrient conditions. The island appears to have mostly

recovered over time and is now well covered with vegetation (Field Notes).

Other food supplies such as sugar, flour, rice and other vegetables need to be

purchased and transported from the mainland as well as most housing

materials (Field Notes). Currently Kia District School in Ligua teaches students

up to the age of 13 years old. Students wishing to continue schooling must do

so in Labasa incurring the cost of school fees, materials and boarding (Field

Notes).

There is one nursing station for the island, located in Yaro Village, with a

registered nurse, who works directly for the Government and two Village

Health Workers to assist her (C3, 2011c). Any treatments that cannot be dealt

with by the nursing station require travel to the hospital in Labasa and usually

incur treatment costs (Field Notes).

Economic reasons for breaking the rules and regulations Throughout the Restricted and Illegal Fishing interviews, economic gain was

the most dominant theme as to why it is necessary for some people to break

the rules, why it is more widespread now and as an advantage of illegal

fishing. These findings concur with, studies conducted in the Seychelles

(Wood, 2004) and Philippines (Heuer, 2008), that found the primary motive for

illegal fishing to be economic.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

44

Most importantly, interviewees revealed that;

• They cannot meet their daily needs by fishing legally.

• People were desperate for money as the cost of living is higher now

days

Heuer’s (2009), finding that a motive for illegal fishing was that fishers received

insufficient catch by fishing legally, is consistent with the finding that some Kia

fishers feel they cannot meet their daily needs by fishing legally. Heuer (2009)

also found that fishers had a direct need to fish illegally. Heuer’s (2009) study

does provide further detail of this direct need, however perhaps like the Kian

fishers; people were desperate for money as the cost of living is higher now

days. Further research is needed in the Panoan Islands to determine

underlying motives for illegal fishing.

Vaino highlights this high cost of living;

“Times are hard and sugar is expensive. The Government of the day has

increased the food prices very fast.” Vaino

Sugar is one of Fiji’s major industries (FCO, 2011) with its price referenced as

a benchmark against the cost of living. In recent years its cost has risen from

$2-3kg to $9kg (Field Notes).

Other main reasons for breaking the rules and regulations were:

• To get money

• Meet their daily needs

• To provide for the family, education and housing

• Commitments to the vanua, the church and the Government.

Directly translated Vanua means land, however it’s meaning is a holistic view

of the land, people, leadership and social structures (Field Notes). Here

economic commitments to the Vanua include providing for the family’s needs

(discussed below), and looking after the land and the community eg money

collections for a new village generator or fuel to run the existing one. All

villages must pay a monthly subscription to the church and additional

collections are done during services or for additional church events (Field

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

45

Notes). Commitments to the government relate to taxes paid on goods, which

are seen to be high (Field Notes).

Meeting daily needs and providing for the family, education and housing are all

economic factors, as discussed above. Fish is caught for sustenance and is

eaten nearly every day (Household Consumption Surveys) however, an

average 79% of fish caught is sold (Household surveys), showing that more

fish are caught for money than subsistence. Other marine goods such as

beche-de-mer are caught purely for monetary gain (Household surveys). It

has been reported report that over 70% of recorded catch from coastal

fisheries in Fiji is sold for income(Institute of Applied Sciences, 2009). (WWF,

2009b). The percentage of catch sold by Kia fishers appears to be higher than

this average. This may be due to the lack of alternative incomes available,

however further research would be needed to ascertain the reasons behind

this disparity.

The money earned from fishing is used to meet the daily and family’s needs.

The want money was clearly demonstrated by a local fisherman after catching

a baby Humhead Wrasse. He confirmed that he knew it was endangered and

illegal to catch. When asked why a he had caught it, his reason was simply

“money” (Field Notes).

There was a strong feeling that the fish buyers being located on the shores of

Kia were encouraging fishers to fish more regularly as money is easily

available on a daily basis. The high price paid for beche-de-mer makes it more

highly sought after and therefore encourages its over-fishing. Vaino shares his

feelings on the effects the fishing company has;

“The presence of the fishing company is slowly turning the fishing ground into

a desert. People go out and get in whatever they can to sell to the company. It

will be even worse in years. The fishing company encourages people to break

the rules in order to get more fish and more money …………… Because of the

presence of the fishing company their fishing ground is turned into a

commercial commodity. If there was no company, they wouldn’t be bothered

about getting draudrau in numbers. As they can only get one draudrau and

share it among the whole village. “ - Vaino

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

46

The fishing company was also listed by two interviewees in the Household

Survey as a Perceived Management problem and a Perceived Threat.

Interestingly another economic issue was that people did not know how to

manage funds and therefore needed to get money daily. It was frequently said

in conversation that even when fishers make good money eg $150, by the next

day they have spent it all (Field Notes). Additionally, this lack of money

management puts extra pressure on the marine resources at times like

Christmas where extra money is needed (Field Notes). Household Survey

results support this finding with, ‘Mismanagement of funds’ being stated by 5%

of interviewees, as a Perceived Community Problem.

It was also felt that the presence of the fishing company on the shores of Kia

exacerbated this problem as money readily available daily as Tabbebo

discusses;

“Because money is coming to the shore. Before go to Labasa. Have to charge

the boat have to bring the boat. Now money right in front of you in the shore.

Because the buyers are right in your Coro. Don’t have to pay fuel, don’t have

to go far to sell your products.” - Tabbebo

Corruption Corruption was also implicated as a reason for illegal fishing with talk of

provincial chiefs accepting money from companies to fish using illegal

methods, keeping most of the money from tourist ventures and keeping money

given by WWF in return for local tribes not fishing in MPAs (Household Survey;

Field Notes). Officials in government departments have also been implicated in

fishing in the MPA themselves (Feedback Presentation) and accepting bribes

to turn a blind eye to fishing companies conducting illegal practices (Household

Survey; Illegal Fishing Interviews; Field Notes).

Corruption also said to play a part in Wood’s (2004) study that found it

prevented regulation being imposed uniformly and large complexes were

allowed to cause damage to reef.These allegations of corruption are consistent

with those documented in the literature by Hanich and Tsamenyi (2009), who

report corruption at many levels including senior officials and Fisheries

Ministers. They report the areas where impacts are most common to be; in the

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

47

issuing of licences; giving access rights; and turning a blind eye to during

monitoring and inspection.

Economic benefits of breaking the rules and regulations The greatest benefits of breaking the rules and regulations are its increased

economic benefits;

• There are more species, present in greater numbers in the MPA.

• Methods such as night diving or fishing from the MPA are quicker and

easier than legal fishing methods, bringing in money more quickly.

• Illegal methods such as net fishing bring in a greater catch.

• Illegal species are bigger in size, so bring in more money

Wood (2004) and Heuer et al (2008) also founds that fishers fished in the

MPAs as there were more species present and it was easier to get a larger

catch.

Paahana discusses the problems faced by families and ease of fishing in the

MPA;

In my opinion maybe it’s the problems each family faces. There is not enough

money and people steal from the MPA. Most of the families are desperate and

they find it hard. Especially those that live in town areas. Cost of living is

higher. But even here on the island, people are also taking from the no go

zone. They are getting good money from fishing from the MPA, because there

are plenty of fish there. This is in comparison to fishing from unrestricted areas.

- Paahana

The benefits of net fishing are highlighted by Aakav, a net fisherman;

“People break the law because they have so much to do for the vanua, the

church and the Government. As my field is the net fishing, I think using the net

is the only way to solve these problems as we can catch a lot of fish in one go

and get a lot of money.” Aakav

Economic benefits of following the rules and regulations Economic reasons were also stated as benefits of following the rules and

regulations and as incentives for legal fishing. These were;

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

48

• More species, in greater numbers and bountiful supplies of marine

resources.

• It will be easier to fish and won’t have to go as far, saving on fuel

money.

• More money and increased livelihoods.

• The benefits will also passed on to future generations.

Laakea discusses the benefits to the village of following the MPA restrictions;

“One good thing is for instance the MPA, if we follow the rules there will be

more species found and during harvesting periods we will harvest more. When

we are following the rules and regulations we will see the results in our village.

There will be a lot of money and increase in livelihoods.” - Lui

Economic vs conservation

Few interviewees gave conservation reasons for following the rules and

regulations for the benefit of conservation. Some interviewees raised that; fish

and other marine species that were absent will re-appear in their fishing

ground, endangered species will be saved, and that they will have a healthy

marine eco-system. Seikz discusses some of the conservation aspects;

“Most species which are absent for quite sometime, will return. We will have a

healthy reef. The marine species will be more healthy and pretty.” - Seikz

This theme however, was weak in comparison to following the rules and

regulations for economic reasons. Discussion focussed far more on healthier

resources, bountiful supplies and other economic benefits as opposed to

conservation aspects, such as healthier eco-system. These results support

Bartlett’s (2009) review that Pacific islanders motivations for establishing MPAs

is not due to an abstract biological conservation concept Bartlett’s (2009).

Motives are partly grounded in food security as study proposes, however the

far greater motivation, appears be monetary reasons (as discussed above).

These results are therefore in contrast to Bartlett’s (2009) study, which found

that motivations for establishing MPAs in Vanuatu were mostly conservation-

orientated.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

49

Traditionally, Kia fishers fished for their own sustenance or fished for the

provincial chief when called to do so for events or gatherings. The islanders

grew crops and were mostly self-sufficient, bartering with other tribes for any

additional needs (Field Notes). It appears that money has become an

important part of everyday needs and islanders rely on fishing to earn it. These

findings support (Matthews et al, 1998) view that the adoption of money-based

economies has contributed in the erosion of the once strong traditional

systems.

Economic incentives to follow the rules and regulations Economic incentives (after education and awareness) were the second most

popular theme as ways of incentivizing legal fishing.

The main suggestions were;

• Government or NGOs to provide cash/other rewards for people who

flow the rules and regulations.

• Fish Wardens to monitor giving cash rewards.

• Government to provide village boat and fuel to help monitor the fishing

grounds.

• To benefit the future generations

It is unlikely/unrealistic that the Government or NGOs would provide cash

incentives to encourage people to follow the law and such rewards would have

to be significantly large if they are to compete with the gains of illegal fishing.

Additionally the suggestion that this be monitored by the Fish Wardens once

they have undertaken refresher courses is dubious due to the lack of integrity

of some (as discussed in section: Enforcement and monitoring).

As an incentive to legal fishing, Laakea suggested an increase in fish and

beche-de-mer prices to make it easier to follow the rules and regulations due

to the increased value of their legal catches. Unfortunately, beche-de-mer is

already heavily fished due to its high value, and therefore increasing its price is

likely to encourage more people to harvest it, thus exacerbating the problem.

Many interviewees stated that future generations would not benefit if people

continue to break the rules and regulations. It was discussed that the benefits

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

50

to future generations should be used as an incentive for legal fishing and to get

the whole community to participate, as Ashmita states;

“Encourage or beg them not to break the rules for our future generations. And

we should do this everyday.” - Ashmita

Enforcement and monitoring

Background

The Government department responsible for monitoring and enforcing the

rules and regulations of fishing is the Fisheries Department. The operational

cost of the fisheries department far outweigh the revenues it generates (F$2.22

million and F$0.31 million in 1997 respectively) (Hunt, 1999) and it has been

said that lack of funds hamper its ability to prevent illegal fishing (Hunt, 1999).

Traditionally, fishing areas were owned by a clan, family or chief that regulated

its use and those that did not comply would be treated harshly, which was an

effective deterrent. Anyone wishing to use the fishing grounds would seek

permission from the owners (Veitayaki, 1997). On Kia, local rules are debated

in community meetings and agreed by consensus (Field Notes). As rules are

decided upon by consensus this ensures cooperation of the community and

reduces the need for formal enforcement (Veitayaki, 1997). Unfortunately,

these strong traditional systems have been eroded by the uptake of

contemporary exploitive fishing methods (Veitayaki, 1997), breakdown of

chiefly authority (Cauillaud, 2004; Clarke, 1990), the adoption of money-based

economies, increasing population pressures and new political and legal

systems (Matthews et al, 1998). To exacerbate this problem, Kia does not

have an official chief (Tui Kia) installed for the whole island. The Tui Kia rules

over the whole island and takes responsibility for the head village Ligua as well

as Daku. The chief of Yaro (Tui Yaro) falls under his authority. Traditionally, the

title of chief is passed down to the next eldest brother or eldest son. On Kia

however, when the last chief passed away in the late 80s, he did not have a

living son or brother to take up the title. Currently the previous chief’s adopted

son is acting Tui Kia. There has been talk of officially installing him as Tui Kia,

however as this goes against tradition, discussions have continued for many

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

51

years, leaving the island without an officially recognised chief for over 20 years

(Field Notes).

During the installation of the MPA, WWF recruited Fish Wardens from the local

community to be responsible for monitoring the fishing rules and regulations. It

is their duty to uphold the rules and report anyone that breaks them to the

authorities. It is said that WWF also agreed to provide facilities such as a boat

and fuel to help the Fish Wardens carry out their duties. Unfortunately these

facilities were not provided, and the Government stopped giving fuel money for

monitoring purposes (Field Notes).

Enforcement and monitoring reasons for breaking the rules and

regulations Lack of enforcement and monitoring was another strong theme, highlighting

that;

• Fish wardens are not carrying out their duties.

• The authorities rarely monitor the fishing grounds.

• The laws are not strict on Kia.

• It is difficult to report people breaking the law as everyone is related.

Within this theme, Fish Wardens not carrying out their duties was the most

strongly stated reason for people breaking the rules and regulations. The Fish

Wardens’ role is seen as crucial in the monitoring process. The Household

survey results give further evidence for this problem. 'Fish Wardens not doing

their job' was the highest perceived coastal and marine management problem,

raised by 57% of interviewees (Household Surveys). The second highest

perceived coastal and marine management problem in the Household

Surveys, raised by 33% of interviewees was that Fish Wardens/the community

do not have the facilities eg boat and fuel to monitor the fishing grounds

(Household Surveys).

To combat these issues, a number of interviewees suggested that Fish

Wardens should attend refresher courses to remind them of their duty in

monitoring the fishing grounds. In both the Household Surveys and the

Restricted and Illegal Fishing Interviews, interviewees suggested the

Government or NGOs should provide these facilities to help the monitoring

process. In contrast to this, other results from the Household Surveys and

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

52

Restricted and Illegal Fishing Interviews, suggest that it is more a problem of

attitude or want of self-gain that is preventing the Fish Wardens doing their job,

rather than a lack of knowledge or understanding of their role. One Household

Survey respondent even stated that the Fisheries department used to give fuel

money for monitoring but the Fish Wardens used it for their own use eg fishing

(Household Survey). Additionally, not having a boat or fuel provided does not

explain why the Fish Wardens don’t monitor the fish buyers operating on the

shores of Kia.

It may be that Fish Wardens have little incentive to carry out their duty as they

are not paid and also find it hard to report people, as they are related. The

population of Kia originated from one family and marriage within the

community is common meaning that most people are closely related (Field

Notes). Some of the Fish Wardens are also Fish Buyers for the fishing

company and are commonly known to be buying endangered species and

undersized fish themselves. This could be because it is difficult for them to turn

away fish caught by relatives, who are desperate for money, but could also be

for want of self-gain.

Fish Buyers buying endangered and undersized species encourages fishers to

catch them (Cinti, 2010) and Fish buyers undertaking the Fish Warden role

represents a conflict of interest, as they are self-monitoring. Niteshni feels that

if Fish Wardens are not carrying out their duties or are carrying out illegal

activities themselves, they should be changed for people interested in

conservation;

“The fish wardens have every right to make people to follow these rules and

regulations. For example, see if the people follow illegal fishing methods and if

the fish wardens are not active they should be changed. It is important that

they put up people who are really interested in conservation work. If the Fish

Wardens are not following their work properly, they should stop. I mean resign

and let other people take over. Like people who are interested in marine

conservation work.” - Niteshni

Many interviewees stated that the authorities rarely monitor the fishing grounds

around Kia and this may be due to Kia’s remote location. Results from the

household survey also raised that the authorities didn’t monitoring or provide

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

53

facilities as a Coastal and Marine Management Problem raised by 29% of

interviews. Reasons for not monitoring the fishing grounds may be due to a

lack of funds available (Hunt, 1999). This point was raised by a Labasa Police

Officer during the presentation of results to the community. He stated that the

Police lack facilities to monitor meaning that the government doesn’t have the

funds. He asked that if NGOs can help with the monitoring that would help

them (Feedback Presentation).

Laws not being strict on Kia may relate to the breakdown of chiefly authority

described by (Matthews et al, 1998) and lack of official Tui Kia, leading to rules

and regulations not being enforced locally. This lack of authority and respect

was highlighted as a community problem during the Household Surveys:

“No chief for island, so no proper respect. If there was a chief they would

respect.” Temo

“Traditional ties are affected because they don't have a chief installed. 1)

Vanua (land - holistic view land, people leadership, social structures). No

traditional title has been installed as Tui Kia, therefore the whole land has lost

its values and people are not following their structured roles. There is no sense

of direction. 2) Lotu (The Church) Because of above, church obligations are

also not carried out fully, there is no sincere Christian and people take things

lightly.” - Mathias

It is not only difficult for Fish Wardens to report people because they are

related, but also for other members of the community, which exacerbates the

problem.

Enforcement and Monitoring Incentives to Follow The Rules and

Regulations

Fish Buyers refusing to buy them was raised as key solution to encourage

people to follow the rules and regulations. Other solutions included;

• That people who break the law should be reported and an investigation

done up the purchasing chain

• The youth to take courses and help with monitoring

• For people to tell others on the spot not to break the rules

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

54

Lovoti demonstrates telling others on the spot ;

“Like for example if you are out fishing and you see people fishing in the MPA,

you should tell them on the spot like this, “it’s not allowed to fish from the MPA,

it’s not allowed”. “Come away from the fishing ground, from the MPA.”” Lovoti

As the laws are not strict on the island and it is difficult to report relatives, some

interviewees suggested;

“The Government should send a representative to come and stay on the island

as an official monitor. And work together with the fish wardens on the island in

carrying out the rules and regulations.” - Joel

Unfortunately, with a Government lacking the funds and monitoring already

scarce, it is unlikely they would fulfil this role. Additionally, with such corruption

apparently common place, it is debatable how long the integrity of a

government official on the islands would last.

An incentive for outsiders not to fish in Kia’s fishing grounds however, comes

from a story of a recent conflict. Kia islanders who spotted night divers, loaded

up their boats with stones and went out to confront and throw stones at them.

The conflict resulted in a fight and subsequent court case (Field Notes). This

method of self-policing has however had an impact, as one Labasa resident

tells;

“I don’t think poaching is a problem in their grounds. We don’t go there as they

will throw stones at our boats.” - Labasa Businessman

With Kia’s insularity and authorities under-funded, it appears this self-policing

may have a greater impact on deterring outsiders from Kia’s fishing grounds

than official enforcement.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

55

Social and Cultural Aspects

Background

The island has one primary school, Kia Island District School, which has four

teachers, including one that acts as the Head (C3, 2011c). The school takes

students aged 6-13 years old (classes 1-8). Students wishing to continue study

must pass a national exam and attend high school on the mainland, incurring

the cost of school fees, materials and boarding. The high school teaches up to

the age of 18 (form 3-7). If students fail the national exam they must repeat the

year and re-sit the exams. It is said that most of the boys that fail don’t want to

re-sit and stay in the village to fish. From those that pass the exams, many end

up staying in the village to fish as the parents cannot afford to send them to

school on the mainland. Of those that gain a higher education, most do not

return to Kia and instead get married on the mainland or gain employment

there. This has lead to a low level of education on the island (Field Notes).

Additionally, it is believed that children being educated in schools away from

the tribe, has exacerbated the loss of traditional knowledge, which would

historically be passed down from the elders (Matthews et al, 1998). In the past

NGOs have held conservation workshops on the island, but these have been

infrequent and many islanders do not attend them (Field Notes).

Apart from one Catholic family in Kia, all others are Methodist and all practice

their religion. (C3, 2011c). Religion plays a large part in the life and beliefs of

the Kian people. Each of the three villages has its own church and with the

exception of Friday, services are held daily with two services on Saturdays and

Sundays, and an additional choir practice Sunday morning (Field Notes).

Educational reasons for breaking the rules and regulations Lack of education or awareness frequently came up as a reason for people not

following the rules and regulations. Reasons included;

• Lack of education or understanding.

• Ignorant of the law.

• Not attending workshops.

• Not interested.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

56

Ravi, a school teacher from Kia District School highlighted that the high

number of school dropouts puts pressure on the marine resources as those

leaving tended to stay on the island to fish. This, he felt leads to a decrease in

fish population and a therefore a greater need to break the rules to cater for

their needs;

“Because the cost of living is high and there are a lot of school dropouts.”

“Maybe there are a lot of fishermen when they drop out and there are not a lot

of fish to catch. Unemployment, no job. They have no source of money, so in

order to attend to family needs they have to break the rules.” - Ravi

It was also said that those attending workshops don’t always feedback what

they have learnt to the community or when they do, it is not understood by the

villagers. Niteshni highlights this point;

“The problem lies with the people who represent the village at the workshops.

When they come back they do not relay the message they have learnt back to

the people. And that is why many people don’t understand. Sometimes

representative come back and convey the message to the people which

cannot be understood by them.” - Niteshni

People not having licences was highlighted as a reason for not knowing the

rules as the rules and regulations, as illegal practices and legal fish sizes are

given on the license. These comments are directed to outsiders rather than the

islanders as the Kia fishers have fishing licences (Field Notes). These findings

are consistent with the findings of previous studies where a low level of

education (Wood, 2004) and lack of awareness amongst fishers (Heuer et al,

2008) exacerbates the problems of illegal fishing. Additionally as discussed,

the low education level of fishers makes it harder for them to gain alternative

livelihoods. This finding is consistent with Wood’s (2004) findings that no

alternative income was available to poachers due to their lower education.

In opposition to these views, about two thirds of the interviewees stated that

people do understand the importance and benefits of following the fishing rules

and regulations, but some still break them. Strengthening this view:

• All interviewees demonstrated good understanding of illegal and

restricted fishing practices during the interview.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

57

• All interviewees for the Household Surveys had a good knowledge of

coastal and marine resources and a positive conservation attitude.

• General discussions with people during the study also revealed that

they were aware of the rules and regulations (Field Notes).

The benefits of MPAs listed by interviewees were consistent with those

documented in the literature by Lam (1998), Lauck et al (1998) and Gell and

Roberts (2003). It therefore appears that most people do know the fishing rules

and regulations and have a good understanding of the reasons behind them.

These finding are in contrast to Heuer et al’s (2008) who found fishers to be

unsure of many illegal practices and didn’t consider fishing in the MPA to be

illegal even though it is not allowed

Perhaps some Kia fishers do not fully understand the reasons behind the

fishing rules and regulation and therefore don’t see the benefit of following,

however others are fully aware but still choose to break them.

Educational incentives to follow the rules and regulations When asked to provide ways of incentivizing legal fishing and getting the whole

community to participate, the most common theme, stated by all interviewees

was increasing education and awareness. Ideas included;

• More workshops by NGOs

• Discussion in community meetings

• Teach youths in schools

• Discussions in social groups such as the youth, women’s, men’s and

church groups

• Preached and pray for in church

• Hold a community fun day.

One drawback of community meetings is that they can last for several hours

and participants get tired and lose interest towards the end (Field Notes),

therefore as Kitaek points out, discussions on the rules and regulations of

fishing should be included in the main agenda;

“OK back to village meetings. If it’s brought up in village meetings, things like

this come up as other matters towards the end of the meeting. This issue

should not come under other matters but be part of the main agenda. Telling

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

58

people on the spot should also be a priority. “ - Kitaek

Other more informal media suggested were;

• Talk in yaqona (grog) sessions.

• With the family.

• While relaxing under the trees.

• For individuals to tell others on the spot not to break the rules if seen

doing so.

These results have found that the lack of education and awareness exacerbate

the problem of illegal fishing. These results are also consistent with Wood’s

(2004) study that found that lack of education exacerbated the problem and

Heuer’s (2009) study that found lack of awareness as the secondary reason for

illegal fishing.

A positive outcome from these results however, show that there are many

opportunities available to engage the community to address this.

Attitude As well as the attitude of the fish wardens, the attitude of the people was also a

theme as to why people break the rules and regulations. A number of

interviewees stated that some fishers;

• Were exercising their rights as owners of fishing ground.

• Don’t have any pride for their resources.

• Are arrogant, selfish or just don’t want to follow the rules.

• Believe there are too many restricted areas and not enough un-

restricted area

Niteshni impersonated the attitude shown by some fishers;

“Some people have the attitude that they own the fishing grounds. “We own

these fishing grounds. Who are these people to come and put a taboo area

here? ”” - Niteshni

This attitude towards the law by those that do not follow the rules is consistent

with Wood’s (2004) study that found that non-poaches say poachers have a

lack of respect for the law. Rule breaking by some individuals may encourage

others to follow them and can also create animosity between villagers. Kitaek

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

59

raises this point and suggests following the rules and regulations as a solution

for eliminating animosity;

“There are 2 kinds of people here. There are some people who still follow the

rules and regulations and there are others that don’t care about the rules. For

example the MPA, some people respect the laws concerning the MPA and

other people don’t. Sometimes it creates animosity between the people. If all

the people follow the rules then there will be no animosity and we will have a

healthy marine eco-system throughout the island.” - Kitaek

With regards to incentives and community participation, he also suggested a

change in attitude for the Fish Wardens;

“Fish Wardens , they must change their attitudes and do their work properly in

monitoring the marine eco-system.” - Kitaek

Surprisingly, during this interview we were informed that a humphead wrasse

had just been brought in. Kitaek who is a Fish Warden himself, did not bat an

eyelid to this news, before ironically making the above statement. Consistent

with Wood’s (2004) study, some believe there are too many restricted areas

and not enough un-restricted areas left to fish in. Wood (2004) also found that

some fishers didn’t feel that they were receiving the benefits of spill-over and

therefore had little faith in MPA establishment. Wood also found that some

fishers believed that MPAs were for tourists and displaced fishers from their

fishing grounds. These finding however, did not come to light in this study or in

Heuer et al’s (2008).

It seems that whether or not individuals understand the fishing rules and

regulations, there are those that choose not to follow them. A lack of

enforcement, the breakdown of chiefly authority (Cauillaud, 2004; Clarke,

1990) and lack of Tui Kia may all contribute to the lax attitude towards the rules

and regulations. These results are consistent with Jones’s (2002), findings that

such lack of public support leads to socially accepted poaching, that is

apparent on Kia.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

60

Religion Another reason highlighted for not following the rules and regulations was the

attitude that God will always provide;

“Because it is gods gift, he provides and we only have to harvest.” - Laakea

In the Household surveys, the belief that the community did not have to look

after the marine resources as they are Gods gift and that God will always

provide was raised by some interviewees. Wood (2004) found that some

fishers did not support conservation efforts as they were optimistic about future

fish stocks. Wood’s study however, did not state the reasons behind this belief

and therefore it is not possible to determine if these beliefs were religiously

based. Further investigation into this belief would be useful for the

development of incentives to follow the rules, as religion can be a powerful

influence. In opposition to this view, interviewees raised that they should look

after the resources as they are Gods gift and if the community does not look

after them, God can take them away or punish them.

“Conclusion is. Kia islanders. You live and fish in Kia so you have to protect

your source of income. Your source is fish. It’s you responsibility to protect

your godly given place. God will take away what he has given you if you are

not protecting this place.” - Tabbebo

These results show a split the religious attitude of the community with regards

to the preservation of ‘God’s gifts’.

Presentation back to the community

The presentation was well received by the community and this style of

presentation was shown to be a good way to present information to the

community, allowing the audience to ask questions if they wished.

Unfortunately, only a few members of the community who were mostly the

elders were vocal and no women were in attendance. This shows that this form

of presentation is not suitable to gain representative views of the community,

but is good way to present to larger audience. As this presentation was

conducted after a community meeting for the whole island, it was a good way

of engaging the elders from all three villages at once. A limitation of this

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

61

however, is that community meetings can be long and grog drinking makes

individuals sleepy. As participants get weary they not be paying full attention,

particularly towards the end of meetings.

The presentation was attended by two local police officers that had come to

get fish for a police conference. For this purpose the elders had authorised a

one-day lifting of the MPA restrictions. The following day, one of the officers

approached Maleli and stated that after listening to my talk, he felt so guilty

that he had come to get fish from the MPA.

Recommendations from this meeting are presented in recommendations

section 5.1.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

62

5.1 Recommendations

The experience of living and Kia during this study highlighted many issues that

the Kia community face. The recommendations given below are therefore

limited to the scope of this project.

Economic

Promoting agricultural practices would decrease the need to but food and

reliance money. Additionally sustainable techniques such as composting

should be promoted to improve the soils fertility and avoid the problems

caused by slash and burn techniques.

Promoting alternative livelihoods would reduce the communities reliance on

fishing.

Teaching money management skills would enable fishers to budget and save,

therefore reducing the daily and peak pressures on the marine resources.

Additionally, restricting the days that Fish Buyers can operate would take away

the day availability of money and encourage fishers to budget. These days

could be used to implement the land, further reducing the reliance on money.

A number of project to be supported by either NGOs or Government have

failed to materialize (Household Surveys). The community should look to

address their problems themselves rather than rely on funding that may never

come. The current economic and political situation and apparent widespread

corruption is only likely to hinder any external funding. Additionally WWF, who

offered to provide monitoring facilities, should be contacted for an update on

the situation.

Enforcement

Fish Wardens being Fish Buyers is a conflict of interest which must be

addressed. Fish Wardens that do not carry out their role or break the laws

should be changed. Individuals who are interested in conservation should be

given the opportunity.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

63

Fish Buyers buying endangered and undersized species encourages fishers to

catch them (Cinti, 2010). Enforcement of rules and regulations in this area is

crucial as it is unlikely that fishers will catch fish that they cannot sell. Due to

lack of funding for authorities and Kia’s insularity the community should look to

themselves for monitoring. This monitoring can start on the shores of Kia in

particular with monitoring the Fish Buyers.

Illegal fishing by outsiders may be mostly out of the control of Kia community,

however many illegal and environmentally unfriendly methods of fishing can be

stopped by the community of Kia. In order for these issues to be resolved it is it

is clear that participation of the whole community is needed.

Education / Communications

Many different media were suggested to promote education and awareness.

C3 should look to engage with each of these and a community fun day could

be organized in liaison with the school and social groups. Workshops

regarding the rules and regulations of fishing should be carried out by C3 and

include experts from other organisations such as University South Pacific

where appropriate. Joining the FLMMA network would facilitate this and lead to

better sharing of information by authorities and other NGOs.

As the main reasons for illegal fishing were economic, the economic benefits of

following the MPA restrictions and legal fishing should be strongly promoted,

as well as the benefits to the future generations. These educational and

awareness programmes should seek to change attitudes towards conservation

and teach the social values of the reefs to take some focus off purely economic

incentives.

Currently updates from C3 regarding their work are scheduled at the end of the

community meeting. Community meeting can last for several hours.

Participants getting tired towards the end, especially when drinking grog and

loose interest (Field Notes). Discussion regarding the fishing rules and

regulations should be part of the main agenda and C3 should organise its own

feedback sessions with the community and social groups.

To prevent the loss of traditional knowledge, these teachings should be

incorporated in to the school curriculum (Caillaud, 2004). Locally C3 should

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

64

extend their school conservation workshop ‘Reef Rangers’ to include traditional

knowledge.

The high number of school dropout at the age of 13 should be addressed.

Promoting a higher level of education beyond the age of 13 should be

investigated in liaison with the Head Mistress. A Kia resident discussed that

the school has the space for additional classes (Field Notes).

Kia community are very religious and C3 should engage with members of the

church groups to promote conservation of ‘Gods gifts’.

Presenting to the community

Further work needs to be done to include women and to gain views of the less

vocal members of the community. This can be done by engaging the different

social groups such as the women’s, youth and church groups. Working with

smaller groups in a less formal setting would enable those less confident to put

their views across.

Recommendations for C3, which were asked for during the presentation were:

• Provide workshops/seminars and pamphlets re: management

• Promote awareness of the effects of fishing during spawning period.

• Publish strengths and weaknesses from surveys results so they can

see what they need to improve on.

Presenting the results from studies to the community is a lot of information for

villagers to take in at once, especially if they have a low educational level. All

three of these recommendations would therefore be useful for increasing the

communities understanding of the issues. Publishing the results in an easily

understandable format for villagers to be able to study at their own pace, would

also be an excellent way to give results from studies.

Further research

This study should be expanded to neighbouring communities to understand

their motives for illegal fishing. The same methods and surveys should be used

for consistent comparison of results.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

65

It would also be interesting to investigate why the percentage of catch sold by

Kia fishers may be much higher than the average for Fiji. Investigating how

much money fishers make and how they spend it could be measured over time

as impact of alternate livelihoods and agricultural venture are promoted.

Influence this research has already had

Due to the lack of reliance of the Fish Wardens highlighted by this study, C3

have brought forward the training of conservation awareness officers (personal

email from Chris Poonian, C3).

The feedback of result to the community as discussed already has a strong

influence on one local police officer, who felt guilty as he had come to collect

fish from a listing of the MPA. The presentation also had a clear impact on

other members of the community including the elders who were discussing the

implications of the results in subsequent meetings and grog sessions.

Additionally, the findings of this research will be shared with reef conservation

experts from across the world, as I will be presenting them at Reef

Conservation UK’s annual meeting in London in December 2011.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

66

Chapter 6 - Conclusion

Analysis of results found that the community of Kia are heavily reliant on

fishing for their livelihoods with few alternative incomes available. Interviewees

identified a number of illegal and environmentally unfriendly fishing methods

that threaten the coastal and marine resources and therefore, their livelihoods.

The illegal methods raised were consistent with those reported in the literature

by Lam (1998), Lauck et al (1998) and Gell and Roberts (2003). The lack of

enforcement and monitoring to prevent these activities was also found to be of

major concern to the community.

People’s motivations for breaking the rules fell under three main themes;

• Economic

• Monitoring and enforcement

• Social and cultural aspects

The primary motive for illegal fishing was found to be economic, which concurs

with previous studies in the Seychelles (Wood, 2004) and Philippines (Heuer,

2008).

Most importantly, interviewees revealed that;

• They cannot meet their daily needs by fishing legally.

• People were desperate for money as the cost of living is higher now

days.

This high cost of living was found to be a national problem following several

coops and heavy flooding that have lead the country into economic decline

(World Bank, 2011) and increased the costs of imported goods such as food

and fuel (FCO, 2011). A way to make up for this shortfall is by breaking the

fishing rules and regulations, as these methods bring in more money than legal

methods; illegal methods such as net fishing bring in more catch and fishing in

the MPA is easier as there are more species in greater numbers present. The

presence of the fish buyers is said to exacerbate the problem, as money is

available everyday, encouraging fishers to fish daily. Fish buyers are also

buying illegal and undersized species, encouraging fishers to catch them by

providing a market (Cinti, 2010). Economic reasons were also found to be

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

67

behind reasons for following the rules and regulations and few stated

conservation ones. These results support Bartlett’s (2009) review that Pacific

islanders motivations for establishing MPAs is not due to an abstract biological

conservation concept. Motives are partly grounded in food security, however

the far greater motivation is economic.

Fish Wardens not carrying out their duty was strongly highlighted as being a

reason for people not following the rules and regulations. It was found that

some Fish Wardens are also Fish Buyers, which represents a conflict of

interest, as they are self-policing. Authorities, NGOs and Fish Wardens not

monitoring was found to contribute to the lack of enforcement. Fishers

themselves also contribute to the problem by catching undersized and

endangered species or by using illegal fishing methods such as nets. Adding to

the difficulties of enforcement, it was also found that it is difficult to report

people who break the rules as everyone is related. Kia’s remote location, the

countries economic decline, government instability and corruption are believed

to play a part in the lack of enforcement of fishing laws and high cost of living

reported by islanders.

It was also found that a lack of education and awareness exacerbates the

problem of illegal fishing. These results are consistent with previous studies

that found that the issue of illegal fishing was exacerbated by lack of education

(Wood, 2004) and lack of awareness (Heuer, 2009). It seems that whether or

not individuals understand the fishing rules and regulations, there are those

that choose not to follow them. A lack of enforcement, the breakdown of chiefly

authority (Cauillaud, 2004; Clarke, 1990) and lack of Tui Kia may all contribute

to the lax attitude towards the rules and regulations. Such lack of support may

have lead to socially accepted poaching consistent with finding by Jones’s

(2002). A positive outcome from this study however, show that there are many

media available to engage the community and address the gap in education

and awareness, and these opportunities should be fully explored by C3. These

educational and awareness programmes should seek to change attitudes

towards conservation and teach the social values of the reefs.

It was found that the literature often assumes economic motives for illegal

fishing, which is consistent with the primary motive found in this study as well

as studies by Wood (2004) and Heuer (2008). However, disparities were found

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

68

between the three studies with regards to the secondary and underlying

motives. These disparities may in part, be due to different techniques

employed and survey questions used. It is likely though, that underlying

motives for illegal fishing will be different for each situation and can be based

on many factors such as economics, education level, insularity, alternative

livelihood options, tourism, funding, government regime and political climates.

Economic motives therefore, cannot be assumed as each situation has its own

unique set of complexities and requires its own research to fully understand

local motives for illegal fishing.

Findings of this study were presented back to the community to close the loop

on this participatory project and to meet the secondary objectives. The method

used proved a good way to present to a larger audience including participants

from all villages. However, less vocal members of the audience did not share

their views and no women were in attendance. The project therefore, did not

fully meet the secondary objective of ensuring two-way inclusive engagement.

The illegal fishing interviews included women and younger fishers. The

Household surveys however, tended to exclude women and younger members

of the community as they were held with the most senior member of the

household, who tended to be men. Additionally, during this short study time it

was not possible to gain a full enough understanding of the whole community

and who marginalised groups may be. For these reasons the project failed in

its secondary objective to include marginalised members or the community and

demonstrate gender awareness. Consequently, further work needs to be done

to engage with women and potentially marginalised groups, which can be done

via the social groups such as the women’s, youth and church groups.

The results of this study uncovered motives for breaking the fishing

conservation rules, to address a gap in the literature that has been little

studied. The study met its aims and primary objectives, and has suggested

further research to fully meet its secondary ones. This study has contributed to

the literature, has opened up further lines of research and has presented

recommendations which, will help reduce illegal fishing practices in and around

Kia.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

69

Bibliography Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, CP, Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, RE.,

Jenkins, M., Jefferiss, P., Jessamy, V., Madden, J., Munro, K., Myers, N.,

Naeem, S., Paavola, J., Rayment, M., Rosendo, J., Roughgarden, K.,

Trumper, K., Turner, RK. (2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild nature.

Science. 297(5583) pp950- 953.

Bartlett, CY., Maltali, T., Petro, G., Valentinea, P. (2010). Policy Implications of

Protected Area Discourse in the Pacific islands. Marine Policy. 34 pp 99–104

C3. (online). www.c-3.org.uk. Accessed 16/09/2010.

C3 Household Surveys. (2011a). C3 unpublished data.

C3 Household Consumption Surveys (2011b). C3 unpublished data.

C3. (2011c). A Review of secondary and observational socioeconomic data

available for the management of coastal resources of Kia Island. C3

unpublished data.

Caillaud, A. Boengkih, S., Evans-Illidge, E., Genolagani, J., Havemann, P.,

Henao, D,. Kwa, E., Llewell, D,. Ridep-Morris, A., Rose, J., Nari, R., Skelton,

P., South, R., Sulu, R., Tawake, A., Tobin, B., Tuivanuavou, S., Wilkinson, C.

(2004). Tabus or not taboos? How to use traditional environmental knowledge

to support sustainable development of marine resources in Melanesia. SPC

Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin.

17.

Cesar, H., Aish, A. (2004). Financing Marine Protected Area Networks in a

developing country setting: theory, practice and challenges. Cesar

Environmental Economics Consulting. Arnhem. The Netherlands.

Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M., Lysenko, I. (2005). Measuring the Extent

and Effectiveness of Protected Areas as an Indicator for Meeting Global

Biodivsity Targets. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Cambridge,

UK.

Christie, P., White, A., T., Moce, K. (2000). Comparative Assessment of

Stakeholder Management in Traditional Fijian Fishing Grounds. Environmental

Conservation. 27 pp291-299.

Christie, P., White, AT. (2007). Best Practices for Improved Governance of

Coral Reef Marine Protected Areas. Coral Reefs. 26 pp1047–1056.

Cinti, A., Shaw, W., Cudney-Bueno, R., Rojo, M. (2010). The unintended

consequences of formal fisheries policies: Social disparities and resource

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

70

overuse in a major fishing community in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Marine

Policy. 34 pp 328–339.

Clarke, WC. (1990). Learning from the Past: Traditional Knowledge and

Sustainable Development. Contemporary Pacific. 2 pp233-253

Clifford, N. French, S., Valentine, G. (2010). Key methods in Geography.

SAGE Publications Ltd. London.

Costello, C., Kaffine, DT. (2009). Marine Protected Areas in Spatial

Doulman DJ. (1992). Community based fishery management: toward the

restoration of traditional practices in the South Pacific. In: FAO/Japan Expert

Consultation on the Development of Community Based Coastal Fishery

Management Systems for Asia and the Pacific. FI:CCFM/92/Sp.4.

Evans, R.D., Russ, GR,. (2004). Larger biomass of targeted reef fish in no-

take marine reserves on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Aquatic

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 14 pp505–519.

Feedback Presentation. Lui Hepworth. (2011). Feedback Presentation of

Results to the Community of Kia.

Ferrer, EM., Polotan de la Cruz, L., Domingo, MA. (1996). Seeds of Hope.

Manila: College of Social Work and Community Development. The University

of the Philippines. Philippines.

Fiji National Census of Population 2007. Available online at

www.statsfiji.gov.fj/. Accessed 29/08/11.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). (2011). Available online at

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-

country/country-profile/asia-oceania/asia-fiji. Accessed 28/08/11.

Gell, FR., Roberts, CM. (2003). Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects

of marine reserves. Trends in Ecology. 18 pp448–455.

Gjertsen H., Niesten, E. (2010). Incentive-based approaches in marine

conservation: Applications for sea turtles. Conservation and Society. 8(1) pp5-

14.

Gomez, ED. (1997). Reef management in developing countries: a case study

in the Philippines. Coral Reefs16, Supplement S3-S8.

Halpern, BS. (2003). The impact of Marine Reserves: Do Reserves Work and

Does Reserve Size Matter? Ecological Applications. 13 pp117–137.

Hanich, Q, Tsamenyi, M. (2009). Managing fisheries and corruption in the

Pacific Islands region. Marine Policy. 33 pp386–392

Hauzer M., Poonian C., Iboura, MC. (2008). Mohéli Marine Park, Comoros –

Successes and Challenges of the Co-Management Approach. In Obura DO,

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

71

Tamelander J, Linden O (Eds) Ten years after bleaching - facing the

consequences of climate change in the Indian Ocean. CORDIO Status Report

2008. Coastal Oceans Research and Development in the Indian Ocean/Sida-

SAREC. Mombasa, pp 83-91

Heaps, L. (2005). Fiji’s Great Sea Reef. The Hidden Gem of the South Pacific.

WWF SPPO. Suva. Fiji.

Heuer, A., Navarette, D., van Bochove, JW., Harding, S., Raines, P. (2009).

Socio-Economic Study: Local Livelihoods, Use and Management of Coastal

Resources and Efficiency of Marine Protected Area’s in Panaon Island. Coral

Cay Conservation. London

Hodgson G., Dixon, JA. (1988). Logging Versus Fisheries And Tourism in

Palawan. Environment and Policy Institute, East-West Center. Hawaii. p95.

Hunt, C. (1999). Fiji’s fisheries: their contribution to development and their

future. Marine Policy. 23(6) pp571–85.

Institute of Applied Sciences. (2009). A nation-wide survey of village-based

fishing pressure in Fiji. In: Jenkins AP, Prasad SR, Bacchiochi J, Skelton P,

Yakub N (eds), Proceedings of the Inaugural Fiji Islands Conservation Science

Forum, Wetlands International-Oceania, Suva, Fiji.

IUCN. (1994). Resolution 17.38 of the IUCN general assembly [IUCN—The

World Conservation Union 1988] reaffirmed in Resolution 19.46 [IUCN—The

World Conservation Union].

Jenkins A., Skykes H, Skelton P., Fiu M., Lovell E. (2004) Fiji’s Great Sea

Reef, The first marine biodiversity survey of cakaulevu and associated coastal

habitats.

Jones, PJS. (2002). Marine protected area strategies: issues, divergences and

the search for middle ground. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 11

pp197–216.

Kaiser, MJ. (2005). Are Marine Protected Areas a Red Herring or Fisheries

Panacea? Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science. 62 pp1194–1199

Kosal, M. (1998). Social Implication of Conservation of the Designated "Prek

Toal" Core Area of the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve, Cambodia. 1998

UNESCO-MAB Young Scientists Research Award Report. Ministry of

Environment. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Lam, M. (1998). Consideration of Customary Marine Tenure System in the

Establishment of Marine Protected Areas in the South Pacific. Ocean &

Coastal Management. 39 pp97-104.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

72

Lamberts, D. (2001). Tonle Sap Fisheries: A Case Study On Floodplain Gillnet

Fisheries. Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission. Food and Agriculture Organization

of the United Nations. Bangkok, Thailand.

Lauck, T., Clark, CW., Mangel, M., Munro, GR. (1998). Implementing the

Precautionary Principle in Fisheries Management Through Marine Reserves.

Ecological Applications. 8(1). Supplement: Ecosystem Management for

Sustainable Marine Fisheries. ppS72-S78

Lundquist, CJ., Granek, EF. (2005). Strategies for Successful Marine

Conservation: Integrating Socioeconomic, Political, and Scientific Factors.

Conservation Biology. 19(6) pp1771–1778.

Matthews, E., Veitayaki, J., Bidesi, VR. (1998). Fijian Villagers Adapt to

Changes in Local Fisheries. Ocean and Coastal Management. 38 pp207-224.

McClanahan, TR. (1999). Is there a future for coral reef parks in poor tropical

countries? Coral Reef. 18 pp321–325.

McClanahan, TR., Mangi, S. (2000). Spillover of Exploitable Fishes from

Marine Park and its Effect of the Adjacent Fishery. Ecological Applications.

10(6) pp1792-1805.

Mikkelsen, B. (2005). Methods for Development Work and Research: A New

Guide to Practitioners 2nd Ed. SAGE Publications Ltd. London.

Poonian, CNS., Hauzer, MD., Iboura, CM. (2008). Challenges for effective and

sustainable co-managed Marine Protected Areas: a case study from the

Comoros Islands. Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef

Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 7-11 July Session number 23

Property-Rights Fisheries. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource

Economics. 54 pp321–34

Pryke, M., Rose., Watmore., S. (2004). Using Social Theory – Thinking Though

Research. SAGE Publications Ltd. London.

Roberts, CM., Bohnsack, JA., Gell, FR., Hawkins, J., Goodridge, R. (2001).

Marine Reserves Enhance Adjacent Fisheries. Science. 294 pp1920–1923.

Roberts, CM., Hawkins, JP., Gell, FR. (2005). The role of marine reserves in

achieving sustainable fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal

Society B-Biological Sciences. 360(1453) pp123-132.

Rowley, RJ. (1994). Marine Reserves in Fisheries Management. Aquatic

Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 4 pp233–254.

Salm, RV., Clarke, J., Siirila, E. (2000). Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A

Guide to Planners and Managers. Washington DC: International Union for

Conservations and Nature and Natural Resources. pp 370.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

73

Sobel J. (1993). Conserving Biological Diversity Through Marine Protected

Areas. Oceanus. 36(3) pp19—26.

SocMon. (2011). Online. www.socmon.org. Accessed 29/09/11.

Sophat, S., Kong, HK., Sethik, R., Sithirith, M. (2005). Fisheries Resource

Management in Boeng Tonle Chhmar Lake: How Are The Current

Management Systems Affecting these Resources and the Local Livelihoods?

USEPAM Applied Research Team. Royal University of Phnom Penh.

Cambodia.

Teh, LCL., Teh, LSL., Starkhouse, B., Sumaila, RU. (2009). An Overview of

Socioeconomic and Ecological Perspectives of Fiji’s Inshore Reef Fisheries.

Marine Policy. 33 pp807–817.

The World Conservation Union (IUCN). (1994). Guidelines for protected area

management categories. Gland, Switzerland.

Veitayaki, J. (1997). Traditional marine resource management practices used

in the Pacific Islands: an agenda for change. Ocean & Coastal Management.

37(1) pp123-136.

White, AT., Hale, LZ., Renard, Y., Cortesi, L. (1994). Collaborative and

Community-Based Management of Coral Reefs. Lessons from Experience.

Kumarian Press. West Hartford.

White, AT., Vogt, HP., (2002). Philippine Coral Reefs Under Threat: Lessons

Learned After 25 Years of Community-Based Reef Conservation. Marine

Pollution Bulletin. 40 pp537-550.

Wongbusarakum, SB. Pomeroy, C. Loper, C. Vieux, M. Guilbeaux, A. Levine,

C. Bartlett. (2008) SEM-Pasifika: Socio-Economic Monitoring Guidelines for

Coastal Managers in Pacific Island Countries. Secretariat of the Pacific

Regional Environment Programme, Apia, Samoa.

Wood, L. (2004). Motives for Poaching in Marine Protected Areas in the

Seychelles. West Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science. 3 (2) pp199-208.

WWF. (2009a). Macuata Perception Report. WWF SPPO. Suva. Fiji.

WWF. (2009b). Catch Per Unit Effort Report. WWF SPPO. Suva. Fiji.

Yasue, M., Kaufmanand, L., Vincent, ACJ. (2010). Assessing ecological

changes in and around marine reserves using community perceptions and

biological surveys. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.

20 pp407 – 418.

Zeller, D., Russ, GR. (2004). Are Fisheries “Sustainable”? A Counterpoint to

Steele and Hoagland. Fisheries Research. 67 pp241–245.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

74

Appendix

Appendix A – Household Survey

SEMPASIFIKAHOUSEHOLDSURVEYKiaIsland,Fiji

Interview#:

Date:Notesinitalicsaretoassisttheintervieweronly.TextinunderlinedboldreferstoSEM‐PasifikaIndicatorsBoldtextforemphasis

Village:

Interviewer:Interviewee:

Roleinhousehold(eg.Father,daughter,elder,etc.):

INTRODUCTORYSTATEMENTHello,mynameis_________andIwouldliketotakeabout40minutesofyourtimetoaskyouabouttheimportanceofandissuessurroundingcoastalandmarineresourcesonKia.Iwouldprefertospeakwiththemostseniormemberofyourhouseholdcurrentlypresent.Pleasebeawarethat theresultsof thisinterviewwillbekeptcompletelyconfidentialfromanyauthoritiesandtheresultsofthissurveywillbediscussed in detail with the whole community in a few months with the hope of improving themanagementofKia’snaturalresources.DEMOGRAPHICSD12SourcesofHouseholdIncomeWhatisyourhousehold’sprimarysourceofincome?Whatisyourhousehold’ssecondarysourceofincome?COASTALANDMARINEACTIVITIESC1CoastalandMarineActivitiesC2CoastalandmarinegoodsandservicesC5DependenceoncoastalandmarinegoodsandservicesWhatactivitiesdoesyourhouseholdparticipateinthatinvolvecoastalormarinenaturalresources?Whatgoodsandservicesdotheseactivitiesprovideyouwith?Whatpercentageofthesegoodsandservicesdoesyourhouseholdconsumeandwhatproportiondoyouselltoothers?Recordthecoastalandmarineactivitiesinwhicheachhouseholdisinvolvedinthetablebelow.Foreachactivity,listtherelatedgoodsandservicesandpercentproportionoftheirdependencyfortheirlivelihood,bothintermsoftheirownconsumptionandincomegeneration.PleaseseeP.58oftheSEMPasifikamanualformoreinformationonhowtocompletethistable.

Proportionofdependency

Coastalandmarineactivities

Coastalandmarinegoodsandservices

%Ownconsumption

%Sale

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

75

C13AlternativeandsupplementarylivelihoodsWhatwouldyourhousehold’soptionsbetogenerateincomeifyoudidnot(insertprimaryandsecondarysourcesofincome)?Whywouldyouchoosethisactivity?Whatiscurrentlypreventingyoufromdoingthisactivityasyourprimarysourceoflivelihood?DoyouhaveanyotherideasforenterpriseonKiaIslandthatyouwouldliketoimplement?THREATST1PerceivedcommunityproblemsWhatdoyouseeasthetwomainproblemsfacingthecommunityofKia?Pleasegiveasmuchdetailaspossible.12

T2PerceivedresourceconditionsHowwouldyouratethecurrentconditionofthefollowingresourcesonKiaandontheGreatSeaReef?Addrowsasnecessary Good

Neither

Bad

Beaches Seagrassbeds CoralReefs Coastalplantsandtrees Agriculturalland T3PerceivedthreatstocoastalandmarineresourcesWhatarethefivemostmajorthreatstothecoastalandmarineresourcesofKia?PleaseratethethreatasLow,MediumorHigh.Inserttherespondent’sanswersinthefollowingtable Threat Low Medium High

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

76

T4PerceivedcoastalmanagementproblemsWhatdoyouseeasthetwomainproblemsinthewaythatcoastalandmarineresourcesarebeinglookedafter?Pleasegiveasmuchdetailaspossible.12MANAGEMENTM11Awarenessofrulesandregulations;M12Enforcement;M13ComplianceAreyouawareofrulesandregulationsgoverningthefollowingcoastalactivities?Aretheregulationseffectivelyenforced?(Fully/Strongly,Moderately,Poorly/Not)Dopeoplecomplywiththeregulations?(Fully/Strongly,Moderately,Poorly/Not)CompletethetablefortheactivitiesidentifiedinC1,tickingtherelevantlevelofenforcement.

Levelofenforcement LevelofcomplianceActivity RulesandregulationsexistY/N

Full Moderate Not Full Moderate Not

M14ManagementsuccessesandfailuresWhattwothingsdoyouthinkhaveworkedwellforcoastalmanagementinthecommunity?Pleasegiveasmuchdetailaspossible.12Whattwothingsdoyouthinkhavenotworkedwellforcoastalmanagementinthecommunity?Pleasegiveasmuchdetailaspossible.12C10KnowledgeofcoastalandmarineresourcesAsktherespondentifthefollowingstatementsaretrueorfalseandrecordtheirresponseswithatickintherelevantcolumn.(TrueorFalse) TRUE FALSECoralisnotalivingorganism Seagrassisanimportanthabitatforfish Marineprotectedareasareinplacetoallowfishtoreproducesothattheirnumbersdonotdecline

Mangroveshelptoprotectourcoastlinefrombigwaves Wecantakeasmanyfishaswewantfromthesea,therewillalwaysbemore

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

77

C11AttitudestowardcoastalandmarineresourcesAsktherespondenttowhatextenttheyagreewiththefollowingstatementsandrecordtheirresponseswithatickintherelevantcolumn.(Agree,IndifferentorDisagree) Agree Indifferent DisagreeItdoesn’tmatterwhathappenstoourmarineenvironment Ienjoygoingoutonaboatandwatchingfishswimaroundthecoral Itisanimportantpartofourculturetohaveahealthymarineenvironment Myfamily’shealthandwell‐beingislinkedtothehealthofourmarinehabitats Itisimportantthatallcommunitymemberslookafterthereefs Iwouldvoteforrestrictionsonfishingpracticesinmyvillage’sfishinggrounds C12Non‐marketandnon‐usevaluesAsktherespondenttowhatextenttheyagreewiththefollowingstatementsandrecordtheirresponseswithatickintherelevantcolumn.(Agree,IndifferentorDisagree) Agree Indifferent DisagreeThereefsareimportantforprotectinglandfromstormwaves(non‐marketvalue)

Coralisnotimportantformaintaininghealthyfishpopulations(non‐marketvalue)

Coralreefsareonlyimportantifyoufishordive(existencenonusevalue) Iwantfuturegenerationstoenjoythemangrovesandcoralreefs(bequestnon‐usevalue)

Fishingshouldberestrictedincertainareasevenifnobodyeverfishesinthoseareasjusttoallowthefishandcoraltogrow(existencevalue)

Weshouldrestrictdevelopmentinsomecoastalareassothatfuturegenerationswillbeabletohavenaturalenvironments(bequestvalue)

DoyouhaveanyfurthercommentsregardingtheimportanceofandissuessurroundingcoastalandmarineresourcesofKia?AdditionalnotesPleaseusethisspacetoaddanyadditionalinformationgiven.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

78

Appendix – Illegal and restricted Fishing Interview

RESTRICTEDFISHINGKEYINFORMANTSEMI‐STRUCTUREDINTERVIEW

KiaIsland,Fiji Interview#:Notesinitalicsaretoassisttheintervieweronly.

Date:

Interviewer:

Interviewee:

Areaofexpertise/role:

Village: HouseNo: HouseName:INTRODUCTORYSTATEMENTHello,mynameis_________andIwouldliketotakeabout30‐40minutesofyourtimetoaskyouaboutrestrictedfishingactivitiesrelating tothemarineresourcesaroundKia. Youhavebeenselectedasanexperienced fisher on Kia. Please be aware that the results of this interview will be kept completelyconfidentialfromanyauthoritiesandtheresultsofthissurveywillbediscussedindetailwiththewholecommunitywiththehopeofimprovingthemanagementofKia’snaturalresources.TheKIinterviewaimstogatherrichdetailedqualitativeinformation.Usethebelowquestionsasappropriatetoencouragedetailedopendialogue,butkeepthediscussionrelevant.Ensurethatnotesaretranslatedandrecordedasaccuratelyaspossibletoenabletextualanalysisoftheinformation.UseaDictaphoneiftheintervieweeiscomfortablewithit.Questions:1)Whatdoyouunderstandas/toberestrictedfishingandillegalfishing?2)Whyitisnecessaryforsomepeopletobreaktherules?3)Whatmakesitmoreprevalent/widespreadnow?4)Whataretheadvantagesanddisadvantagesofillegalfishing?AdvantagesDisadvantages5)Whatarethebenefitsoffollowingthefishingrulesandregulations?6)Doeseveryoneunderstandtheimportanceandbenefitsoffollowingthefishingrulesandregulations?‐Whynot?7)Whatcanbedonesothatthepeopleunderstandthebenefitsoffollowingtherulesandregulations?/Whatcanbedonesothatthepeopleunderstandthebenefitsmore?8)Howcouldlegal/responsiblefishingbeencouraged/incentivized/rewarded/madeattractive?(Ratherthanenforced)9)Howcanwegetthewholecommunitytoparticipate?

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

79

Appendix C - Ethics forms UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON

SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

RESEARCH ETHICS CHECKLISTS FOR UNDERGRADUATE AND MASTERS LEVEL RESEARCH PROJECTS

This Ethics Checklist is designed to help you quickly and easily identify how you should approach any ethical issues raised by your project or dissertation. If you have any concerns about completing the checklists, please see your supervisor. An Ethics Checklist should be completed for ALL research projects and dissertations prior to the commencement of the project. Please do not approach any participants involved in the research until these checklists have been completed. The Ethics Checklist will help you identify whether you need to complete an ethics approval form to be considered by the School of Environment and Technology Research Ethics and Governance Committee. The Student Ethics Checklist must be completed by the project student. Once completed, you should discuss it with your project or dissertation supervisor to ensure that you take the right follow-up actions. If you answer ‘no’ to all questions in Section B of the Student Checklist you will NOT need to complete an ethics approval form. Please note that in signing the Student Checklist you accept that it is still your responsibility for your project or dissertation module to follow the University’s Guidance on Good Practice in Research Ethics and Governance, available on the StudentCentral pages. Any significant change in the question, design or conduct of your project or dissertation that would alter your answers to the checklist questions must be notified to your supervisor who will advise you on whether you need to complete an ethics approval form. If you have answered ‘yes’ to any of the questions in Section B of the Student Checklist you will need to complete an ethics approval form prior to the commencement of research. This does not mean that you will not be able to do the research, but it will need to be approved by the School Research Ethics and Governance Committee. Ethics approval forms and supporting guidance are available on StudentCentral pages for your project or dissertation module. Please discuss completing the ethics approval form with your supervisor. Signed copies of the completed Ethics Checklist must be submitted with your project or dissertation, (the project or dissertation will not be marked if the completed checklist is not included). Further guidance on ethical issues along with Risk Assessment Forms and examples of consent and information forms for research participants are available on the StudentCentral pages for your project or dissertation module.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

80

Ethics Checklist Section A Project details - to be completed by the project student 1. Name of student/s: Lui Hepworth

2. Name of supervisor: Beck Elmhirst

3. Title of project (no more than 20 words): Engagement of local stakeholders

in the development of marine protected areas around Kia Island, Fiji.

4. Outline of the research (1-2 sentences):Conducting socioeconomic surveys

and focus groups with local community members.

5. Timescale and date of completion: 1 May-31st July 2011

6. Location of research: Kia Island, Fiji

7. Course module code for which research is undertaken: GBM01

8. Email address: luihepworth@yahoo.co.uk

9. Contact address: Flat 2, 11 Connaught Rd, Hove, BN3 3WB

10. Telephone number: 07890 288 338

Section B Ethics Checklist questions

Please tick the appropriate box Yes No 1. Is this research likely to have significant negative impacts on the environment? (For example, the release of dangerous substances or damaging intrusions into protected habitats.)

√

2. Does the study involve participants who might be considered vulnerable due to age or to a social, psychological or medical condition? (Examples include children, people with learning disabilities or mental health problems, but participants who may be considered vulnerable are not confined to these groups.)

√

3. Does the study require the co-operation of an individual to gain access to the participants? (e.g. a teacher at a school or a manager of sheltered housing)

√

4. Will the participants be asked to discuss what might be perceived as sensitive topics? (e.g. sexual behaviour, drug use, religious belief, detailed financial matters)

√

5. Will individual participants be involved in repetitive or prolonged testing?

√

6. Could participants experience psychological stress, anxiety or other negative consequences (beyond what would be expected to be encountered in normal life)?

√

7. Will any participants be likely to undergo vigorous physical activity, pain, or exposure to dangerous situations, environments or materials as part of the research?

√

8. Will photographic or video recordings of research participants be collected as part of the research?

√

9. Will any participants receive financial reimbursement for their time? (excluding reasonable expenses to cover travel and other costs)

√

10. Will members of the public be indirectly involved in the research without their knowledge at the time? (e.g. covert observation of people in non-public places, the use of methods that will affect privacy)

√

11. Does this research include secondary data that may carry personal or sensitive organisational information? (Secondary data refers to any data you plan to use that you did not collect yourself. Examples of sensitive secondary data include datasets held by organisations, patient records, confidential minutes of meetings, personal diary entries. These are only examples and not an exhaustive list).

√

12. Are there any other ethical concerns associated with the research that are not covered in the questions above?

√

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

81

All Undergraduate and Masters level projects or dissertations in the School of Environment and Technology must adhere to the following procedures on data storage and confidentiality: Once a mark for the project or dissertation has been published, all data must be removed from personal computers, and original questionnaires and consent forms should be destroyed unless the research is likely to be published or data re-used. Please sign below to confirm that you have completed the Ethics Checklist and will adhere to these procedures on data storage and confidentiality. Then give this form to your supervisor to complete their checklist. Signed (Student): Date: 21/04/2011

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

82

Supervisor Checklist: Project approval - to be completed by the project supervisor If the student answered YES to any of the questions in the Student Checklist then he/she is required to complete an ethics approval form (please circle as appropriate) Form required Form not required If required, please advise the student on completing the ethics approval form If the student answered NO to all Student Checklist questions, please complete the following table. The project should not begin until all boxes are ticked (use N/A if appropriate):

If the student answered ‘no’ to all checklist questions, please remind them that they must notify you of any significant change in the structure, design or conduct of the project or dissertation that would alter their answers to the Ethics Checklist questions. Any further comments from supervisor: Supervisor name: Signed: Date: If any of the questions in the checklist have been answered ‘YES’, then please submit the Ethics Checklist along with an Ethics Approval Form to the Chair of the School Research Ethics and Governance Committee. If all of the questions in the Ethics Checklist have been answered ‘NO’, then please submit a copy of this checklist to the School office for filing. Students must keep a copy of the Ethics Checklist and submit it as part of their project or dissertation. If the project changes significantly, a new checklist must be completed and included.

(If applicable) A risk assessment form has been completed

This is a practicable and worthwhile research project?

The student has the skills necessary to carry out the research effectively

(If applicable) A participant information sheet or leaflet has been completed

(If applicable) The procedures for participant recruitment and obtaining informed consent are appropriate (e.g. consent form or questionnaire introduction)

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

83

UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

ETHICS APPROVAL FORM – UNDERGRADUATE AND MASTERS LEVEL RESEARCH PROJECTS

This form is to be used by undergraduate and Masters level students seeking ethical approval for their research from the School of Environment and Technology Research Ethics and Governance Committee. All those completing this form must receive approval from an appropriate ethics committee (usually the School of Environment and Technology Research Ethics and Governance Committee) prior to beginning their research. Please read the University Guidance on Good Practice in Research Ethics and Governance before completing this form. This form should be checked carefully for typographical and grammatical errors before submission. Incomplete or badly presented forms will be returned. Supervisors of student projects have a responsibility to ensure that the guidance is followed and that applications are properly presented. If after considering this form the School Research Ethics and Governance Committee consider Tier Two approval is required, the project student will be notified and this form will be automatically passed to the Chair of the Faculty Research Ethics and Governance Committee for consideration. Please attach the SET Research Ethics Checklist you have already completed to this form. Section A – Key details

1. Name of student/s Lui Hepworth__________________________

2. Name of supervisor Becky Elmhirst_________________________

3. Title of project (no more than 20 words)

__Engagement of local stakeholders in the development of marine protected

areas around Kia Island, Fiji_____

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

84

4. Aims of the study Please summarise your aims in one or two sentences. Write no more than 100 words. Engagement of local stakeholders for the development of co-management of the Kia marine protected area. 1) Analysis of newly collected SocMon data to identify specific areas of concern or that require need more in-depth study. 2) Develop communications plan to obtain more in-depth information for this specific area. 3) Conduct two-way inclusive facilitation with community stakeholders. Gain further understanding of stakeholders’ views, in order to: • increase capacity for stakeholder participation and communication between different stakeholders. • develop management plans to address specific area. 4) Engage community diversity to give voice to all stakeholders. Investigate and demonstrate gender awareness and inclusion of marginalised stakeholders. 5. Research context A brief summary should be provided discussing the relevant published literature so that the Committee can understand the context to your research. In addition, please supply four or five up-to-date references to the relevant published literature. You may supply up to 400 words. The project will be conducted as part of an MSc internship with Community Centred Conservation (C3), who are a not for profit NGO. Project will fall under Objective 1 in the attached Programme Brief 2011. C3 are currently working on the collection of SocMon (www.socmon.org) data on Kia. I will assist in the collection and analysis of this data. Following analysis I will look at one aspect of this in more detail, including local management options; eg. women in fisheries, intertidal fisheries, destructive fisheries, turtle exploitation, mangrove deforestation. I will conduct focus groups with the identified group. C3’s programme coordinator will liaise with local elders of the community to organise access to the participants. SocMon manual 6. Research design

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

85

Please provide no more than 400 words and ensure that you discuss your sampling strategy (if appropriate), data collection methods and strategy for data analysis. Following methods advised in SocMon Manual, questionnaires will include: Household – Income / relative dependence of income eg fishing/farming etc Fishers – Surveys of local fishers and key informant surveys of experienced fishers. Fishing methods and fishing gear. Ranking – people of the village and their hierarchy / regulations. Above surveys will have been prepared by C3 in advance and trials will have started. I will join survey team to assist in conducting above surveys. Analysis of collected data will follow SocMon manual and C3 methods. Following analysis. I will choose one aspect to focus on to conduct semi structured focus group interviews to divulge more in-depth feedback. Agreement with stakeholders and arrangement of participants will be done in co-ordination with C3’s Programme Coordinator. Please use Section B of the SET Research Ethics Checklist to decide which section(s) of this form to complete, and complete those sections appropriately: If you ticked ‘yes’ to Question 1 in the checklist (Negative Environmental impacts), complete Section B If you ticked ‘yes’ to any of Questions 2 – 9 (Human Participant Issues), complete Section C If you ticked ‘yes’ to Question 10 (Indirect Involvement of the Public), complete Section D If you ticked ‘yes’ to Question 11 (Secondary Data Sources), complete Section E The project student and the supervisor must sign the form in Section F.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

86

Section B – Potential risk to the environment The aim of this section is to check whether you have taken the necessary steps to ensure your research will avoid having a significant negative impact on the environment. 7. If the research is likely to have significant negative impacts on the environment, provide details of these impacts (for example the release of dangerous substances or damaging intrusions into protected habitats). 8. Please describe how you will mitigate against significant environmental harm and manage risks.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

87

Section C – Potential Risk to human participants directly working with the researcher The aim of this section is to check whether you have taken the necessary steps to ensure your research will avoid causing physical or emotional harm, pain, discomfort or stress to human participants. 9. If human participants are directly involved, provide brief details regarding the participants and how they will be contacted (e.g. number, age, gender, ethnicity, general residential location). C3’s programme coordinator will liaise with local elders of the community to organise access to the participants. Participant will be local fishers and members of the local community.

10. If human participants are directly involved, provide details of any participants who might be considered vulnerable due to age or to a social, psychological or medical condition. Examples include children, people with learning disabilities or mental health problems, but participants who may be vulnerable are not confined to these groups. (See the University’s ‘Guidance on Good Practice in Research Ethics and Governance’ for more details. Proposals involving vulnerable participants are often likely to require ethical approval from Tier 2, the Faculty of Science & Engineering Research Ethics and Governance Committee).

n/a 11. If human participants are directly involved, provide details of any risks participants are likely to face that would not be considered minimal risks. (See the University’s ‘Guidance on Good Practice in Research Ethics and Governance’ for details of possible risks including, but not limited to, physical risks to participants, distress arising from prolonged testing or questions of a sensitive nature, risks for researchers, and risks for vulnerable people). If risks are only minimal please describe the risks and explain why you believe they are only minimal. n/a 12. Describe the procedures that will be put in place to ensure safe and ethical direct involvement of human participants. (Where necessary and as appropriate, include comments on obtaining informed consent, reducing harm, providing feedback, and accessing participants through an individual providing information such as a teacher, manager, employer etc.) Example consent and information forms can be found on StudentCentral.

All research will be conducted inline with SocMon manual, which gives clear guidance on conducting interviews and focus groups within communities.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

88

13. If covert or other controversial research methods are to be used or if the research procedures contravene conventional ethical protocols (including consent, confidentiality and feedback), justify the use of such methods and procedures here and outline the measures that will be put into place to mitigate against potential harm n/a 14. If human participants are to receive financial reimbursement for their time (excluding reasonable expenses to cover travel and other costs), provide details and a short justification (e.g. amounts and form of reimbursement). n/a

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

89

15. Describe in 50-100 words how you will ensure data collection is confidential and anonymous (e.g. interviews cannot be overheard, details will not be accessible to others), how data will be stored and who will have access to the data. If the data will not be confidential or anonymous, outline the justification for this decision here and procedures for mitigating against potential harm. In particular, if photographic or video recordings are to be made in the course of the research, please outline consent and data protection procedures for the use of participants’ images. All data should be stored securely. Documentation should be kept in a locked cabinet or desk, and electronic data should preferably be kept on a removable disk or data stick which can be locked away, or if this is not possible on a password protected computer. For undergraduate projects, normally only the student and supervisor will have access to the data (see the University’s ‘Guidance on Good Practice in Research Ethics and Governance for further details). Surveying will be done as per SocMon procedures. It will not be necessary to ensure that participants are not overheard as this will not pose risk to participants. Focus groups will be held in private rooms organised by C3 in coordination with local elders. Data collected will be securely held on C3’s computers.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

90

Section D – Potential risk to members of the public indirectly involved in the research without their knowledge at the time The aim of this section is to check whether you have addressed any ethical issues arising from activities such as covert observation of people in non-public places and the use of methods that will affect privacy. 16. If the public are indirectly involved in the research without their knowledge at the time, please provide brief details (e.g. how they will be involved and, where known, the age, gender, ethnicity and location of those who will be indirectly involved).

17. Provide details of any negative impacts members of the public will be likely to face and that would not be considered minimal impacts (e.g. invasion of privacy, harm to property, being subject to what an individual perceives to be inappropriate behaviour). If risks are only minimal please describe the risks and explain why you believe they are only minimal.

18. Describe any procedures that will be put in place to ensure safe and ethical indirect involvement of members of the public (include comments, where necessary, on providing information and feedback if requested by the public). Examples of participation information forms can be found on StudentCentral.

19. If covert or other controversial research methods are to be used or if the research procedures contravene conventional ethical protocols (including

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

91

consent, confidentiality and feedback), justify the use of such methods or procedures here and outline the measures that will be put into place to mitigate against potential harm. 20. Describe in 50-100 words how you will ensure data collection is confidential and anonymous (e.g. people will not be able to be identified by photographs or notes taken by observers), how data will be stored and who will have access to the data. If the data will not be confidential or anonymous, outline the justification for this decision here and procedures for mitigating against potential harm. All data should be stored securely. Documentation should be kept in a locked cabinet or desk, and electronic data should preferably be kept on a removable disk or data stick which can be locked away, or if this is not possible on a password protected computer. For undergraduate projects, normally only the student and supervisor will have access to the data (see the University’s ‘Guidance on Good Practice in Research Ethics and Governance for further details).

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

92

Section E – Secondary data Secondary data refers to any data you plan to use that you will not collect yourself. Examples of sensitive secondary data include datasets held by organisations, patient records, confidential minutes of meetings, and personal diary entries (these are only examples and are not an exhaustive list). 21. Please provide details (50-100 words) regarding any secondary data to be used that may carry sensitive personal or organisational information. 22. If secondary data sets containing sensitive personal or organisational information are to be used, outline how such use will be ethically managed (include details such as anonymising data sets, ensuring protection of source agency, gaining consent of data owners, and how the data will be stored).

GBM01 Lui Hepworth

93

Section F – Further details, accompanying documentation and signature 23. Please add anything relating to ethical issues that should be considered when assessing this project that has not been addressed elsewhere on this form. Continue on another sheet if necessary. 24. Indicate which of the following are attached to this form: The Research Ethics Checklist should be attached for all projects; you only need to provide the other documents if they are applicable to your project Attached SET research Ethics Checklist (please remember to attach) ….. Participant information sheet ….. Material to be used to advertise the project ….. Participant consent form (or introduction to be used on questionnaire, see below) ..... Please note that projects that use questionnaires to be completed by respondents do not need a separate consent from as consent is inferred if the questionnaire is completed; however, the opening statement on the questionnaire should indicate that this will be the case. All those completing a questionnaire should be offered an information sheet providing further details of the project and contact details for the University. When questionnaires are conducted by the researcher as part of an interview, then a consent form should be signed. 25. Please sign this form. Student name: Signed: Date: 26. This form must be checked and approved by your supervisor. Any further comments from supervisor: Supervisor name: Signed: Date:

!!!!!!!!"#!$%&%!'%()!*((+((,+-.!!!!!!

!

!!! !"#$%#&'()*

'+',-)

.*")/).

*'#)&0)'#)

,&01

2)

,&01

)3'%'4$3$%#)'!!"'5*)

,$0!"%0&6&(&#

&$0)

,$0$',5*)6'0$)

!"#$%

&'($)*'+&,

-.)&"-/

*'&0

./&1213#

.*&

/0%0)*&/($-.

)&1213#

.*&'*

0'#.&

&789:7;<);8=

>><)9?@ABC978))

*99D)EF

EGH79)I=:7A7J;)=

7D)K9)=I=:9)H>)

EHCC@7A8F

)9L=E@=8AH

7)BG=7;)MC

HL9)B9HBG9)=7D)

B:HB9:8F

)NA>)BH;;AK

G9O)8H

)PAJP9:<);P

9G89

:9D)

J:H@7DQ);9

E@:9)8P

9):9

;9=:EP

)K=;9);A89

)=;)K

9;8)

BH;;AK

G9)D@:A7

J)EF

EGH79);9

=;H7)M%

HLN'B:O)

&789:7;<)!

")=7D);@

BBH:8)>:H

C)8P

9)

EHCC@7A8F

)A7)97>H:E9

C978)

45*6"&

$?@ABC978<)B

9:;H

7=G)

L=G@=KG9;<)C

H79F))

199B)L=

G@=KG9;)A7

EG@DA7J)B=;;B

H:8;)=

7D)C

H79F)

RABB9D)=I=F);=

>9GF)A7

)FH@:)K

=J;)=

8)=GG)8AC

9;S)

.P97)H@8)A7

)8P9)>A9

GD)97;@:9)8P

9):9

;9=:EP

)K=;9)

P=;)K

997)GHET9

D)@B)B:HB9:GFS)$

?@ABC978);P

H@GD)

:9C=A7)B=DGHET9D)A7)8P

9)>GAJ

P8)E=

;9)A>)7

H8)A7

)@;9S))

&789:7;<)!

")=7D)!5)IP97)LA;A8A7

J))

70"*$&8

#$.*&-33.

*''&&

&789:7;<);8=

>>)"7GF)D

:A7T)I

=89:)>:H

C)I=89:)>AG89

:)H:)8:9

=8)I

=89:)

H7);A89

)@;A7

J)I=89:)8:9

=8C

978)8=

KG98;)

&789:7;<);8=

>>)

9$#()5"&

&789:7;<);8=

>>)!@:EP

=;9)=)I=89:)8=

7T)=

7D);8H

:9):=

A7I=89:)

D@:A7

J):=

A7F);9

=;H7N@;9)8=

7T)I

=89:);B

=:A7

JGF)

D@:A7

J)8P

9)I98);9

=;H7)

!5<)!")

90%0)*&"#

&*:(-;%*."&/

($-.

)&5*0<2&

$0-.=8*10('*&#6&$#

#6&3*

0,'>&

&&

'GG)9

G9E8:H

7AE)9

?@ABC978<)

=BBGA=7E9;)=

7D)BHI9:)

KH=:D;)

08H:9)=GG)9

G9E8:H

7AE)9

?@ABC978)H

@8)H

>)P=:C

;)I=F)

D@:A7

J)P9=LF):=

A7S)!G=E9)K@ET9

8;)H:)K

=;A7

;)A7;AD

9)

8P9)PH@;9)IP9:9)8P

9)G9=T;)=

:9)B:HCA7978)=

7D)

A7>H:C

)8P9)!")IPH)IAGG)=

G9:8)8P

9)EH

CC@7A8F

)

C9CK9:;S)

&789:7;<)!

"<)EH

CC@7A8F

)C9CK9:;)>H

:)

:9B=A:;)

.'#$,).

",1)

!?-6"&?

0"*$&1(

$$*."'&0

./&'"$#

.)&?0<*&

01"-#

.&

&789:7;<);8=

>>)5P9ET)I

=89:)E@

::978;)=

7D)I9=8P9:):9

BH:8;)

K9>H:9)P9=DA7J)H@8)8H

);9=)=7D)=GI=F;);I

AC)

IA8P

A7)U)C

989:;)H

>)=)K@DDFQ)8=

T9)P99D)H>);=

>98F)

8AB;):9

)E@::9

78;)>:H

C)EH

CC@7A8F

)C9CK9:;))

&789:7;<)!

")

90.)*$#('&%

0$-.

*&3-6*

&*@)@&1$#

?.&#6&

"5#$.'+&A*

3326-'5+&'5

0$,'+&'"-.

)&$0

2'+&

6-$*&1#

$03'&*

"1&&&

&789:7;<);8=

>>)'GI=F;)K

9)=G9:8)I

P97)DHA7J)I=89:)I

H:T<).

9=:)

B:HB9:):9

9>);P

H9;)=

7D);I

ACCA7J)9?@ABC978)

IP97)I=GTA7J)H7)8P

9):9

9>)=7D)=LHAD)EH

78=E8)I

A8P)

@7>=CAGA=

:)H:J=7A;C

;S)69=:)A7

)CA7D)=7F)=DLAE9

)H:)

8AB;)J

AL97)KF)GHE=G;)

&789:7;<);8=

>>)

!!"#$%#&'()*

'+',-)

.*")/).

*'#)&0)'#)

,&01

2)

,&01

)3'%'4$3$%#)'!!"'5*)

,$0!"%0&6&(&#

&$0)

B-',&$0

"-.)&,*

2&

C-8*$&)

30''&8

#0"&10

;'-D-.

)&

&789:7;<);8=

>><)KH=8)E=

B8=A7)

=7D)H8P9:)B

=;;9

7J9:;)

-H)7H8)8:=

L9G)A7

)K=D)I9=8P9:Q)I

9=:);=

>98F)V=ET9

8;)

A>)BH;;AK

G9)IP97)8:=

L9GGA7

J)=8);9

=))

6H=8)E=

B8=A7<)!")

E.)-.*&60

-3($*&

&789:7;<);8=

>><)KH=8)E=

B8=A7)

=7D)H8P9:)B

=;;9

7J9:;)

$7;@:9)C

HKAG9)BPH79;)=

:9)>@

GGF)EP

=:J9D)K9>H:9)

8:=L9GGA7

JQ)#=T9)>H

HD)=7D)I=89:)I

P97)JHA7J)8H

)

;9=)=7D)=GI=F;):9

C9CK9:)F

H@:)5

'0$W'5)

&789:7;<)!

"<)KH=8)E=

B8=A7)

5U)!$,0"%%$()

F(33-.

)&0&%

('13*

&#$&1$0

%;-.)&/($-.

)&

?0"*$&?

#$,&

&&

&789:7;<);8=

>>)%9L9:)J

H)H@8)8H

);9=)=GH79N);8H

B);I

ACCA7J)=7D)

=G9:8);I

ACCA7J)K@DDF)=;);H

H7)=;)B

H;;AK

G9)

&789:7;<);8=

>>)

EG"$*

%*&'(

.8($.H'(

.'"$#

,*&

&789:7;<);8=

>>)'GI=F;)=

BBGF);@

7;E:9

97)M=8)G9

=;8)0

!X)UYZO)I

P97)

JHA7J)H@8)A7

8H)8P

9);@

7)=7D);I

ACCA7J)A7)=)KATA7

A)A;)

7H8)9

7EH@:=J9DN=BB:HB:A=

89)EGH

8PA7J)=7D)P=8;)

C@;8)K

9)IH:7)MH

@8;AD

9)H>)8P

9)LAGG=

J9O)=8)=

GG)8AC9;)

D@:A7

J)>A9

GD/I

=89:)I

H:TS),

9PFD:=89)H>89

7S)

&789:7;<);8=

>>)

9*52/$0"-#

.&

&789:7;<);8=

>>)-:A7

T):9EHCC97D9D)=CH@78;)H

>)8:9=89D)I=89:)

D=AGF<)D:A7

T)9[8:=

)A>)FH@)=:9)EH

7D@E8A7

J)>A9

GD)IH:T)

=7D)B9:;B

A:A7J)=)GH8S)

&789:7;<);8=

>>)

4$#;-10

3&I31*

$'&&789:7;<);8=

>>)&;)=

)EHCCH7)HEE@

::97E9)A7)8:H

BAE=

G)EGAC=89)

K9E=@;9)H>)8P

9)P9=8)=

7D)B9:;B

A:=8AH

7<)B=:8AE@

G=:GF)

A>)8P9:9)A;)=

7)H@8K:9=T)A7)8P

9)EH

CC@7A8F

S).=;P)

EGH8P9;)A7

)DA;A7

>9E8=

78)A>)7

9E9;;=

:F)=7D)8:9

=8)

IH@7D)IA8P

)=BB:HB:A=

89)C

9DAE=

8AH7)=7D)D:9;;A7

J)

8H)=LHAD)8P

9)HEE@

::97E9)H>);@

K;9?@978)@

GE9:;S)

&789:7;<);8=

>>)

)))))

&&&

))

)))))

!"#$%!&'"()%%

*+"$,+"-

../0%%%%%%

)"12&3'%

%

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%-456%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%1

7849:%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%+;

<%

%