Managing for sustainability : the live reef food-fish trade in

Southern Cross UniversityePublications@SCU

Theses

2009

Managing for sustainability : the live reef food-fishtrade in Solomon IslandsRyan DonnellySouthern Cross University

ePublications@SCU is an electronic repository administered by Southern Cross University Library. Its goal is to capture and preserve the intellectualoutput of Southern Cross University authors and researchers, and to increase visibility and impact through open access to researchers around theworld. For further information please contact [email protected].

Publication detailsDonnelly, R 2009, 'Managing for sustainability : the live reef food-fish trade in Solomon Islands', MSc thesis, Southern CrossUniversity, Lismore, NSW.Copyright R Donnelly 2009

http://epubs.scu.edu.au

http://epubs.scu.edu.au/theses

mailto:[email protected]

Managing for Sustainability: the Live Reef

Food-Fish Trade in Solomon Islands

Ryan Donnelly B.App.Sci (Hons)

Graduate Research College

Southern Cross University, Lismore NSW

Thesis submitted for the Degree of Master of Science (Research)

12 July 2009

ii

Statement of Sources

I certify that the work presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge and belief,

original, except as acknowledged in the text, and that the material has not been submitted,

either in whole or in part, for a degree at this or any other university.

I acknowledge that I have read and understood the University's rules, requirements,

procedures and policy relating to my higher degree research award and to my thesis. I certify

that I have complied with the rules, requirements, procedures and policy of the University (as

they may be from time to time).

Ryan Donnelly

12 July 2009

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the co-operation of all the villagers in the three areas visited for

their patience and good humour in the conduct of this research. Visits to the regions were

characterised by good will and warm hospitality. Gregory Bennett did an excellent job of

conducting the bulk of the survey. He went about the task with a typically positive outlook.

Nelson Kilé stood in for Gregory for the Ontong Java leg of the research. We shared many

enjoyable hours exchanging stories and laughing. Prior to the Ontong Java survey, I enjoyed

the hospitality of Nelson and Michelle Lam at their home in Honiara. I would like to thank

them both for making me welcome. In Australia, Lyle Squire Snr provided invaluable advice

and friendship, Derrin Davis showed me a lot of faith, Katrina Luckie was terrific with her

data analysis, and Peter Harrison was positive and prompt with his editing and feedback.

Thankyou.

iii

Abstract

This thesis presents the results of a project funded by the Australian Centre for International

Agricultural Research, which was devised in response to claims from the Solomon Islands

government that the Live Reef Food-Fish Trade (LRFFT) in that country was conducted in a

manner considered highly unsustainable. The project sought to establish a plan of

management that would enable the fishery to be conducted on a sustainable basis. The

population in Solomon Islands is overwhelmingly rural with largely subsistence economies at

the village level. However, urban migration and cash dependence are growing phenomena.

Unsustainable conduct of the LRFFT was considered a threat to the social and cultural fabric

of the majority of the population, one that threatened food security and, in light of high

population growth, the tenability of village life.

The aim of the thesis is to assemble the information necessary to establish management of the

LRFFT in Solomon Islands on a sustainable basis. The primary focus entailed a socio-

economic evaluation of village life prior to, and in the presence of, a live fishery in order to

gauge the impact of the live fish trade. It also examined the biological and ecological

consequences of the adopted fishing practice; and the legislative and customary frameworks

upon which the trade might be managed in a sustainable manner.

Interactions between fisheries development, coral reef ecosystems and demography determine

that the study of fishing, especially subsistence fishing, requires the integration of research on

the ecology of the reefs and their resources with research on coastal economies and societies.

This has consequences for development and management programs and the evaluation of their

impact on village communities. The demographic and food issues associated with fishing are

at the focal point of fisheries dynamics. Consequently, this thesis examines the various

components of the LRFFT and focuses on the social dynamics and development opportunities

in Solomon Islands.

The study found that the rate of participation, and the fishing effort exerted, in the LRFFT

differed in each of the three regions within Solomon Islands that hosted the trade. The

difference was related to proximity to markets and alternative sources of income. The

common aspect among these regions was that participation accompanied intensive fishing in

seasonal and highly predictable spawning aggregations of the targeted species. Such fishing

practice elsewhere has led to the collapse of fish aggregations and subsequent failure to

reform. These species do not feature as a staple in the diet of villagers but do form a

iv

component. Fishers were paid marginally more for live fish than they received periodically

for dead fish. During the three-month spawning period, villagers earned an apparently large

amount, yet over the duration of one year, the returns were unremarkable. The disturbance to

village life during this fishing period, the threat to future food security and the ecological

consequences of the mass removal of top end reef predators, however, are the important

consequences of the LRFFT conducted in a previously unregulated manner.

Observance of the Customary Marine Tenure system in Solomon Islands is strong. There is a

strict hierarchical decision-making structure within the villages and clan groups. Defence of

fishing access entitlements for a commercial purpose is vigilant and Custom Law is exercised

for all but the most serious breaches. The government Fisheries Division is poorly resourced

and, consequently, has a limited enforcement capacity. The scope for community-based co-

management is very good. Solomon Islands has modern Fisheries legislation that emphasises

sustainable utilisation of marine resources. In accordance with this legislation, this project

devised a plan of management that places customary reef owners central to the issue of

LRFFT licenses and the conditions outlined therein. Intending operators must meet the

conditions of a three-tiered approval process. Overriding all negotiated conditions is that

fishing is prohibited in areas that are declared fish aggregation sites for three ten-day

spawning periods per year, as is the export of Napoleon Wrasse.

Fisheries Officers were trained in aspects of live fish husbandry in a format designed for

community extension. A stock monitoring program has been established, using Underwater

Visual Census, which will form the basis of feedback between reef owners and Fisheries

Officers, thereby cultivating an advocative relationship.

v

Table of Contents

Statement of Sources ______________________________________________________ ii

Acknowledgements _______________________________________________________ ii

Abstract_________________________________________________________________iii

Chapter 1: The Live Reef Food-Fish Trade_____________________________________ 1

1.1 Introduction __________________________________________________________ 1

1.2 History and Development of the LRFFT ____________________________________ 2

1.3 Exporting Countries ____________________________________________________ 4

1.3.1 Indonesia and Philippines ____________________________________________ 4

1.3.2 Pacific Region _____________________________________________________ 6

1.3.3 Other Source Countries ______________________________________________ 7

1.3.4 Aquaculture/Mariculture _____________________________________________ 8

1.4 Scope of the Study _____________________________________________________ 9

1.5 Aims and Objectives___________________________________________________ 10

Chapter 2: Sustainability and the LRFFT_____________________________________ 12

2.1 The Concept of Sustainability ___________________________________________ 12

2.1.1 Institutional Role in Achieving Sustainability ___________________________ 12

2.2 Sustainability Issues in the LRFFT _______________________________________ 16

2.2.1 Habitat Degradation from Sodium Cyanide Use__________________________ 17

2.2.2 The Cycle of Debt _________________________________________________ 19

2.2.3 Poorly Defined Property Rights ______________________________________ 20

2.2.4 Economic Impacts of Reef Habitat Destruction __________________________ 21

2.2.5 Ciguatera Poisoning________________________________________________ 21

2.3 Intensive Fishing in Spawning Aggregations________________________________ 22

2.3.1 Spawning Behaviour of Reef Fish_____________________________________ 23

2.3.2 The Impacts of Fishing Spawning Aggregations _________________________ 26

2.3.3 Biological Consequences of Fishing Spawning Aggregations _______________ 27

Chapter 3: The LRFFT in Solomon Islands ___________________________________ 30

3.1 Solomon Islands Background____________________________________________ 30

3.1.1 People __________________________________________________________ 30

3.1.2 Settlement Pattern _________________________________________________ 31

3.1.3 Economy ________________________________________________________ 32

3.1.4 Contemporary Political Climate ______________________________________ 33

3.1.5 Population Pressure ________________________________________________ 33

3.1.6 Population Dynamics_______________________________________________ 34

3.1.7 Urban Migration __________________________________________________ 35

vi

3.1.8 Religion _________________________________________________________ 35

3.1.9 Fishing Activity___________________________________________________ 36

3.2 Development of the LRFFT in Solomon Islands _____________________________ 38

3.2.1 Origins __________________________________________________________ 38

3.2.2 Dynamics of the LRFFT in Solomon Islands ____________________________ 39

3.2.3 Moratorium ______________________________________________________ 41

3.2.4 Management Impediments __________________________________________ 42

3.2.5 License Application Procedure _______________________________________ 43

3.2.6 Status of the LRFFT as at the end of 2001 ______________________________ 43

3.2.7 Status of Spawning Aggregations: Marovo Lagoon _______________________ 44

Chapter 4: Fisheries Management Framework in Solomon Islands ________________ 47

4.1 Legal Framework for the Management of the LRFFT_________________________ 49

4.1.1 International Conventions and Instruments______________________________ 49

4.1.2 National Framework for the Management of the LRFFT ___________________ 51

4.1.3 The Fisheries Act 1998 _____________________________________________ 51

4.2 Administrative Framework______________________________________________ 54

4.2.1 Fisheries Division _________________________________________________ 54

4.3 Customary Resource Management in Solomon Islands________________________ 56

4.3.1 Customary Marine Tenure System ____________________________________ 56

4.3.2 Village Decision-Making Systems ____________________________________ 57

4.3.3 Effectiveness of Customary Fisheries Management _______________________ 61

4.3.4 Integration with Centralised Management ______________________________ 61

4.4 Community-based Co-management _______________________________________ 62

4.4.1 Successes and Failures _____________________________________________ 64

Chapter 5: Socio-economics and the Impact of the LRFFT in Solomon Islands ______ 67

5.1 Introduction _________________________________________________________ 67

5.2 Scope and Limitations of this Study_______________________________________ 67

5.3 Components of the Survey ______________________________________________ 68

5.3.1 Activities of the household __________________________________________ 68

5.3.2 Fishing Effort_____________________________________________________ 68

5.3.3 Catch of LRFFT Target Species ______________________________________ 69

5.3.4 Patterns of Consumption of LRFFT Species_____________________________ 69

5.3.5 Income and Expenditure ____________________________________________ 69

5.3.6 Perceptions of Importance___________________________________________ 69

5.4 Methods ____________________________________________________________ 69

5.4.1 Survey Implementation and Analysis __________________________________ 69

5.5 Inter-regional Results __________________________________________________ 70

vii

5.5.1 Sample Description ________________________________________________ 70

5.5.2 Activities of the Household__________________________________________ 72

5.5.3 Fishing Effort_____________________________________________________ 75

5.5.4 Fishing Catch_____________________________________________________ 77

5.5.5 Frequency of Consumption of LRFFT Target Species _____________________ 79

5.5.6 Income and Expenditure ____________________________________________ 82

5.5.7 Perceptions of Importance___________________________________________ 87

5.6 Discussion of Inter regional Results_______________________________________ 90

5.6.1 Impact of the LRFFT on Village Households ____________________________ 91

5.6.2 Chilled Fishery ___________________________________________________ 92

5.6.3 Significance of the LRFFT Target Species ______________________________ 93

5.6.4 Income Earning Opportunities and the Cost of Living _____________________ 94

5.6.5 The Grouper Resource and its Management _____________________________ 97

Chapter 6: Socio-economics and the Impact of the LRFFT in Marovo Lagoon _____ 100

6.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________ 100

6.2 Results ____________________________________________________________ 102

6.2.1 Sample Description _______________________________________________ 102

6.2.2 Activities of the Household_________________________________________ 104

6.2.3 Fishing Effort____________________________________________________ 107

6.2.4 Fishing Catch____________________________________________________ 108

6.2.5 Frequency of Consumption of LRFFT Species__________________________ 109

6.2.6 Income and Expenditure ___________________________________________ 112

6.2.7 Perceptions of Importance__________________________________________ 116

6.3 Discussion__________________________________________________________ 119

6.3.1 Perceived Necessity for the LRFFT in Marovo Lagoon ___________________ 119

6.3.2 Impact of the LRFFT on Village Households in Marovo Lagoon ___________ 120

6.3.3 Chilled Fishery in Marovo Lagoon ___________________________________ 121

6.3.4 Significance of the LRFFT Target Species in Marovo Lagoon _____________ 122

6.3.5 Income Opportunities and the Cost of Living in Marovo Lagoon ___________ 124

6.3.6 The Grouper Resource and its Management in Marovo Lagoon ____________ 126

Chapter 7: Socio-economics and the Impact of the LRFFT in Roviana Lagoon _____ 128

7.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________ 128

7.2 Results ____________________________________________________________ 130



7.2.3 Fishing Effort____________________________________________________ 133

7.2.4 Fishing Catch____________________________________________________ 134

viii




7.3 Discussion__________________________________________________________ 142

7.3.1 Perceived Necessity for the LRFFT in Roviana Lagoon___________________ 142

7.3.2 Impact of the LRFFT on Village Households in Roviana Lagoon ___________ 143

7.3.3 Chilled Fishery in Roviana Lagoon___________________________________ 144

7.3.4 Significance of the LRFFT Target Species in Roviana Lagoon _____________ 145

7.3.5 Income Opportunities and the Cost of Living in Roviana Lagoon ___________ 147

7.3.6 The Grouper Resource and its Management in Roviana Lagoon ____________ 148

Chapter 8: Socio-economics and the Impact of the LRFFT in Ontong Java ________ 150

8.1 Introduction ________________________________________________________ 150

8.2 Results ____________________________________________________________ 152



8.2.3 Fishing Effort____________________________________________________ 154

8.2.4 Fishing Catch____________________________________________________ 155




8.3 Discussion__________________________________________________________ 164

8.3.1 Perceived Necessity for the LRFFT in Ontong Java______________________ 164

8.3.2 Impact of the LRFFT on Village Households in Ontong Java ______________ 165

8.3.3 Significance of the LRFFT Target Species in Ontong Java ________________ 166

8.3.4 Income Opportunities and the Cost of Living in Ontong Java ______________ 167

8.3.5 The Grouper Resource and its Management in Ontong Java _______________ 168

Chapter 9: Conclusions and Recommendations _______________________________ 170

9.1 Conclusions ________________________________________________________ 170

9.2 Formulation of a Plan of Management____________________________________ 172

9.3 Management Strategies________________________________________________ 172

9.4 Incorporating International Standards for the LRFFT ________________________ 174

9.4.1 Destructive fishing________________________________________________ 175

9.4.2 Target stock _____________________________________________________ 175

9.4.3 Food safety _____________________________________________________ 175

9.4.4 Transshipment ___________________________________________________ 175

9.5 Process of License Issue_______________________________________________ 175

9.6 Precautionary Approaches to Fisheries Management ________________________ 176

ix

9.7 Management and Development Strategies _________________________________ 176

9.7.1 Control of Fishing Effort ___________________________________________ 177

9.7.2 Reef Owner Agreements ___________________________________________ 177

9.7.3 Monitoring and Compliance ________________________________________ 177

9.8 Management Measures________________________________________________ 177

9.8.1 Reef Owner Agreements ___________________________________________ 177

9.8.2 Licensing _______________________________________________________ 179

9.8.3 Species Restrictions_______________________________________________ 179

9.8.4 Closed Season ___________________________________________________ 180

9.8.5 Closed Area _____________________________________________________ 180

9.8.6 Gear Restrictions _________________________________________________ 180

9.8.7 Foreign Vessel Requirements _______________________________________ 180

9.8.8 Responsible Fishing Practises _______________________________________ 181

9.8.9 By-catch________________________________________________________ 181

9.8.10 Training _______________________________________________________ 181

9.8.11 Restrictions of Fishers ____________________________________________ 181

9.9 Monitoring _________________________________________________________ 181

9.10 Amendments_______________________________________________________ 183

References ____________________________________________________________ 184

Appendix 1: Village Household Questionnaire ________________________________ 200

Appendix 2: Pilot Survey Notes_____________________________________________ 203

x

List of Tables

Table 2.1. The main effects of fishing spawning aggregations on the targeted species. ......... 27

Table 2.2. The main outcomes of fishing spawning aggregations on the targeted species. .... 28

Table 3.1. Population by province from 1970 to 1999. ......................................................... 34

Table 3.2. Total LRFFT export in 1997................................................................................ 39

Table 3.3. Live fish purchased by Ika Holdings in the Solomon Islands, 1996 - 1998. .......... 40

Table 3.4. Counts from first UVC assessment, conducted on the new moon. ........................ 45

Table 3.5. Counts from second UVC assessment, conducted on the full moon...................... 45

Table 4.1. International conventions and instruments that apply to LRFFT management. ..... 49

Table 4.2. National framework for the conservation and management of the LRFFT............ 51

Table 4.3. Components of the Fisheries Act 1998 that are relevant to the management of the LRFFT . .............................................................................................................. 52

Table 4.4. Structure and responsibilities of the Solomon Islands Fisheries Division. ............ 55

Table 5.1. Characteristics of the sample in the three study areas. .......................................... 71

Table 5.2. Comparison of fishing effort in 1999 and during the LRFFT. .............................. 75

Table 5.3. Fishing effort in the fishery that ships chilled fish in eskies to Honiara. ............... 76

Table 5.4. Comparison of total catch, and the component of which were groupers, between fishing activity in 1999 and during the LRFFT. ................................................... 78

Table 5.5. Total catch and proportion of the catch comprising groupers in the chilled fishery............................................................................................................................. 78

Table 5.6. Average income by source for the three regions that hosted the LRFFT............... 84

Table 5.7. Average expenditure by source for the three regions that hosted the LRFFT. ....... 87

Table 6.1. Participating villages and their religious affiliations........................................... 102

Table 6.2. Characteristics of the sample in Marovo Lagoon................................................ 103

Table 6.3. Comparison of fishing effort in 1999 and during the LRFFT in Marovo Lagoon........................................................................................................................... 107

Table 6.4. Fishing effort in the “Eskies” fishery from Marovo Lagoon to Honiara.............. 108

Table 6.5. Comparison of total catch, and the component of which were groupers, between fishing activity in 1999 and during the LRFFT in Marovo Lagoon..................... 109

Table 6.6. Total catch and grouper component in the “Eskies” fishery in Marovo Lagoon.. 109

Table 6.7. Average income by source for respondents from Marovo Lagoon...................... 114

Table 6.8. Average expenditure by source for respondents from Marovo Lagoon............... 116

Table 7.1. Participating Roviana villages. .......................................................................... 129

Table 7.3. Comparison of fishing effort in 1999 and during the LRFFT in Roviana Lagoon........................................................................................................................... 133

Table 7.4. Fishing effort in the “Eskies” fishery from Roviana Lagoon to Honiara. ............ 133

Table 7.5. Comparison of total catch, and the component of which were groupers, between fishing activity in 1999 and during the LRFFT in Roviana Lagoon. ................... 134

xi

Table 7.6. Total catch and grouper component in the “Eskies” fishery in Roviana Lagoon. 135

Table 7.7. Average income by source for respondents from Roviana Lagoon. .................... 139

Table 7.8. Average expenditure by source for respondents from Roviana Lagoon. ............. 140

Table 8.1. Participating villages and their community affiliations....................................... 151

Table 8.2. Characteristics of the sample in Ontong Java. .................................................... 153

Table 8.3. Comparison of fishing effort in 1999 and during the LRFFT in Ontong Java. .... 155

Table 8.4. Comparison of total catch, and the component of which were groupers, between fishing activity in 1999 and during the LRFFT in Ontong Java. ......................... 155

Table 8.5. Occurrence of everyday consumption of LRFFT target species in Ontong Java. 158

Table 8.6. Average income by source for respondents from Ontong Java. .......................... 159

Table 8.7. Average expenditure by item for respondents from Ontong Java........................ 161

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Annual exports of live food-fish from Indonesia and the Philippines. __________ 5

Figure 2.1. Incentive effects of economic instruments.______________________________ 14

Figure 3.1. Solomon Islands featuring the three areas that hosted the LRFFT. ___________ 31

Figure 5.1. Householder participation and mean hours spent per week conducting particular activities in the presence, and absence, of the LRFFT. _____________________ 72

Figure 5.2. Consumption and consumption frequency of LRFFT target species.__________ 81

Figure 5.3. Income by source in the 25-75% range for the regions that hosted the LRFFT. _ 83

Figure 5.4. Expenditure by source in the 25-75% range for the regions that hosted the LRFFT.________________________________________________________________ 85

Figure 5.6. Respondents in the three regions that hosted the LRFFT that believed issues surrounding management were important. ______________________________ 90

Figure 6.1. Marovo Lagoon, Western Province. __________________________________ 101

Figure 6.3. Consumption and consumption frequency of LRFFT target species in Marovo Lagoon. ________________________________________________________ 111

Figure 6.4. Income (SI$) by source in the 25-75% range for householders in Marovo Lagoon._______________________________________________________________ 113

Figure 6.5. Expenditure by item in the 25-75% range for respondents from Marovo Lagoon._______________________________________________________________ 115

Figure 6.6. Respondents from Marovo Lagoon that believed issues surrounding spawning aggregations were important. _______________________________________ 117

Figure 6.7. Respondents from Marovo Lagoon that believed issues surrounding management were important. __________________________________________________ 118

Figure 7.1. Roviana Lagoon, Western Province (Source: Aswani, 1997). ______________ 129

Figure 7.2. Participation in household activities in the presence and absence of the LRFFT.132

Figure 7.3. Consumption and consumption frequency of LRFFT target species in Roviana Lagoon. ________________________________________________________ 136

xii

Figure 7.4. Income by source (SI$) in the 25-75% range for householders in Roviana Lagoon._______________________________________________________________ 138

Figure 7.5. Expenditure by item in the 25-75% range for respondents from Roviana Lagoon._______________________________________________________________ 140

Figure 7.6. Respondents from Roviana Lagoon that believed issues surrounding grouper spawning aggregations were important. _______________________________ 141

Figure 7.7. Respondents from Roviana Lagoon that believed issues surrounding management were important. __________________________________________________ 142

Figure 8.1. Ontong Java Atoll. _______________________________________________ 151

Figure 8.2. Householder participation and hours spent per week conducting particular activities in the presence and absence of the LRFFT in Ontong Java. ________ 154

Figure 8.3. Consumption and consumption frequency of LRFFT target species in Ontong Java._______________________________________________________________ 156

Figure 8.4. Income by source (SI$) in the 25-75% range for householders in Ontong Java. 158

Figure 8.5. Expenditure by item in the 25-75% range for respondents from Ontong Java. _ 160

Figure 8.6. Respondents from Ontong Java that believed issues surrounding spawning aggregations were important. _______________________________________ 162

Figure 8.7. Respondents from Ontong Java that believed issues surrounding management were important._______________________________________________________ 163

1

Chapter 1: The Live Reef Food-Fish Trade

1.1 Introduction

The Asian economic prosperity of the 1980s and early to mid-1990s prompted the rapid

expansion of the market for live reef fish for food. The trade is driven by demand for live reef

fish from restaurants in cities with large Chinese populations, especially Hong Kong and

southeastern China, but also Taipei, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur (Johannes and Riepen,

1995). The demand is based on the perception that fish and prosperity are integrally linked,

and that the ultimate freshness of fish cooked and eaten moments after being personally

chosen from an aquarium has health and even virility enhancing qualities (Erdmann and Pet-

Soede, 1996). The demand is driven by socially desirable “conspicuous consumption”

(Bentley, 1999). Rapid growth in Southeast Asian economies gave rise to a burgeoning class

of affluent business people. A new genre of social elite arose whereby a person’s status was

announced by their willingness and ability to pay extraordinary sums of money to publicly

consume these fish. Weddings, banquets, birthdays and the closure of a business deal would

be celebrated in this way.

Hong Kong is the major market and trans-shipment point for live reef food fish, importing

approximately 17,000–20,000 tonnes during 2000. The live reef food-fish trade (LRFFT)

through Hong Kong was valued at approximately US$400 million that year. It is estimated

that 60-65% of all fish that are imported into Hong Kong are trans-shipped into the People’s

Republic of China (PRC) (McGilvray, 2001). As the economy of the PRC grows (7.8% in

2000), and with the recent entry into the World Trade Organisation, the demand for live reef

food fish in the major cities of China is likely to increase dramatically. In earlier market

analyses reported by Rimmer et al. (1997), it was concluded that the market was expected to

double every six years. However, Johannes and Riepen (1995) indicated that existing supply

sources were expected to be insufficient to satisfy projected demand. There are a number of

issues in the supply chain that render the fishery unsustainable and these emphasise the need

for rigorous management of the fishery in source countries.

Despite the recent economic downturn in Asia, the demand for live reef fish has continued to

grow. The expansion of the live reef fishery into the Pacific region is driven, additionally, by

the diminishing supply from Southeast Asian waters of target fish, due to over-exploitation

and habitat degradation. This increasing demand for live reef fish has encouraged the use of

destructive fishing methods, resulting in widespread devastation of coral reefs within

2

Southeast Asia. The most damaging of these methods is the use of sodium cyanide, an

extremely toxic chemical. In the Pacific region, pulse fishing that targets seasonal spawning

aggregations is the cause of greatest concern.

The overwhelming consumer demand for grouper and Maori wrasse, the species most

favoured by consumers, has encouraged importers to venture ever further, seeking previously

untapped stocks of the target species. The fishery has encountered many problems. Fishing

methods, such as the use of sodium cyanide, have resulted in the destruction of fish habitat

and the poisoning of smaller fish and invertebrates, upsetting trophic relationships. Research

into the species targeted for the LRFFT is in its infancy, but it is known that the Maori wrasse

(Cheilinis undulatus) lives for many decades and exhibits a slow growth rate, which generally

accompanies low replacement capacity (Sadovy, 1997). Consequently, the species is highly

susceptible to overexploitation. Maori wrasse and groupers (mostly Plectropomus spp. and

Epinephelus spp.) aggregate to spawn in accordance with highly predictable environmental

variables (Johannes, 1978, 1980; Pet and Pet-Soede, 1999) and it is these aggregations that

have been targeted for the LRFFT.

The fishery has proved highly unsustainable. In the Philippines and Indonesia, stocks of

grouper and Maori wrasse have been severely depleted. Importers have simply moved on to

exploit stocks from coral reefs further afield, including the South and Western Pacific. There

is concern about the degree of post-harvest mortality, which is sometimes as high as 90 per

cent (Sadovy, 1998a). Concerns also arise about the amount of incidental bycatch and about

appropriation of economic rent by non resource-owners. Unsustainable exploitation of

nearshore marine resources has grave implications for many thousands of coastal

communities in Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

1.2 History and Development of the LRFFT

Johannes and Riepen (1995) stated that Hong Kong fishers first began to exploit reefs for live

food fish in the South China Sea as early as 1968. Live fish had, customarily, been kept

specifically for consumption shortly after killing, but mostly these were freshwater species or

a few locally caught marine species. After 1968, however, consumers were increasingly

exposed to large and colourful tropical reef fish. Consumption of freshly killed fish is thought

to redeem “life strength”. From an ethereal perspective, Oomen (1998 p.58) pointed to the

cultural connection between freshly killed live reef fish and the Chinese myth of the rebirth of

a celestial sea dragon out of a 1,000-year-old Maori wrasse or a spotted coral trout. Oomen

3

described the process of “choosing a live reef fish, ordering it to be prepared according to a

culturally acknowledged recipe and consuming the dish with appropriate manners” as taking

part in an ancient performance. Eating effigies of mythical creatures strengthens one’s life

force and suggests congruence between ancestral devotion and rebirthing of celestial beings.

Johannes and Riepen (1995) suggested, however, that the state of the Hang Seng Index was

likely to be the best indicator of local demand for live reef fish.

The massive industrial cities of southern China are home to the fastest growth in demand for

live reef fish (Lau and Parry Jones, 1999). China has achieved extraordinary economic growth

for a number of years and the cities in the south of the country have experienced phenomenal

growth, both in terms of population and prosperity. The demand from wealthy Chinese in the

business centres of Taipei, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore has also continued to grow. As a

consequence, importing companies have expanded the search for the desired species in an

effort to capitalise on the potential wealth generating opportunity.

With this rise in demand, Hong Kong fishers exploited and depleted the more remote reefs

and islands of the South China Sea. In 1975, the trade moved into the Philippines. The coral

reefs of the Philippines and the vast archipelago of Indonesia, represent some of the

biologically richest regions in the world (Barber and Pratt, 1997). It was amid this biological

wealth and diversity that much of the supply of aquarium fish were gleaned from as early as

1957 to fill collections in the United States and Europe (Dufour, 1997). Barber and Pratt

(1997) stated that 85 percent of ornamental aquarium fish are captured in the Indo-Pacific

region. From 1962, the collection process involved stunning the fish with concentrated

sodium cyanide, making them easier to capture (McAllister et al., 1999). It is not apparent

exactly when the use of cyanide spread to the LRFFT.

Operations in the LRFFT originally began with foreign vessels and crew. The trade was

dominated by large, self-contained vessels that took the fish to the market themselves.

However, the structure of the trade changed. Local fishers were enticed into the industry by

the lure of the relatively high value of live fish, and exporters found it cheaper to employ

locals than to bring in their own crews (Bentley, 1999). Additionally, legislation made it

necessary to hire local fishers in some areas. Transport arrangements, primarily for transport

to Hong Kong but also to Malaysia and Singapore, saw the introduction of specialised Live

Fish Transport Vessels (LFTV). Fishers captured live fish and stored them temporarily in

specially fitted saltwater compartments within the hulls of their craft, the size of which varied

depending on the scale of the operation.

4

Companies set up holding pens in proximity to major fishing areas. Indrawan (1999) reported

that these typically consist of wooden planks and nylon nets, tied to plastic drum buoys. One

holding pen typically includes four to eight cages measuring three by three by four metres.

Each fisher’s daily catch is weighed before being placed in the pen and the fisher is paid

according to the catch. When the accumulated catch is sufficient to warrant transport, which is

ideally 15 tonnes but could be as much as 30 tonnes, the LFTV transports the catch to market.

These conditions vary regionally. In areas where airfreight is both viable and accessible, fish

are often shipped by air.

1.3 Exporting Countries

1.3.1 Indonesia and Philippines

The LRFFT was established in the western reefs of Indonesia in 1985 and spread quickly to

the extensive reefs of eastern Indonesia (Bentley, 1999). In 1996 exports declined sharply.

There is an average of 24 fisher households for each of the country’s 27,000 nautical miles of

coastline. Many of these households rely on coral reefs as a primary source of food and

income, particularly in eastern Indonesia. Johannes and Riepen (1995) stated that Indonesia

accounted for more than half of the total wild-caught reef fish supplied to Hong Kong and

Singapore. These figures were similar to those reported by Bentley (1999) but were refuted by

Erdmann and Pet-Soede (1996), who calculated that Indonesia’s export of live food fish for

the same period was between one third and two thirds of that from the Philippines. This

highlights the difficulty in quantifying the extent of the trade and rates of exploitation of these

species. The authors emphasised the boom and bust nature of the industry in Indonesia and

concurred in foreseeing the collapse of the fishery there in the mid to late 1990s. Lau and

Parry-Jones (1999) highlighted the difficulty in obtaining reliable figures on imports by

source from Hong Kong. Locally registered vessels in Hong Kong are exempt from

declaration of live reef food fish. As there are about 1,600 locally licensed vessels, the

recorded import level is potentially much less than the actual import level.

5

Figure 1.1. Annual exports of live food-fish from Indonesia and the Philippines.

Annual exports of live reef food-fish from Indonesia and the Philippines are illustrated in

Figure 1.1. These data are extrapolated from Bentley (1999) based on figures from the

Indonesian Directorate General of Fisheries, Philippines National Statistics Office and Sabah

Department of Fisheries. Clearly, there was a drastic decline experienced after 1995. In the

Philippines, the total number of exporting companies dropped by almost half, from 31 in 1994

to 17 in 1996.

Alvarez (1996) reported that in the first six months of 1996, 19 local companies exported a

total of 479 tonnes of live grouper and Maori wrasse with an estimated value of about US$30

million from the Philippines. Fishers were paid as much as US$14kg-1 for live grouper and

twice as much for live Maori wrasse. The intermediaries would sell the fish to Manila-based

exporters for about US$36kg-1. After costs such as airfreight, packaging and handling, the

profit to intermediaries was estimated by the International Marinelife Alliance (IMA) to be

about US$8kg-1. This equates to a profit of more than US$3.8 million for the intermediaries

alone for a period of six months. Alvarez added that the LRFFT effectively heralded a decline

in the widespread use of dynamite “blast fishing” in the mid 1980s because the income

potential from capturing live fish far surpassed that of the dead catch. Unfortunately, the

substitute fishing method was often sodium cyanide. The establishment of the LRFFT and the

spiraling demand for aquarium fish from the mid 1980s resulted in the application of cyanide,

escalating to about 400,000kg annually (Alvarez, 1996).

The trade in live reef food-fish in the Philippines today is greatly reduced because of reef

degradation caused by the use of chemicals and explosives. The extent of damage to reefs

from destructive fishing practices has affected the ability of inhabitants of coastal villages to

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Annual Exports (t)

Indonesia Philippines

6

live in their customary manner. Filemon Romero, former chancellor of Mindanao State

University, quoted in Alvarez (1996 p22), stated:

“…coral reef degradation has cost the country a lot in terms of fish production

loss, diminished income possibilities and the high incidence of malnutrition,

undernourishment, unemployment and urban migration”.

1.3.2 Pacific Region

The downward trend in the productivity of reefs in the Philippines and Indonesia, and the

consistently high and probably growing demand has encouraged companies to establish the

LRFFT in the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean. From 1992, live reef fish export

operations were established in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and, soon after, spread east to

Solomon Islands and the Marshall Islands, and west to the Maldives. Operations began on

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef in 1995, while Kiribati, Fiji and the Seychelles commenced

shortly thereafter. Fledgling operations have commenced ever further afield in the Indian and

Pacific Oceans (Johannes and Riepen, 1995).

Several companies from Hong Kong established the trade in PNG by 1992, where the remote

and extensive coral reefs were considered to be the “new frontier” for the industry (Johannes

and Riepen, 1995 p.49). The vast and scattered nature of the coral reef assemblage in Papua

New Guinea, together with the paucity of fisheries management resources, limits the degree to

which management and enforcement are possible. Kirkpatrick and Cook (1997) reported that

in an effort to head off the establishment of a cyanide fishing foothold there, The Nature

Conservancy and other Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) united to design and

implement a major conservation education program in villages to combat the practice.

From 1994, two companies set up operations in Solomon Islands at Marovo, Vella La Vella

and Roviana Lagoons, then later in the northern atoll of Ontong Java (Johannes and Lam,

1999). Smith (1997) reported that, from late 1994, three operations were established in the

Republic of Marshall Islands, with joint ventures set up between local entrepreneurs and

companies from Hong Kong and Taiwan. Fishing for live coral trout began in earnest on the

Great Barrier Reef in Australia in 1995. Elmer (1998) reported that the LRFFT on Australia’s

Great Barrier Reef has attracted considerable interest from commercial operators. In 1998,

there were about 110 licensed operators and there was an estimated direct capital investment

of AUD$19 million in boats and land-based premises, exclusively for live fish operations. The

trade in Australia is largely free of many of the destructive and unsustainable aspects that

7

characterise the fishery in developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In other areas of

the Pacific, Kiribati began operations in early 1996 (Sommerville and Pendle, 1999); and Fiji

began cautiously pursuing the opening of live fish operations in 1998 (Yeeting, 1999).

1.3.3 Other Source Countries

On the other side of the Pacific Ocean, a live fishery has operated in California since 1988.

The target species are different from those targeted for the Asian LRFFT, although the fishery

was initially established in order to service demand from the local Asian community (Tegner

and Dayton, 1997). In the Indian Ocean, Shakeel and Ahmed (1997) stated that the fishery for

live groupers started in the Maldives in 1994; and Bentley and Aumeeruddy (1999) described

the experimental export of live fish from the Seychelles in 1998. There are also fledgling

operations in Eritrea, Tanzania, Kuwait, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, Tonga and Vanuatu

(Johannes and Riepen, 1995; Barber and Pratt, 1997).

The LRFFT now straddles a large area of the tropical marine environment. In many locations,

the trade is yet to experience the type of degradation experienced in the coral reefs and coastal

communities of the Philippines and Indonesia. The trade is characterised by its mobility and

there is no bricks-and-mortar infrastructure. There is minimal involvement of local

communities in the market chain beyond capturing live fish for collection, and the operation

can be conducted in regions remote from urban facilities and services. Holding pens are

collapsible and the whole operation can relocate at short notice upon the exhaustion of

resources at a particular site.

With the LRFFT expanding its geographical distribution, it is important that the countries

now embracing the industry learn from the mistakes and consequences of the trade in

countries such as the Philippines and Indonesia. Bentley (1999 p.9) highlighted this in noting:

“…for most regions, once exports began, it took only three to four years for them

to reach a peak and then to decline. Like a wave, the industry has spread

throughout the country; live fish exports rising and falling in its wake”.

This serves to emphasise the need to manage live reef fisheries in a way that allows fisheries

resources to be exploited in a sustainable manner. The short-term gains by a relative few in

countries such as the Philippines have resulted in longer-term hardships for many other

people.

8

1.3.4 Aquaculture/Mariculture

Since production from marine fisheries peaked at about 100 million tonnes and has begun to

decline (Brown et al., 1994), aquaculture production, which doubled from 1984 to 1992

(Williams, 1996) is seen a means of balancing the decline. However, in the LRFFT, diners in

Hong Kong restaurants are believed to prefer wild caught fish to those reared in captivity.

Rimmer et al. (1998) stated that there was increased interest in grouper mariculture

throughout the world, but particularly in the Asia-Pacific region because of the level of

demand and the potential returns from the product. Most fish culture in Southeast Asia is

based on the collection of juveniles from the wild and their grow-out in captivity to

marketable size (Sadovy and Pet, 1998). Dato-Cajegas et al. (1998) noted that commercial

hatchery production is restricted to Taiwan, although experimental hatcheries were

establishing throughout Asia. Johannes and Ogburn (1999) noted that Taiwan still imports

wild-caught grouper fry because it has not yet been able to produce fry in sufficient numbers

in its hatcheries.

Most of the marine fry imported to Hong Kong comes from Taiwan, Thailand and Japan (Lau

and Parry-Jones, 1999). Sadovy and Pet (1998) stated concern that the collection of wild

juveniles for grouper mariculture may be another capture fishery. This concern is based on the

timing of peak rates of mortality among grouper juveniles. Less than one per cent of larvae

survive the pelagic larval development stage before settlement on coral reefs. There is then

intense predation by larger fish associated with the reef (Bell et al., 1999). If the peak

mortality period is during the planktonic phase, then the post-settlement harvesting of

juveniles may be unsustainable because the fishing mortality would represent a substantial

proportion of total mortality, and the fishery would need to be managed to avoid overfishing.

Williams (1996) noted that this is an important link between aquaculture and fisheries that is

often ignored because the sectors have been viewed in isolation. However, Bell et al. (1999)

argued that if sections of reef are quarantined from predatory fish, the postlarvae could be

harvested in a way that does not jeopardise natural rates of replenishment.

Johannes and Ogburn (1999) pointed out that hatchery technology for grouper is not yet well

established and that, despite extensive research, commercial success has been limited due to

the high level of mortality. Bell et al. (1999) stated that it is better to first establish successful

grow-out aquaculture of high-value species of reef fish. Propagating larvae from hatcheries

incurs high cost. Munro and Bell (1997) endorsed the use of wild caught juveniles and added

9

that the use of juveniles from hatcheries was often associated with alterations to the gene pool

and the transfer of diseases.

Current research into grouper mariculture in the Asia-Pacific region has emerged from

Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines and Japan. Development of effective hatcheries has been a

major focus of research. The species that frequently feature in aquaculture ventures and

research are the estuary cod (sometimes called green grouper), Epinephelus coioides and the

Malabar grouper, E. malabaricus (Johannes, 1997). The grouper aquaculture research effort

has covered aspects of hatchery spawning (e.g. Sugama et al., 1998), feeding (e.g. Millamena

and Golez, 1998; Ordonio-Aguilar and Ohno, 1998; Toledo, 1999), ambient conditions (e.g.

Caberoy and Quinitio, 1998a), parasite infestations (e.g. Koesharyani et al. 1998), the effects

of steroid variation on the timing of sex reversal (e.g. Lee et al., 1998; Yashiro et al., 1998),

handling requirements (e.g. Caberoy and Quinitio, 1998b) and the mitigation of viral infection

(e.g. Chi et al., 1999; Lee et al., 1999). A cooperative network has been established for the

exchange and dissemination of research information in the region (Rimmer et al., 1998).

1.4 Scope of the Study

Coastal marine resources in Pacific islands are particularly important for food security.

Coastal fishing methods and the main target species are extremely varied, and may differ

geographically even over small scales. Most of these fisheries occur on coral reefs, which are

among the most diverse ecosystems in the world, on a par with tropical rainforests. Whilst

coral reefs have high species richness, the number of individuals of these varied species is

usually low, and coral reefs are thought to be particularly sensitive to exploitation and indirect

anthropogenic influences. Increasing human populations, which are almost entirely settled on

the coast, create additional problems for sustainable resource use. Resource management and

monitoring are thus key issues for island countries.

There are major interactions between fisheries development, coral reef ecosystems and

demography such that the study of fishing, especially subsistence fishing, requires the

integration of research on the ecology of the reefs and their resources with research on coastal

economies and societies. This has consequences for development and management programs

and the evaluation of their impact on village communities.

The demographic and food issues associated with fishing are at the focal point of fisheries

dynamics. Consequently, this thesis examines the various components of the LRFFT and

10

focuses on the social dynamics and development opportunities in Solomon Islands. The major

component will focus on the socio-economic impacts and potential benefits of the LRFFT.

However, as the research project from which this thesis has developed seeks to establish a

management plan that will place the LRFFT on a sustainable footing, coverage will include

environmental costs associated with the fishery and possible avenues for amelioration, the

traditional and contemporary foundation upon which the LRFFT can be managed, and the

monitoring and information requirements necessary for adaptive management of the fishery.

It will conclude with an outline of the management prescriptions for sustainable management

of the LRFFT in Solomon Islands.

1.5 Aims and Objectives

This thesis stems from a project funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural

Research, which was devised in response to claims from the Solomon Islands government that

the LRFFT in that country was conducted in a manner considered unsustainable. The project

sought to establish a plan of management that would see the fishery conducted on a

sustainable basis.

The population in Solomon Islands is overwhelmingly rural with largely subsistence

economies at the village level. However, urban migration and cash dependence are growing

phenomena. Unsustainable conduct of the LRFFT was considered a threat to the social and

cultural fabric of the majority of the population, one that threatened food security and, in light

of high population growth, the tenability of the village life.

As a consequence, the major component of the project, as with this thesis, was to establish

data on the existing socio-economic climate in the three regions that hosted the LRFFT, and

to gauge the impacts that accompanied participation in the trade.

The aim of the thesis is to assemble the information necessary to establish management of the

LRFFT in Solomon Islands on a sustainable footing. The primary focus is the socio-economic

component. Attention is additionally given to the natural heritage considerations and the

customary and institutional structure upon which the trade might be managed, as these

components have direct implications for the village population.

The following objectives outline the manner in which this aim is achieved:

11

1. Describe the dynamics of the LRFFT in the Indo-Pacific and the Solomon Islands

experience.

2. Describe the concept of sustainability and its application to the LRFFT including the

biological and ecological implications of intensively fishing spawning aggregations.

3. Describe the customary and institutional structure upon which the trade might be

managed.

4. Describe the existing socio-economic climate in the three regions that hosted the LRFFT

and gauge the impacts that accompanied participation in the trade.

5. Detail the management prescriptions for the sustainable management of the LRFFT in

Solomon Islands.

12

Chapter 2: Sustainability and the LRFFT

2.1 The Concept of Sustainability

A report from the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), known as

the Brundtland Report, defined sustainable development in terms of ‘resource development’

and ‘economic activity’ that meet the needs of the present generation without compromising

the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Humans ultimately depend on

natural ecosystems to meet most of their basic needs. However, as Pajak (2000) noted,

compelling scientific evidence indicates that ecological and, consequently, societal health is

threatened worldwide. Human population densities, consumption, and technology are among

the pervasive pressures connecting and affecting sustainability at every level. In 1992, the

National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development broadened this definition,

describing ESD as “using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that

ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now

and in the future, can be increased” (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992).

However, it can now be presumed that no development is likely to be sustainable if it is not

‘ecologically sustainable’. Furthermore, it is apparent that the concept of sustaining the

functional integrity of natural systems that support life for humans and other organisms

conveys responsibilities on communities to ‘live’ in a manner that is sustainable, which

contributes to a broadening of the term from ‘sustainable development’ to ‘sustainability’. It

also requires institutions to manage not only ‘resource development’ and ‘economic activity’

in a manner that does not deplete the natural capital that we borrow from future generations,

but also to ensure that intragenerational equity is enhanced by reforming inefficiencies in

resource use byproducts such as waste production, water use and land management that might

result in such effects as habitat degradation, decline in food production or inhibiting the

assimilative capacity of the environment.

2.1.1 Institutional Role in Achieving Sustainability

Institutional obligations, in this regard, refer to the application of suitable incentives and

disincentives for the private sector to adopt production methods that are consistent with the

principles of sustainability. Incentives, from the use of economic instruments, usually entail

longer-term financial benefit from the adoption of technology that maximises efficiency,

thereby increasing market competitiveness. Disincentives usually entail legislative and/or

13

punitive measures for non-compliance with minimum standards. A combination of both of the

approaches is preferable, with minimum standards based on the best scientific advice

available. Regulatory control alone has proved unsuccessful because of costs, both monetary

and in social terms, associated with enforcement.

Davis and Gartside (2001) stated that regulations alone will most likely not result in the most

efficient use being made of scarce resources because they took no account of costs and

provide no incentive for groups, for example polluters, to continue to improve beyond the set

regulatory limit. They used an example of effluent input to an estuary. The effluent

represents: a cost to society in terms of restricting recreational activities and detracting from

aesthetic value; a cost to the natural environment in terms of degradation of habitat; and an

economic cost in terms of the loss of juveniles of commercial species, and the opportunity

cost of economic multipliers arising from recreational and commercial activities. At point A

in Figure 2.1, regulations might be introduced requiring polluters to reduce output to below a

set standard (point B) within a given period of time. However, there is no incentive to reduce

pollution to ever lower levels. The polluters will reduce their output as required but will

continue to pollute at a level represented by line CD. Economic instruments are implemented

to provide the incentive for continued reduction in pollution along the line of ACE.

Regulation alone would then constitute a loss to society represented by the hatched area,

which would likely increase with time and advancements in technology. Economic

instruments, therefore, act as a practical means for achieving the principles of sustainability.

A sound legislative framework will ensure that minimum standards are met and economic

instruments give producers incentive to improve on them. Consequently, the two mechanisms

should be adopted to operate in unison.

14

Figure 2.1. Incentive effects of economic instruments.

Turner et al. (1994) suggested that market based incentives could modify markets by centrally

deciding the value of natural resources and environmental services, and ensuring that those

values are incorporated in the prices of those goods and services. An example of such a

market-based incentive approach could include annual licenses, which attract a purchase fee

and convey a suite of conditions to which the licensee must adhere. In maximizing yield,

while acting in accordance with such conditions, producers of goods and services have a clear

incentive to maximise efficiency. Market based incentives are usually designed to correct

market failure, which occurs when the price for goods and services does not reflect the true

value of the resources being used to produce them, including the full cost of degradation of

those resources. In using a market-based incentive, the licensee has incentive to conserve the

resources being exploited, thereby internalising the costs associated with resource

degradation.

Harden (1968) argued that the resources of the ‘commons’, or more succinctly, open access

resources, would be competed away because there would be no incentive for anybody to

conserve. However, where there is a set of clearly defined property rights, such as those

conveyed upon a licensee, all of the benefits that might be accrued to the licensee, for

example, from the exploitation of resources referred to in the terms of the license, are accrued

exclusively. Conversely, any or all detriment to those resources are incurred exclusively by

A

B

CD

E

Pollution Level

Time

15

the holder of those property rights – in this example the licensee. Consequently, there is

incentive for the property right holder to conserve the integrity of the resource and maximise

efficiency so as to reduce costs and maximise benefit.

This designation of a property rights structure conveys ownership upon the right holder.

Bromley (1992) explained that, in an economic sense, property referred to a stream of benefits

or income and a property right is a claim to this stream. The definition of property,

consequently, is not limited to physical or geographic entities (Davis and Gartside, 2001).

Scott and Johnson (1985) described the general characteristics of property rights in the

following terms:

� Exclusivity;

� Right to enforce exclusive use;

� Transferability to others;

� Right to determination of use;

� Duration and timing of rights; and

� Provision for payment.

In terms of the example of a license as a market-based incentive to correct market failure, the

license is characterised by permission given by the occupier of the land to do something that

would otherwise amount to trespass. Enforcement of compliance with license conditions often

determines whether the property rights are functional or non-functional. It also infers that

property rights and governance are interrelated because of the importance of knowing who

owns the rights (individuals, communities or government), how those rights can be enforced

(Tisdell and Roy, 1997), and serves as a reminder that ownership of an asset is not unfettered

because the law generally imposes some restrictions (Pearce, 1992).

Application of these principles to the management of the LRFFT in Solomon Islands does not

present a complex and insurmountable problem. Customary access rights to resources within

delineated estates of land and sea will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 8 (Section 8.3).

In brief, however, Chiefs manage the estates. Management infers governance and this

includes rules regarding the exploitation of natural resources, usually fisheries, forestry and

mining. Marine resources sustain the population so fishing for subsistence is generally

unfettered. The Chiefs have, however, traditionally enacted spatial and temporal closures to

enable stock recovery. Enforcement of such measures is conducted at the local level and there

are mechanisms in place for punitive measures for non-compliance. A full range of clearly

16

defined property rights exist. Any exploitation for commercial purposes, however, requires

permission from the Chief and his council, if the exploitation is to be conducted by anybody

other than a primary rights holder. In this instance, conditions attached to such permission

would be outlined in a license. The conditions would place a series of restrictions on

exploitation such that the licensee is given incentive to maximise the efficiency of the

operation. In the case of the LRFFT, this would entail minimising post harvest losses through

improving handling, storage and transportation. Such improvements might include air

freighting smaller quantities on a more regular basis and adding value by purchasing and

marketing bycatch species domestically. Local level monitoring and enforcement of license

conditions would apply but the license would require endorsement by the relevant provincial

and national government agencies. Consequently, compliance with license conditions would

be subject to legislative application and all the enforcement measures that this infers.

2.2 Sustainability Issues in the LRFFT

Fisheries, in general, face intense pressure from burgeoning populations. Worldwide, sea

catches have multiplied fourfold in the last 50 years. More than a billion people, living in 40

developing countries, risk being deprived of their main source of protein because of the over-

exploitation of fishery reserves associated with an increase in export demand (UNDP, 1996).

The lives of the inhabitants of the Pacific region’s 2,700 islands are closely entwined with the

ocean. People depend heavily on the marinelife of coastal waters for food and income.

Cultural identity, traditional beliefs, customs and general social structure are integrally linked

to the sea as the peoples principal means of survival. Today, in the face of increasing reliance

of rural people on the cash economy, commercial exploitation of hitherto subsistence

resources, and rapidly increasing population, the cultural fabric of traditional island society is

threatened. Experience in the Philippines and Indonesia indicates that migration to urban areas

is a possible consequence when resources in the village are inadequate to sustain the local

populous. Customary beliefs and traditional skills are heavily diluted in the urban

environment. In the LRFFT, a number of issues have exacerbated the decline in resources and

the social problems that stem from them. The following sections address the issues that have

arisen from LRFFT activities in the Indo-Pacific region.

17

2.2.1 Habitat Degradation from Sodium Cyanide Use

In the Philippines and Indonesia, premium prices paid for live fish encouraged the use of

cyanide, causing widespread damage. Divers use sodium cyanide to immobilise the target fish

so that they can be captured, then revived, and held in floating pens. Cyanide affects far more

than just the target species. Smaller fish and invertebrates are less resistant to cyanide, and

many die for each target fish captured. Most importantly, the coral habitat upon which the rest

of the reef community depends is killed. Cyanide kills reef corals at concentrations hundreds

of times lower than the typical concentrations used by divers in their squirt bottles (Jones and

Steven, 1997). Additional damage is caused through the breaking of corals to remove the fish

after stunning. Where traps have been used in the fishery, large coral pieces are often broken

off and placed on and around the traps as weights and to assist in attracting fish to the

structure (Johannes and Riepen, 1995).

In Asia, as reef fish stocks dwindle, the use of cyanide by desperate and impoverished

fishermen often becomes increasingly indiscriminate. While litre-sized bottles are normally

used to administer the poison (at a concentration of approximately 13 grams per litre), in

some cases fishers have reportedly dumped whole 200 litre drums of the poison into shallow

reef communities (Johannes and Riepen, 1995). Under ideal conditions, the recovery of

damaged coral reef communities could take several decades, but ideal conditions are highly

unlikely in the typically overpopulated coastal regions of those countries. While devastating

to reef communities, cyanide rarely reaches concentrations in target fish that are thought to be

toxic to the human consumers.

The use of cyanide as a technique for capturing fish, is far from unique to the LRFFT. Barber

and Pratt (1997) pointed out that, since the 1960s, more than a million kilograms of sodium

cyanide had been squirted onto coral reefs in the Philippines alone, in order to stun and

capture ornamental aquarium fish for pet shops in Europe and North America. Dufour (1997)

noted that, due to the difficulty of raising ornamental fish in captivity, the fishery was based

on collection from the natural environment. This collection accounted for about 100 tonnes

worldwide annually by the late 1990s and included millions of specimens. Dufour added that

the aquarium fish trade had doubled since the early 1980s and attributed the increase,

primarily, to an increase in air traffic resulting from increased tourism to tropical countries

since about 1980. This served to intensify the use of cyanide on coral reefs, particularly in the

Philippines and Indonesia (Fox, 1997).

18

Alvarez (1996) reported that there were more than 4,000 cyanide-using aquarium fish

gatherers in the Philippines and another 2,000 engaged in live food fish collection. Barber and

Pratt (1997) endorsed these figures, and added that the number of cyanide fishers in the Indo-

Pacific region was probably about 20,000. In the early 1960s, there were only three

companies exporting aquarium fish from the Philippines and the export of live food fish did

not exist. By the 1990s, there were about 45 ornamental fish exporters in the country, and

eight companies exporting live food fish. Philippines government statistics showed that as

many as six million aquarium fish were exported in 1996 (Barber and Pratt, 1997).

Johannes and Riepen (1995) described the process of capturing fish with the use of cyanide.

The diver chases a large fish into a hole within the coral reef framework. The diver squirts the

sodium cyanide solution into the hole then waits. While smaller fishes and invertebrates in the

vicinity die from the poison, the larger fish is stupefied. The diver smashes his way through

the coral that harbours the fish. When he reaches the fish, he forces a hook, attached to a rope,

through its lips and returns to the skiff to place it in the seawater holding tank. Sometimes the

fish escapes or is stupefied but is unable to be retrieved. Either way, the destruction to the reef

and smaller organisms is the same. The rate of post-harvest mortality is often 40-60 per cent

before the fish are transported to market, mostly because of poor handling and storage

techniques. More fish die in transit before they reach their final destination. For every fish that

dies, another must be caught to meet the seemingly insatiable demand.

The impact on coral reef habitats and on smaller fish and invertebrates caught in the cloud of

cyanide is devastating. In a study of the effects of cyanide on coral, Jones and Steven (1997)

concluded that, at the concentration of cyanide commonly used by the fishers (about 20 parts

per thousand), a reduction or cessation of coral respiration would ensue. Jones and Hoegh-

Guldberg (1999) expanded this study and concluded that this would result in a dissociation of

the coral-algal symbiosis by affecting the photosynthesis of the zooxanthellae and result in the

inevitable bleaching of the coral. The consequences of this are a reduction in phototrophic

potential and a decrease in growth rate and fecundity. Jones and Steven (1997) stated that re-

establishing the symbiosis could take six months to a year or more. Broken corals may take

many years to re-establish as habitat for large demersal fish species. Barber and Pratt (1997)

described the physical damage to the reef matrix from the use of a crowbar to pry apart the

coral heads to reach the stunned fish. Pet and Pet-Soede (1999) explained that when a single

grouper is captured, more than a square metre of coral is destroyed when the fish is removed

from its hiding place. Erdmann and Pet-Soede (1996) described the scene of a fully exploited

19

reef in eastern Indonesia as being completely devoid of serranids fish of all ages, and a ring of

dead, bleached coral surrounding every hole in the reef structure.

2.2.2 The Cycle of Debt

Pet-Soede and Erdmann (1998) noted that many divers using sodium cyanide are supported

by hookahs. Hookah divers, whether using cyanide or setting traps, are mostly unfamiliar with

dive physics and diving physiology. Jacques (1997) account of his studies in Indonesia

highlighted the human cost of the LRFFT in remote coastal villages. Jacques described the

well organised and well financed operation in eastern Indonesia, where a fleet of numbered,

fibreglass vessels operated with a crew of two. One dived and the other tended the

compressor. He witnessed one diver make nine rapid descents and equally rapid ascents in 90

minutes. There were no decompression stops. The company had told the villagers how much

money they could make but gave them scant diving tuition. Johannes and Djohani (1997)

noted that divers cited chronic debt as the reason for breaching dive safety standards. Hookah

gear costs about US$800, a sum that is well beyond the means of the majority of divers. The

divers borrow the money from intermediaries who buy their catch. The intermediaries

pressure the divers to repay the debt as quickly as possible, urging them to make up to four

dives a day for an average duration of 40 minutes at depths of up to 45m. Thousands of divers

have been paralysed and hundreds killed in the past decade in the Philippines and Indonesia

because of decompression sickness (Johannes and Riepen, 1995). Lyle Squire (pers. comm.,

2000) pointed out that divers were aware of the onset of symptoms of the bends but referred

to them as “sea ghosts”. Most of the divers are young men for whom fear of sea ghosts was

considered a slight on their manhood. Consequently, they continued to dive, ignoring the

symptoms.

The inequitable, oppressive trading system faced by fish collectors resulted in many village

fishers being heavily in debt. The need to meet repayments accentuated the need to capture as

many fish as possible. There is significant incentive for indebted fishers to use whatever

means possible to maximise their catch (Haribon Foundation, 1998). Barber and Pratt (1997)

stated that poverty was not the root cause of cyanide fishing. However, poverty is certainly an

inevitable result of cyanide fishing. Dead reefs yield no fish or invertebrates. Whenever these

food sources begin to recover, they are harvested by villagers, thus prolonging re-

establishment. Economic dislocation in the countryside from debt and depleted subsistence

resources has led to malnutrition and urban migration (Alvarez, 1996). In some areas of the

Philippines, coral reefs have suffered as a result of pollution from urban runoff, sedimentation

20

from logging and mining operations, and eutrophication from poor agricultural practices

(Johannes and Riepen, 1995). In addition to these impacts on food sources, destruction of reef

ecosystems also detracts from the country’s ability to fully capitalise on other potential

sources of income such as the lucrative dive tourism market.

2.2.3 Poorly Defined Property Rights

The Haribon Foundation (1998) highlighted the open access nature of the marine resources in

the Philippines. Fishers lack incentive to conserve and protect their coral reefs. If one fisher

does not catch a particular fish, then somebody else will. This encourages fishers to maximise

their personal gain at the expense of restraint for the sake of conservation. Johannes and

Riepen (1995) reported that decentralisation of fisheries management was gradually being

established in the Philippines, whereby local marine tenure is granted to fisher associations.

This results in community-based control of marine resources. The navy supports enforcement.

Local government has jurisdiction over municipal waters up to 15km from shore. These

factors offer improved property rights and a sense of ownership of marine resources, so that

the owner accrues all the benefits from the resource but is equally responsible for any

detriment that is caused. This gives fishers greater incentive to use their resources in a

sustainable manner.

The World Bank (1998) stated that implementation of management plans in Indonesia was

constrained by lack of funds and staffing. Marine management has been hampered by weak

enforcement of existing regulations, and lack of delineation of user property rights for

nearshore areas. Mantjoro (1996) suggested that lessons could be learned from the Para

fishing community. Fishers there founded the basis of management, established an effective

organisation, constructed the equity share principle, invented and enforced regulations, and

meted out the punishments for non-compliance. The delegation of authority to the local

community, to establish their own sea tenure system, is considered a pivotal element in the

management of communal property resources. The World Bank (1998) added that reef

management has been most successful where communities have been organised and

empowered to manage local reef resources. Local government endorsement of management

plans and recognition of community user rights are essential to ensure the sustainable use of

marine resources.

21

2.2.4 Economic Impacts of Reef Habitat Destruction

In Indonesia, degradation of reef resources from mining operations, blast fishing and sodium

cyanide application, for both the aquarium trade and the LRFFT, has reduced the viability of

reef systems as a vital source of food and as a potential income earner. The World Bank

(1998) noted that a high demand for marine products, opportunities for substantial private

gains, weak enforcement of existing laws, and an open access regime that discourages

community action, exacerbate these threats. Cesar et al. (1997 p.346) estimated that:

“…the large-scale poison fishery create(d) a net quantifiable loss of US$46

million over four years. Alternatively, a sustainable hook-and-line fisheries option

could create foreign exchange for the country, jobs for an estimated 10,000

Indonesian fishers for many years to come, and net benefits of some US$328.1

million”.

Pet-Soede et al. (1999) analysed the economic costs and benefits of blast fishing in Indonesia.

Analysis of the benefit gained from three scales of operation indicated that, at the individual

household level, the differences between the three types of operations showed clear incentives

for scale enlargement. The economic costs to society were found to be four times higher than

the total net private benefits from blast fishing in areas with high potential value from tourism

and coastal protection. Edinger et al. (1998) surveyed 15 reefs in three regions of Indonesia

and found that bombed or anchor damaged reefs were 50 per cent less diverse in shallow

water (3m depth) than were undamaged reefs in the same region. Reefs subject to land-based

pollution (sewage, sedimentation, and/or industrial pollution) showed 30-50 per cent reduced

diversity at 3m, and 40-60 per cent reduced diversity at 10m depth relative to unpolluted

comparison reefs in each region. The World Bank (1998) estimated that as much as 70 per

cent of the reefs of Indonesia are in poor to fair condition, primarily due to sedimentation,

land-based pollution, coral mining, physical damage, and over-extraction of marine products.

2.2.5 Ciguatera Poisoning

Expansion of the LRFFT into the Western Pacific brought with it some unexpected problems

for consumers in the importing countries. For example, there is a growing risk to consumers

of ciguatera poisoning (Sadovy, 1998b). Ciguatoxins are naturally occurring in reef predators.

Ciguatera poisoning is caused by a neurotoxin found in microscopic dinoflagellate algae

called Gambierdiscus toxicus and Ostreopsis lenticularis. The toxin first affects the coral-

grazing fish and is then passed up and accumulating through the food chain to the piscivorous

22

fish (notably grouper in this instance but also prevalent in Spanish mackerel), and finally to

humans. The toxin is not affected by either cooking or freezing (Bomber, 1991). The species

that are implicated in ciguatera outbreaks are those that are targeted for the LRFFT. Sadovy

(1999) reported that some of the Western Pacific sites being exploited proved to be sources of

significant numbers of ciguatoxic fishes, which resulted in hundreds of cases of ciguatera

poisoning in Hong Kong. Sadovy (1999) also cited a case where 10 tonnes of contaminated

fish from Fiji were imported into Hong Kong. Health authorities prevented the sale of the fish

to the public but the fish were re-exported to Mainland China.

Stewart (1999) reported an outbreak of ciguatera poisoning, which prompted some people in

Hong Kong to call for the banning of the sale of live reef fish for consumption. Thirty people,

aged two to 80, were struck down with fevers, vomiting, chills, sweat, muscle fatigue and

numbness. Stewart explained that in the previous year there was 420 ciguatera victims in 117

separate cases. Larger fish are thought to contain higher concentrations of ciguatoxins, as the

toxins are believed to accumulate with the passage of time. Sadovy (1999) noted that the

growing frequency of these outbreaks prompted health authority warnings suggesting the

consumption of smaller fish was preferable. This has resulted in dampened demand and

deflated prices for larger specimens but, concomitantly, a greater proportion of juveniles

being sold in retail outlets, which does not augur well for the long-term health of these

fisheries.

2.3 Intensive Fishing in Spawning Aggregations

The LRFFT in the South Pacific has largely been devoid of the types of destructive fishing

methods that accompanied the trade in Indonesia and the Philippines. However, intensive

fishing effort, concentrated on seasonal spawning aggregations, has a devastating effect on

recruitment of juveniles of the target species to the fishery in subsequent years. Johannes et al.

(1999) suggested that the effect of such fishing on spawning aggregations could lead to the

collapse and local extinction of the aggregations. The aggregations may take years to recover

due to problems within the spawning aggregation when the sex ratio is not conducive to

optimal spawning behaviour. In some cases, the aggregations do not recover at all. As village

communities have fished these aggregations for generations for subsistence, there is an urgent

need to the address the unsustainable commercial exploitation of these resources.

The value of the LRFFT, in combination with the paucity of alternative sources of income,

has made the trade an attractive proposition to village fishers. The trade contributes

23

significantly to the local and central economies of participating nations, but there is concern

about the impact on local ecosystems and long-term sustainability (Hamilton and Walter,

1999). The effect of exploitation of reef fish, on this scale, is not necessarily well known to

most subsistence fishers and traditional reef owners. The activities on fishing grounds have,

consequently, been focused on the vigorous exploitation of the spawning aggregations. The

timing and location, extent and duration of such aggregations is well known among fishing

communities, and the speed with which fishers are able to earn a relatively large sum of

money from fishing has encouraged many fishers to join the trade, thereby intensifying the

pressure on spawning aggregations.

In Australia, the LRFFT is practiced in what is currently believed to be a sustainable manner.

Entry in to the fishery is restricted and fishers do not, by their own volition, target spawning

aggregations. Clearly, there is a greater injection of capital into live reef fish operations in

Australia. There is greater access to research findings regarding the target species and current

management strategies from around the world. Efficient handling, storage and transport

techniques and arrangements have resulted in negligible post harvest mortality. The ease of

access to information needs has resulted in fishers making informed decisions with regard to

exploiting the resource for which they have permitted rights to access commercially.

2.3.1 Spawning Behaviour of Reef Fish

Many species aggregate to spawn. Domeier and Colin (1997 p.699) broadly defined a

spawning aggregation as “a gathering of conspecific fish, for the purposes of spawning, that

consists of fish densities significantly higher (greater than or equal to a three-fold increase)

than are found during the non-reproductive period”. Many marine fishes aggregate to spawn

according to a regime of environmental parameters (Johannes 1978; Colin et al. 1987;

Shapiro 1987). Spawning occurs in well-defined aggregation sites. Some fish travel many

kilometres from their home site to attend. The aggregations often take place at specific times

of day and at specific times in the lunar or tidal cycle and at recurring seasons every year. The

occurrence of spawning aggregations is, consequently, highly predictable (Sadovy, 1996).

It is uncertain why species aggregate to spawn. It is thought that the timing and location of

aggregations is to benefit egg dispersal and aid larvae in finding food and avoiding predation

(e.g. Doherty et al., 1985). However, Colin (1992) suggested that there is no dispersal

advantage gained from using a specific site and time to spawn. Boulert (1996) stated that

spawning sites are often located on down-current sides of reefs, promoting transport off the

24

reef, if not out of the reef system as a whole. Complex socio-behavioural structure is

associated with spawning aggregations (Zabala et al., 1997). Territoriality and a ritual, phased

arrival and departure from aggregations, occur frequently. The actual timing of egg

fertilisation within a spawning aggregation may constitute only a small percentage of the time

that the species aggregate.

Female groupers characteristically outnumber males in aggregations (Zabala et al., 1997).

However, this is generally at the peak of the aggregation when the actual spawning activity is

at the optimum level. Upon arrival at an aggregation site, male groupers aggressively establish

territory (Zabala et al., 1997; Johannes et al., 1999). Female groupers arrive several days after

the males and typically, several females attend each male. In a heavily fished passage in

Palau, however, Johannes et al. (1999) found that male Plectropomus areolatus,

uncharacteristically, outnumbered females 5:1. The courting behaviour of males included

harassment of females by several males at once, which sometimes resulted in females leaving

the aggregation site without releasing gametes. This contrasts with the courting behaviour of

males in a lightly fished passage in the same study, where females outnumbered males and

there was no such harassment. Johannes (1989) recorded the same orderly behaviour of males

within a spawning aggregation in Solomon Islands where the sex ratio was skewed in favour

of females.

Sadovy (1996) pointed out that there is a clear link between a reduction in the adult

population from heavy fishing pressure and declines in subsequent recruitment if the adult

biomass falls below critical levels. Local demographic conditions are believed to influence the

stage of development at which sex change occurs in fish. Shapiro et al. (1993) suggested that

female Epinephelus guttatus evaluated future reproductive success, and the best time to

change sex, from information that would only be available within a spawning aggregation. A

decrease in males would result in some females changing sex to compensate for the shortfall

of reproductive potential. Sadovy (1996) stated that the factors that induce sex change – either

behaviour, sex ratio or relative size (or a combination of these factors) – have been implicated

in the inducement of sex change, but never absolute size or age. These adaptive characteristics

must be seen as a mechanism of homeostasis, whereby equilibrium is maintained against

normal background variation in the sex ratio. The removal of large (male) groupers and coral

trout for the LRFFT is a shock event and cannot be compensated for, in the short term, by

such behavioural adaptation.

25

Spawning aggregations of P. areolatus, Epinephelus polyphekadion and Epinephelus

fuscoguttatus tend to overlap in time and space. Intensive fishing pressure during spawning

aggregations of these species risks serious depletion of current stocks, lower participation in

subsequent spawning aggregations, and reduced egg output from aggregations, now and in the

future. These fish display a high degree of fidelity to particular spawning aggregation sites.

Females may return to spawn at a particular site more than once in a spawning season and

males often return on numerous occasions. Female P. areolatus travel in schools for periods

before reaching and after leaving spawning aggregations, possibly as a means of minimising

predation (Johannes et al., 1999). However, fishers exploit knowledge of behaviour and

ecology, such as cyclical rhythms and migration behaviour, to maximise their catch and/or to

minimise their effort (Parrish, 1999). Targeting of female schools heading to or from

spawning aggregations could be an important source of mortality that contributes to a low

female:male ratio, thereby disrupting reproduction of P. areolatus within the aggregation

(Johannes et al., 1999).

Spawning behaviour of Plectropomus leopardus on the Great Barrier Reef, observed by Zeller

(1998), indicated that the aggregations were small and comprised several sites within a small

geographic range. Individual sites were found to be vulnerable to increased fishing pressure.

Samoilys (1997) concurred but added that the spatial and temporal predictability made the

sites amenable to specialised management such as spatial or temporal closures. Zeller (1998)

found that males spent an average of eight times as long at aggregation sites as females and

made several times as many trips to those sites. Consequently, males were considered more

vulnerable than females to fishing. Samoilys and Squire (1994) stated that P. leopardus

spawned only in pairs and found that spawning in the aggregations occurred only for a short

period at sunset. The greater vulnerability of males and the paired spawning behaviour may

increase the potential for sperm limitation in the aggregations of this species.

Disrupting normal reproductive behaviour may have a significant impact on successful

spawning and subsequent stock replenishment. The effects of fishing spawning aggregations

will depend on whether this is the only or primary avenue of reproduction for a species, and

the proportion of individuals that frequent the particular spawning sites being fished

(Samoilys and Donnelly, 2001). Tropical Atlantic or Caribbean groupers such as E. guttatus,

E. striatus and the Mycteroperca spp. appear to rely totally on short-lived spawning

aggregations which involve hundreds, sometimes thousands of individuals (Domeier and

Colin, 1997). It appears that the Pacific coral trout P. areolatus may employ a similar strategy

(Johannes et al., 1999).

26

Export of live P. leopardus from Solomon Islands is currently at a low level as the LRFFT is

practiced in regions where deepwater passages dissect barrier islands and link lagoons to the

open sea, and these commonly form the spawning aggregation sites for the three main species,

P. areolatus, E. polyphekadion and E. fuscoguttatus. However, P. leopardus is a dominant

species in the live fish markets in Hong Kong and it can be expected that the LRFFT will

expand to areas of the Solomon Islands that feature the patch reef habitat favoured by this

species for spawning.

2.3.2 The Impacts of Fishing Spawning Aggregations

Whilst aggregating fishes provide a valuable management opportunity, they are particularly

vulnerable to overfishing because of the predictability of the time and location of the

aggregations (Johannes, 1981; Bohnsack 1989a; Samoilys 1997). Targeted fishing of

spawning aggregations has been documented in Palau (Johannes 1981), Puerto Rico, Virgin

Islands, St Croix and Belize (Sadovy et al. 1994) and the collapse of grouper fisheries in these

countries has been attributed to this practice (Bohnsack 1989b; Johannes et al. 1994).

Notably, the plight of these fisheries has been illustrated by the disappearance of, or alarming

reduction in, spawning aggregations.

Most species that are exploited for the LRFFT are serranids that aggregate to spawn, and are

protogynous hermaphrodites (Shapiro, 1987; Sadovy, 1996; Johannes and Riepen, 1995;

Donnelly et al., 2000). That is, they start life as females and change into males when older

and larger. Consequently, population sex ratios are typically female biased (there are more

young individuals in a population). These biological characteristics are particularly relevant to

the impacts of the LRFFT on stock sustainability (Samoilys and Donnelly, 2001).

Sadovy (1996) stated that intensive fishing effort that focuses on spawning aggregations may

alter the structure of the aggregation, whereby spawning behaviour is disrupted, resulting in a

reduction of reproductive output. The long-term effects of intensive aggregation fishing are

largely unknown. Johannes et al. (1999) described the short-term effects of such fishing as a

sudden drastic decline in fish abundance and cited reports of disappearing spawning

aggregations of grouper throughout the Caribbean Sea. Targeting spawning aggregations in

this way can increase the likelihood of localised removal of species that may constitute a

significant component of dietary protein for local people. The aggregating behaviour of many

reef species has been a focal point for artisanal fishers. Parrish (1999) noted that fishers

27

capitalise on experiential knowledge of fish behaviour and ecology by following recurring

environmental signals. In this way, provision of food is more easily ensured.

Fishing of spawning aggregations may have adverse effects for the population structure and

reproductive potential of the target species. Jennings and Lock (1996) noted that about 50

spawning aggregation sites for the Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striata, are known in the

Caribbean. However, one third of these aggregations no longer form due to heavy fishing

pressure. Beets and Friedlander (1999) found two grouper spawning aggregations that were

eliminated by intensive fishing. Species within another intensively targeted aggregation

recorded a dramatic size decrease, while the sex ratio was highly skewed to 15 females to one

male, which indicated the potential for sperm limitation in the aggregation. Overfishing has

been implicated in the disappearance of spawning aggregations throughout the world (e.g.

Colin, 1992; Aquilar-Perera and Aguilar-Davila, 1996; Domeier and Colin, 1997). Johannes

et al. (1999) listed five locations where grouper stocks had been eliminated as a result of

fishing spawning aggregations.

2.3.3 Biological Consequences of Fishing Spawning Aggregations

Fishing in spawning aggregations can affect population structure to an extent that limits the

successful reproduction of the targeted species. Table 2.1 outlines the typical effects and the

possible management responses to minimise the effects of fishing spawning aggregations.

Table 2.1. The main effects of fishing spawning aggregations on the targeted species.

Effect Response

Removal of

gravid females

• Can be limited by using a minimum size limit, set above the size at first maturity. This is

employed to allow fish to spawn at least once; and as a safeguard against “recruitment

overfishing” (Russ, 1991), which occurs when a population is fished beyond the level at

which adequate recruitment of young can sustain the population. This is closely tied to

maintaining adequate numbers of reproductive individuals, termed the spawning stock.

• A maximum size limit may also be set to protect those individuals that are most fecund,

thereby enhancing reproductive rate. In the absence of specific fishery regulations,

removal of gravid individuals by fishing spawning aggregations is likely to be a serious

concern because the numbers removed can approach critical levels in terms of reducing

spawning stock biomass (Samoilys and Donnelly, 2001).

• Closure of fishing spawning aggregations during periods of peak spawning activity will

minimise the removal of gravid individuals from the local population and, consequently,

will also minimise the reduction of spawning stock biomass.

28

Reduction of

average fish

size/age

• The decline in average fish size or age is a response to fishing pressure caused by gear

selectivity for larger individuals. The implications of this decline are two-fold:

1. Reduced size of females will reduce overall fecundity in the population since

fecundity is strongly related to size.

2. In the case of protogynous hermaphrodites, such as most groupers, reduced size and

age of females may indicate females are changing sex earlier, which can affect the

sex ratio of the population and the spawning potential of males.

• A consequence of removal of males from the population. May be thwarted by adoption of

maximum size limits and/or temporal closures of aggregation sites to all fishing.

Reduction in

male:female

sex ratio

• Caused by selectively fishing one sex more than the other. As the males of protogynous

hermaphrodites are removed by fishing because they are larger, females change sex

earlier in compensation, to offset the change in sex ratio (Coleman et al., 1996; Vincent

and Sadovy, 1998).

• This could lead to a reduction in the average size/age of males, which may affect their

spawning potential. For example, they may be less able to establish matings in

aggregations.

• If sperm limitation (lack of males) ensues from reduced numbers of males, or less fecund

males, the spawning potential of females will also be reduced.

Adapted from Samoilys and Donnelly (2001)

The outcomes described in Table 2.2 could be expected from such effects associated with

fishing in grouper spawning aggregations:

Table 2.2. The main outcomes of fishing spawning aggregations on the targeted species.

Outcomes Description

Reduced population

fecundity

• Aggregation fishing can reduce fecundity by removing reproductively active

individuals. The fecundity of a population is closely linked to recruitment, and

hence stock productivity (Cushing, 1996).

• Since fecundity increases exponentially with fish size (Roff, 1992), maximum size

limits are particularly designed to protect the most fecund fish. Targeting spawning

aggregations directly impacts on the potential fecundity of the population.

• In the absence of resources to adequately measure total annual fecundity, the

precautionary measure best suited to maintenance of stock productivity is closure of

spawning aggregation sites during the peak spawning period.

Decreased effective • Populations can sustain a certain level of fishing mortality. However, it is the

29

population size effective population size i.e. the number of mature individuals, which are defined as

the number of individuals known, estimated or inferred to be capable of

reproduction, which is important for functional integrity of the spawning

aggregation (IUCN, 2001). Therefore, if fishing removes individuals in such a way

that the remaining mature individuals are unable to spawn then the effective

population size is smaller than the total number of mature fish present.

• If fishing heavily targets spawning aggregations they may fail to function due to the

disruption of social behaviour, generally through removal of dominant males. If

successful spawning depends on a threshold number of individuals being present in

an aggregation, for example a requisite number of males, then depletion of fish in an

aggregation below that threshold is likely to prevent spawning (IUCN, 2001).

• Although a certain number of individuals may still be present in the population as a

whole (assessed perhaps through Underwater Visual Census surveys), those

necessary for each spawning aggregation are no longer present and therefore the net

effective population size for successful reproduction is severely reduced.

Reduced population

growth

• Failed spawning opportunities through disrupting spawning behaviour may lead to

large scale reproductive failure causing reduced population growth (Coleman et al.,

1996).

• In the case of groupers, reducing the spawning population below a threshold level

may dramatically limit recruitment and the stock may collapse. However, it is

precautionary from a fisheries management perspective, to assume that they will

occur and to manage accordingly.

• Assessment of spawning populations using Underwater Visual Census surveys

allows fisheries officers to monitor the effective population size and to advise

traditional resource owners with regard to the impact of fishing effort.

Adapted from Samoilys and Donnelly (2001)

30

Chapter 3: The LRFFT in Solomon Islands

3.1 Solomon Islands Background

The Solomon Islands form an archipelago in the southwest Pacific about 1,900 kms northeast

of Australia. The terrain ranges from rugged, mountainous islands to low-lying coral atolls.

The Solomons stretch in a 1,450km chain southeast from Papua New Guinea across the Coral

Sea to Vanuatu (Figure 3.1). The islands of Choiseul, New Georgia, Santa Isabel,

Guadalcanal, Malaita, and Makira have forested mountain ranges of mainly volcanic origin,

deep narrow valleys, and coastal belts ringed by reefs. The smaller islands are atolls and

raised coral reefs. In all, there are 992 islands, 347 of which are inhabited (US State Dept.,

1999). Solomon Islands share marine boundaries with France (New Caledonia), Vanuatu,

Papua New Guinea and Australia. Maritime boundary agreements have been negotiated with

Australia, France and Papua New Guinea. The agreement with Papua New Guinea entered

into force on 14 January 1998. The boundary with Vanuatu has been agreed in principle.

3.1.1 People

Solomon Islanders comprise diverse cultures, languages, and customs. The population in 1999

was 409,042 (Kudu, 2001). Melanesians comprise 93.3 per cent of the population, while four

per cent are Polynesian and 1.5 per cent Micronesian. In addition, there are small numbers of

Europeans and Chinese. The origin of the present Melanesian inhabitants is uncertain,

although archaeological and linguistic evidence indicates that Solomon Islands was probably

settled 4,000-5,000 years ago by Austronesian, Neolithic people from southeast Asia, who

were characterised by the manufacture of distinctively stamped and incised pottery known as

Lapita (named from an excavation site in New Caledonia) (Dalzell and Adams, 1996). The

first documented European contact was made in 1568 by the Spanish explorer, Alvaro de

Mendaña. Mendaña discovered alluvial gold on Guadalcanal and, perhaps thinking he found

the source of King Solomon’s mine, named the islands the “Isles of Solomon”.

31

Figure 3.1. Solomon Islands featuring the three areas that hosted the LRFFT.

Literacy in Solomon Islands is poor compared with other Pacific countries, particularly

among women (Fono, 1999). There is limited access to secondary education (AusAid, 2000)

due mostly to transport constraints. Ninety seven per cent of children attended primary school

in 1995, but only 17 per cent attended secondary school (US State Dept., 1999). While

Solomon Islands Pijin is the lingua franca, English is widely spoken and there are about 87

local languages spoken. Some 86 per cent of the people rely on subsistence agriculture and

fishing. They reside in rural villages that generally have poor access to services and

infrastructure (ADB, 1998). Kudu (2001) reported the average household size to be 6.3

persons. Malaita, Guadalcanal, and Western provinces accounted for more than two thirds of

the rural population. Solomon Islanders are a maritime people with a high consumption of

seafood. A 1992 survey of household consumption in Honiara reported an estimated annual

per capita consumption of seafood of 45.5kg.

3.1.2 Settlement Pattern

Most people reside in small, widely dispersed settlements. Sixty percent live in localities with

fewer than 200 persons, and 15.6 per cent reside in urban areas, a figure that is increasing.

Most of the country’s villages are situated on, or very near to, the coast, and about one third

are “bush villages” with no direct access to the coast (ADB, 1998). The villages are mostly

very small. The Ministry of Finance (1997) reported the national average village population to

32

be 71, ranging from 47 in Choiseul to 111 in Western Province. Modal village population was

20 to 49 persons; only three villages had more than 1,000 inhabitants.

The capital city of Honiara, situated on Guadalcanal, has about 50,000 inhabitants. The other

principal towns are Gizo (Western), Auki (Malaita), and Kirakira (Makira). At the end of

World War II, the capital was moved from Tulagi, in Central Province, to Honiara to take

advantage of the infrastructure left behind by the U.S. military, including Henderson Field,

the site of the current international airport. In 1960, the legislative council superseded an

advisory council of Solomon Islanders, and an executive council was created as the

protectorate’s policymaking body. The council was given progressively more authority until,

in 1974, a new constitution was adopted establishing a parliamentary democracy and

ministerial system of government. In mid 1975, the name Solomon Islands officially replaced

that of British Solomon Islands Protectorate. On 2nd January 1976, the Solomons became self-

governing, and independence followed on 7th July 1978.

As in almost all Pacific Island societies, Solomon Islands consists mostly of a traditional

system of marine tenure, and this usually involves ownership of reefs and lagoons, and

sometimes a substantial portion of open ocean, by a matrix of relatively small social units

(Adams, 1998). This system is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6, with particular

reference to Marovo Lagoon, Roviana Lagoon and Ontong Java.

3.1.3 Economy

Since gaining independence in 1978, debt has been a distinguishing characteristic of the

Solomon Islands economy. Recurring budget deficits made it increasingly difficult for the

local private sector to access domestic credit, thereby opening the door for foreign investors to

exploit the nation’s natural resources – initially forestry resources then later, the substantial

tuna resource. Until 1998, when world prices for tropical timber fell steeply, timber was

Solomon Islands’ main export product, and in recent years, the nation’s forests have been

dangerously overexploited.

There is a reliance on imports for many basic commodities. Imports are financed on a narrow

base of exports (mostly timber and fish). The potential flow-on effects of unsustainable

exploitation of this export base emphasise the importance of a cautious management

approach. Solomon Islands has a large public sector and a poorly developed private sector.

Manufacturing and tourism are poorly developed and the country relies heavily on foreign

33

aid, primarily from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan and multilateral organisations

such as the Asian Development Bank, the European Union and others.

The former Interim Prime Minister, Mr Sogavare, admitted that since Independence,

successive governments had not designed a budget to seriously address rural development and

that governments must now redirect their thinking to focus on this issue. Mr Sogavare said

that over the years, projects were developed with the hope that benefits will trickle down to

the people in rural areas, which had not been the case. He said that he hoped that the new state

government system might encourage rural development (SIBC News, 7th and 10th September

2001).

3.1.4 Contemporary Political Climate

In addition to the nation’s development challenges, Solomon Islands has been beset by ethnic

tensions, which reached crisis point in mid 1999. The source of the tensions is deeply rooted

in indigenous custom and culture, with economic, social and political factors all involved.

Around 20,000 Malaitans from rural Guadalcanal were displaced from their homes and

moved back to Malaita Province by a militia group called the Isatabu Freedom Movement. In

response, a Malaitan militant group became active. Following this group’s takeover of key

installations in Honiara in June 2000, law and order deteriorated, particularly on Guadalcanal.

The then Prime Minister, Bartholomew Ulufa’alu, was forced to resign under duress, and

Parliament chose a new Prime Minister, Manasseh Sogavare. A new government, known as

the Coalition for National Unity, Reconciliation, and Peace, was formed. Solomon Islands

society and economy were massively disrupted. Major export industries closed down,

government revenues plummeted and government services were severely curtailed. In

October 2000, after months of tension and violence, the rival militia groups signed an

agreement with the Solomon Islands Government to disarm and work towards a peaceful

resolution of issues of land ownership and compensation (U.S. Department of State, 2001). In

December 2001, general elections were conducted, in the presence of international monitors,

and a new government was formed under the leadership of former Deputy Prime Minister, Sir

Alan Kemakeza.

3.1.5 Population Pressure

Population pressure is an important factor in terms of providing food for a predominantly

rural society from a resource base that is threatened with overexploitation from commercial

interests. The population of the Pacific island region has grown steadily at around 2.2 per cent

34

each year. Pacific life is still primarily rural. However, if current trends continue, the Pacific

islands’ population will reach the 10 million mark by about 2010, with the fastest growth

occurring in towns and cities (UNDP, 1996). Given the magnitude of population

developments in the region and their social, economic and political implications,

consideration of both population dynamics and development must form an integral component

of policy formulation. Solomon Islands responded to this situation by embarking on an

economic policy and structural reform strategy. The underpinning principle of the strategy is

that developmental initiatives will be population focused (Fono, 1999).

3.1.6 Population Dynamics

In Solomon Islands, the average annual population increase was less than one per cent in the

1950s and 2.4 per cent in the 1960s. It was around 3.5 per cent until the mid 1980s but has

currently stabilised at 2.8 per cent. The population has risen by more than 150 per cent since

1970 to the most recent census in 1999 (see Table 3.1). The high population growth, coupled

with the high proportion of Solomon Islanders under the age of 15 (40 percent), suggests a

continuous expansion in the labour force. It is therefore likely that unemployment will be

heavily concentrated on the young. The rate of economic growth has not been able to keep up

with the rate of population growth. Consequently, it is almost certain that a very large

proportion of the future labour force entrants must continue to seek employment in the

subsistence sector and semi-subsistence sector. The current number of people involved in paid

work is 57,472 (23 percent of the population aged 14 years and over). Unemployment among

the young is very high, with about 28,000 looking for paid employment at the time of the

census. Over the next 10 years the number of young people entering the labour market will be

close to 100,000 (Kudu, 2001).

Table 3.1. Population by province from 1970 to 1999.

Province 1970 1976 1986 1999

No. % tot. No. % tot. No. % tot. No. % tot.

Choiseul 8,017 4.98 10,349 5.26 13,569 4.76 20,008 4.89

Western 24,214 15.04 29,980 15.23 41,681 14.62 62,739 15.34

Isabel 8,653 5.37 10,420 5.29 14,616 5.13 20,421 4.99

Central 9,418 5.85 11,683 5.94 16,655 5.84 21,577 5.28

Rennell/Bellona 1,504 0.93 1,893 0.96 1,802 0.63 2,377 0.58

Guadalcanal 23,996 14.90 31,677 16.09 49,831 17.47 60,275 14.74

35

Malaita 51,722 32.13 60,043 30.51 80,032 28.06 122,620 29.98

Makira 12,390 7.70 14,891 7.57 21,796 7.64 31,006 7.58

Temotu 9,078 5.64 10,945 5.56 14,781 5.18 18,912 4.62

Honiara 12,006 7.46 14,942 7.59 30,413 10.66 49,107 12.01

TOTAL 160,998 100 196,823 100 285,176 100 409,042 100

Source: Solomon Islands Census Report, 2000.

3.1.7 Urban Migration

The average annual population growth in Honiara from 1976-1986 was 6.8 per cent. It has

since stabilised, but the current figure of 3.8 per cent does not reflect typical growth because

of the effects of displacement. Notwithstanding this, the population of the capital has more

than tripled since 1970. As a result of the ethnic tension, the population growth rate of

Malaita, which used to be the lowest of all provinces, has now become the highest with 3.3

percent per year. In comparison, the population growth rate of Guadalcanal is, with 1.5

percent per year, now far below the national average of 2.8 percent (Kudu, 2001). Migration

to urban areas places pressure on infrastructure, increasing the demand for water, sanitation,

housing, and education and health services. More importantly, perhaps, is the possible decline

in the cultural identification of a maritime people with the sea. It raises the question of why

people are leaving the villages and moving to urban areas. Is the demand for consumer goods,

utilities and services characteristic of Western society stronger than the desire to perpetuate

the traditional way of life, or are resources in decline in the rural areas such that people are

unable to meet cash needs for schooling, transport and basic commodities? A combination of

factors seems likely. Importantly, commercial exploitation of inshore resources must be

managed in a manner that generates income but does not deplete the resource itself and

exacerbate the flux of people to urban areas.

3.1.8 Religion

Christianity was brought to Solomon Islands in the 19th and early 20th centuries by

missionaries representing several Western churches: Anglican; Roman Catholic; South Seas

Evangelical; Seventh-day Adventist; and the London Missionary Society, which later became

the United Church (US State Dept, 2000). Most citizens of Solomon Islands are members of

Christian churches. Traditional indigenous religious believers, consisting primarily of the

Kwaio community on the island of Malaita, account for approximately five per cent of the

Solomon Islands population. Other groups, such as the Baha’i Faith, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the

36

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and indigenous churches that have broken away

from traditional Christian churches, account for another two per cent of the Solomon Islands

population. The doctrines of the church retain great influence in the lives of Solomon

Islanders. In a country that is overwhelmingly rural, the church plays a central role in many

village activities, ranging from schools, community groups, utilities and clinics to addressing

issues such as health and equality, religious values and community cohesion.

3.1.9 Fishing Activity

There is a well-established industrial tuna fishery in Solomon Islands. Solomon Taiyo, a joint

venture between the government and a Japanese company was established in 1973. ADB

(1994) reported that the company registered a profit only twice in the first 20 years of

operation. However, the most consistent and valuable indirect benefit of the venture was the

provision of wage employment for over 2,000 Solomon Islanders. Rural communities also

benefited from the disbursement of funds through baitfish royalty payments. The Taiyo

company withdrew from the venture due to incidents arising from the ethnic tension in late

July 2000 (Pasifik Nius, 2000). In late September 2000, the national broadcaster reported that

Taiwan would be allowed to send 42 tuna fishing boats into Solomon Island’s waters for a

year at US$8,000 per boat, a dramatic decline from the US$150,000 per boat per year

demanded by the Ulufa’alu government in mid 1999 (Radio Australia, 2000).

Most fishing, however, is for subsistence purposes, with the majority of production consumed

within the fisher’s family groups. Only relatively small amounts of fish enter the cash

economy. The Asian Development Bank (1994) estimated that subsistence and artisanal

fisheries take 11,150t of reef and lagoon fish annually, and that around 90% of this catch

(10,000t) is used for subsistence consumption. Small-scale fishers in Isabel and Malaita

Provinces provide about 75% of the fresh fish marketed in Honiara. Although Ontong Java

forms part of Malaita Province, there is no domestic marketing of finfish from the atoll. The

majority of fishing in the village sector still takes place from small dugout canoes, which are

used as a platform for droplining, trolling and netting. Other methods include hand spear

fishing and beach seining. A suite of “custom” methods is also used involving large groups of

people and sometimes incorporating natural toxic materials to stun the fish. Traditional

fishing gear is still in use in some areas, although modern gear and methods are increasingly

utilised (ADB, 1994).

37

Boape (1999) reported that small-scale commercial fisheries are only poorly or moderately

developed in Solomon Islands. There is some small-scale, semi-commercial fishing in areas

with access to cash markets, principally the market in Honiara, but this is much less extensive

in areas that are remote from urban or semi-urban markets. Intermediaries or fish traders

usually transport fish intended for sale to market by inter-island vessels. Insulated fish boxes

and ice are used during transport to Honiara. Market facilities are rudimentary. Fish is usually

sold straight from the fish boxes or open baskets or simply laid out in the open air. The

Honiara municipal market provides facilities where fishers can sell fish from their fish boxes

in a shaded area close to the sea front.

During the 1980s, more than 25 rural fishery centres were established to stimulate commercial

fishing activity in selected areas, under the Rural Fishing Enterprise Project, funded by the

European Union. The centres provided ice, and fish landing and storage facilities. However,

many of the centres have subsequently ceased to operate. When the project closed in 1998,

none of the centres could pay for the repair and maintenance of the ice plants, generators etc.

Under the latest phase of the project, which commenced in late 1999, each fisheries centre

must be financially independent from other centres, and they have to survive without subsidy.

The general concept is to achieve sustainability through private ownership of the centres by

the communities who use them. As part of this process, the centres aim to diversify,

particularly into activities that involve women. These activities include seaweed and coral

farming, aquarium fish and holding fish for the LRFFT (R. Stewart, pers. comm.).

In rural and distant outer-island areas, the production of trochus shell, bêche-de-mer and shark

fin has traditionally been more important to the small-scale sector than fishing for cash

income. Since these products are not perishable, they can be harvested and stocked without

the need for refrigeration. They command relatively high prices and the private sector has put

in place effective marketing and distribution chains for these profitable and relatively easy-to-

handle commodities. The export market is lucrative but the resources risk overexploitation as

a result of the intense commercial interest (Boape, 1999).

The growing cash dependence of rural communities made the LRFFT an attractive

commercial opportunity for village fishers in Solomon Islands. LRFFT practices in Solomon

Islands have involved intensive fishing effort, concentrated on seasonal spawning

aggregations. The effect of such fishing on spawning aggregations could lead to the collapse

and local extinction of the aggregations (Johannes et al., 1999). As village communities have

38

fished these aggregations for generations for subsistence, there is an urgent need to address

the unsustainable commercial exploitation of these resources.

3.2 Development of the LRFFT in Solomon Islands

3.2.1 Origins

An Australian invested in a Hong Kong-backed company called Ika Holdings, which started

the LRFFT in Solomon Islands, in 1994, at Vella La Vella Lagoon in Western Province

(Johannes, 1999). The company initially fished throughout the year but this proved not to be

viable. This was largely due to substantial post-harvest losses from poor handling, storage and

transportation of live fish. Pulse fishing, targeting seasonal grouper spawning aggregations

was adopted, first in Marovo Lagoon then in Roviana Lagoon. Smith (1999) noted that Ika

Holdings closed down in 1997, as a result of the Asian economic crisis, but the same people

started a new company called Asia Pacific Imports and Exports Company Ltd, owned by three

Solomon Islanders and one Australian. This company expanded the LRFFT operation to

include the remote northern atoll of Ontong Java (Figure 3.1). In Solomon Islands and other

areas of the South Pacific, the primary concern is the elimination of large spawning

aggregations of groupers, which have sustained coastal villagers for centuries, through

intensive targeting by hook-and-line fishing for the LRFFT.

Concern about the LRFFT in Solomon Islands arose in November 1997, when a foreign

investor surveyed Isabel Province for possible fishing grounds (ACIAR, 1999). The company

was issued with a license to buy a variety of marine resources from local reef owners,

including live fish (Smith, 1999). However, the vessel carried equipment consistent with that

found on-board cyanide fishing vessels in Indonesia and the Philippines. In response to

complaints from the Arnavon Marine Conservation Area Management Committee, advice was

sought, by the Solomon Islands government, from a leading tropical fisheries consultant,

which later resulted in a moratorium imposed on all new live fish export licenses, on the 6th

February 1999. The moratorium constituted “special consideration” under Section 7(5) of the

Fisheries Act 1998 (see Chapter 8), necessitating the development of a management plan for

the fishery.

Activities in the LRFFT, however, were not regularly monitored, principally because of a lack

of resources in the Solomon Islands Fisheries Division (SIFD). This resulted in a poor

understanding of the status of the fishery. This paucity of resources is exemplified by the fact

that the LRFFT was in operation for two years before SIFD became aware of it. This serves

39

also to highlight the disconnectedness that exists between government officials in Honiara and

activities in remote villages in outlying provinces. A preliminary assessment of the trade was

finally undertaken in December 1997. Problems identified included under-valuation of live

fish, under-payment for live fish, biased weighing and under-reporting of the amount of fish

exported. Primarily, fishing during spawning aggregations was the catalyst for immediate

action to develop a strategy to manage the LRFFT in Solomon Islands (ACIAR, 1999).

3.2.2 Dynamics of the LRFFT in Solomon Islands

Initially, live fish were caught by local fishers and then stored in floating holding pens, which

were usually owned by the company, but overseen by a local villager. Twice a month, the

company vessel, the John Franklin, collected the fish and transported them to the company

facilities at Liapari in Vella La Vella. The fish were then held until a quantity was collected

that was sufficient to justify ordering a large LFTV from Hong Kong to collect them,

typically 30t (Johannes, 1999).

The important food fish target species in Solomon Islands are the square-tailed coral trout

(Plectropomus areolatus), camouflage grouper (Epinephelus polyphekadion) and the flowery

grouper (E. fuscoguttatus). All three species aggregate to spawn in overlapping locations,

seasons and moon phases, but the timing of these aggregations varies among the three regions

where the trade was practiced. Another important species is the leopard coral trout (P.

leopardus). Aggregations of these species, however, are smaller and more scattered. The

beginning and end of the spawning season varies by about a month from one year to another,

so fishers stored their live catch in holding pens prior to the arrival of the LRFFT operator.

Live fish were bought from local fishers by the company at a price of SI$5.50 per kg in 1997.

In 1997, the total LRFF export was 33 tonnes see Table 3.2).

Table 3.2. Total LRFFT export in 1997.

Date Exported/Amount Exported (kg)

Mar. 2 May 24 Sept. 7 Sept l0 Total

Flowery grouper

Epinephelus fuscoguttatus

6,500

5,700

3,000

2,500

17,700

Camouflage grouper

Epinephelus polyphekadion

2,000

3,000

500

2,000

7,500

Coral trout

Mainly Plectropomus areolatus

2,000

2,500

400

2,000

6,900

40

Humphead (Maori) wrasse

Cheilinus undulatus

500

300

100

0

900

Total 11,000 11,500 4,000 6,500 33,000

Source: Solomon Islands Fisheries Division (unpublished).

The fish spawning seasons are distinct from region to region in Solomon Islands (Johannes,

1999). In Marovo Lagoon, the peak spawning season is from February through June; in

Ontong Java, the company operated from June until September; and in Roviana Lagoon, the

season is roughly from October through January. In this regard, the company was able to

operate all year and still able to target seasonal spawning aggregations.

The method of fishing for the LRFFT was hook and line and this was done from canoes.

Normally, a company employee would go around the area in a boat waiting to purchase the

fish from fishers. The operator established floating cage stations in nearby areas where they

purchased the fish. The fish were held in the cages until there were sufficient to notify Hong

Kong buyers to send a live fish vessel to collect them. Twice a month, during the fishing

season, the company vessel would tour the lagoon to pick up the live fish. The extent of the

live fish catch in the three regions where the trade operated is shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3. Live fish purchased by Ika Holdings in the Solomon Islands, 1996 - 1998.

Region 1996 1997 1998 TOTAL

(kg) (kg) (kg) (kg)

Marovo Lagoon

Telina 12,585 11,668 8,459 32,712

Vacambo 7,660 5,968 5,886 19,514

Uepi (Charapoana) 5,014 6,800 8,666 20,480

Ketoketo 43 6,874 4,823 11,740

Tamaneke 2,646 2,646

Ramata 3,036 3,036

Mbili Passage 3,469 3,469

Total 25,302 33,956 34,339 93,597

Roviana Lagoon

Sasavelle 6,529 3,368 9,897

Hapai 5,130 5,130

41

Nusahope 1,067 1,067

Total 6,529 9,564 16,093

Ontong Java

Kemalu (base) 11,071 11,071

Sunset (near Pelau) 6,594 6,594

OJ (Luaniua) 2,461 2,461

Total 20,125 20,125

TOTAL 31,831 43,520 54,464 129,815

Source: Johannes (1999)

Company purchase records (Table 3.3) are roughly comparable with those that Johannes

(1999) extrapolated from village royalty figures obtained during his preliminary assessment of

the fishery. Judging by the figures, Johannes (1999) concluded that single aggregations

yielded four to eight tonnes of fish per year. Fishers pointed out that these are underestimates

because of the many fish that died before they could be sold to the company. In addition, they

indicate that the Lumalihe Passage aggregation (fished by villagers from Telina in Marovo

Lagoon) yielded the largest catches - around 12 tonnes in l996 and l997, falling to less than

8.5 tonnes in l998.

3.2.3 Moratorium

The interim moratorium on the export of live fish was due to remain in force until a Plan of

Management for the LRFFT was completed. However, economic pressures resulting from the

ethnic tension hastened the discontinuation of the moratorium. In mid March 2001, licenses to

conduct live fish export operations were granted by the Minister for Fisheries without

adherence to due process involving consultation with specialists within the Fisheries Division.

The establishment of a Fisheries Advisory Council (FAC) is required under Section 4 of the

Fisheries Act 1998. The Council’s mandate is to advise the Minister on matters pertaining to

conservation, protection and development of fisheries in Solomon Islands. It is designed to

ensure transparency and accountability in Ministerial actions. However, in the absence of the

formation of the FAC, the moratorium was lifted.

42

3.2.4 Management Impediments

There are a number of difficulties that hamper integrated and cohesive management of the

LRFFT in Solomon Islands. There is poor communication between national and provincial

governments and between Ministries. The Foreign Investment Board, for example, issued a

fisheries-based investment license with no prior consultation with SIFD. During the

moratorium, the Western Province government issued a business license to a company called

South Pacific Live Fish and Marine Export. The company then bought live fish from fishers

in Marovo and Roviana Lagoons. South Pacific Live Fish and Marine Export is the same

group of people as Ika Holdings and Asia Pacific Imports and Exports Company Ltd. The

company also changed the name of their vessel from John Franklin to Western Star. The

company exploited administrative loopholes and government fragmentation to continue

operating on a limited scale, in anticipation of the rumoured lifting of the moratorium. On the

18th December 1999, the Western Star sank when it struck a reef outside Monggo Passage in

Marovo Lagoon. The vessel was transporting almost two tonnes of live fish from Sasavelle

Village in Roviana Lagoon to holding pens at Vacambo Village in Marovo Lagoon (Smith,

1999). The vessel has since been replaced. Reports also reached SIFD from Hong Kong that

shipments of live fish had arrived from Solomon Islands. The precise origin of these

shipments is unknown.

In Marovo and Roviana Lagoons, alternative income-generating opportunities from fishing

are not as lucrative, in the short term, as the LRFFT. Aside from weekly shipments of fish on

ice to Honiara, there is a fisheries centre in both Marovo and Roviana Lagoons. However, the

centre in Marovo Lagoon, near the airport at Seghe, is a prohibitive distance for many fishers

to travel with their catch, given that most fishers have only a wooden paddle canoe. The

fisheries centre in Roviana Lagoon is located centrally in Munda, a more populous and

developed town than Seghe. Most Roviana villages are in close proximity to Munda. Fishers

are able to sell their catch directly, and easily, to the centre. There is also a tourist resort that

buys local catch and the Solomon Taiyo cannery at Noro, which employs people from Munda

and the surrounding area. Johannes (1999) stated that fishers in Roviana Lagoon complained

that the price difference between live and dead fish was not substantial given the level of post

harvest mortality in the LRFFT. Even in Hapai, the Roviana village involved in the LRFFT

situated furthest from Munda and its markets, villagers stated that unless the company offered

higher prices, they would be unperturbed if the company did not return.

43

Following the issue of the moratorium in February 1999, there was increasing pressure from

the industry and some of the resources owners to re-open the trade. Despite the moratorium,

12.1 tonnes of fish were exported in April 1999 on a special arrangement with the Minister of

Fisheries and South Pacific Live Fish and Marine Products Limited (George Boape, Chief

Fisheries officer (licensing), pers. comm., 2001). These fish were kept at cage stations at

Ontong Java and Marovo Lagoon before the moratorium was in place.

In late November 2000, following the civil unrest in Solomon Islands, a new government took

power following the coup in June of that year. Under the new Minister of Fisheries, the

moratorium was lifted. This followed the economic turmoil that arose from the ethnic tension.

Major companies in Solomon Islands including the Solomon Taiyo Limited, Gold Ridge

Mining Company and Solomon Island Plantation Limited permanently closed down their

operations. Their closures have had a major effect on government revenue.

3.2.5 License Application Procedure

Currently, all foreign LRFFT operators wishing to establish in Solomon Islands must first

undergo a screening process by the Foreign Investment Board (FIB). Once the FIB analyses

and approves the proposal, the operator must then enter negotiations with the customary right

holders in the area in which they wish to commence operations. Negotiation includes

presentation of an operational plan, outlining the prices offered for live fish, village royalty

arrangements, net cage placement, duration of the operation, and any employment and

training arrangements. Once the resources owners are happy with the operational plan, the

two parties have to sign an agreement.

This agreement is then presented the Provincial Government, who will assess an application

for a Provincial Business License, which will allow the operator to conduct business in the

Province. In order to export the live product, however, the operator must obtain the Fish

Processing Establishment License from the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. This

will enable them to export overseas either by sea or air. The procedure, if properly adhered to,

places the customary resource owner as the pivotal decision maker in the issue of licenses to

export live fish from Solomon Islands.

3.2.6 Status of the LRFFT as at the end of 2001

At the end of 2001, three live fish export licenses were issued to different operators for a

duration of one year. These companies are:

44

� Pacific Supplies Limited;

� Philma Export Fisheries; and

� Williams International.

Two Solomon Island Chinese citizens own Pacific Supplies Limited, formally known as Ika

Holdings and Asia Pacific Imports and Exports Company Ltd. The company engaged a carrier

boat named MV Charter Wide Investment from Hong Kong to purchase fish. The company

was granted a Western Provincial Business License after signing of an agreement between the

company and the Roviana communities of Sasavele and Nusahope. Pacific Supplies Limited

was also to negotiate with another two villages in Rendova, south of the main Western

Province island of New Georgia (Figure 3.1), where an agreement was signed with the village

elders of Agagana and Kegolo villages. Pacific Supplies Limited then negotiated agreements

with chiefs from the Roviana communities of Saikile, Olive and Araroso to establish live

fishing activities in their territorial waters. Fishing is due to commence in earnest during the

seasonal spawning aggregations in Roviana Lagoon.

Philma Export Fisheries is owned by an Australian and a Solomon Islands national. They

own a vessel named MV Sovereign. The company has licenses to operate in Western and

Temotu provinces. MV Sovereign operated in Marovo Lagoon, Western Province, after

negotiating an agreement with some of the reef owners to start purchasing fish. These are

mainly villages surrounding Mbili, Monggo and Charapoanna passages. Philma Export

Fisheries purchased the target species for $25.00 per fish at any size and bycatch at a lower

price. Approval for MV Sovereign to purchase live fish in Marovo Lagoon was later

withdrawn due to disputes among resource owners. Philma Export Fisheries’ license is still

valid for live fish export operations but they no longer purchase fish in Western Province. The

company plans to return to Temotu province in time to operate during the spawning

aggregation season.

The only Company that is yet to operate is Williams International, owned by two other

Solomon Chinese citizens and will eventually operate in Isabel Province.

3.2.7 Status of Spawning Aggregations: Marovo Lagoon

In February 2000, Lyle Squire, an experienced and highly regarded tropical fisheries

consultant assessed the status of three spawning aggregation sites, located in deep water

channels in Marovo Lagoon, where it was known that LRFFT activity had centred. He

adopted the technique of Underwater Visual Census (UVC), which is commonly used to

45

provide rapid estimates of relative abundance, biomass and length frequency distribution of

reef fish (Samoilys, 1997). After consulting local fishers in regard to the timing of the

aggregations, the survey was carried out on the new moon, which is consistent with the timing

of aggregations from a major study in Palau (Johannes et al., 1999). The assessment focused

on the three main species targeted for the LRFFT in Solomon Islands - Plectropomus

areolatus, Epinephelus fuscoguttatus and E. polyphekadion. A female P. areolatus was caught

and the gonads inspected for eggs to confirm that the fish were forming a spawning

aggregation and not a feeding aggregation. Two of the passages were too long to do in a

single dive. These sites were dived at separate times on separate days. Table 3.4 records the

counts from this assessment.

Table 3.4. Counts from first UVC assessment, conducted on the new moon.

Passage Date P. areolatus E. fuscoguttatus E. polyphekadion

Charapoanna 1-2/2/2000 140 50 60

Monggo 3-4/2/2000 18 16 8

Lolomo 5/2/2000 78 0 38

Data Source: Lyle Squire

The counts were very low and individuals of all species were very small, which are indicative

of overfishing. All three species showed a change in the normal sex ratio, in that males were

absent from the UVC counts. From Mr Squire’s UVC experience, gained in other spawning

aggregation sites throughout the Indo-Pacific region, he strongly recommend that the sites be

closed to all forms of fishing and allowed to recuperate and that if the recommendation were

not carried out, it would be realistic to see a total collapse of the fishery in the near future.

These results were conveyed to senior members of the Ministry. However, owing to a

disagreement over the actual timing of grouper spawning aggregations, a powerful minority

group pointed out that the numbers obtained from the UVC during new moon were low

because of the timing of the counts and that the assessment should be conducted on the full

moon.

Due to disturbing findings from the counts obtained at the new moon lunar phase, it was

decided to conduct a reassessment on the full moon lunar phase. A full UVC operation was

carried out at the next full moon lunar phase.

Table 3.5. Counts from second UVC assessment, conducted on the full moon.

46

Passage Date P. areolatus E. fuscoguttatus E. polyphekadion

Charapoanna 23 and 26/2/00 42 24 18

Monggo 25/2/00 1 0 2

Lolomo 24/2/00 1 0 0

Data Source: Lyle Squire

As indicated by the data in Table 3.5, the low counts at the full moon lunar phase confirmed

that the actual spawning time was at the lunar phase of the new moon. The numbers of fish

were lower than the previous assessment and the fish that were seen were not exhibiting any

signs of spawning behaviour. Mr Squire reiterated his recommendation that fishing be stopped

at all three spawning aggregation sites immediately, as fish stocks were showing signs of low

recruitment and imbalanced sex ratios.

47

Chapter 4: Fisheries Management Framework in Solomon Islands

Attempts by central fisheries authorities to order traditional fishing communities to follow

regulations with which they do not necessarily concur, has inevitably resulted in non-

compliance. At the institutional level, fisheries departments are a fairly new development in

the Pacific Islands region. The oldest dedicated colonial Government fisheries services came

into being in the late 1950s. Community policies on fisheries management usually have

somewhat less recent origins (Adams, 1998). Pacific Island communities, in general, have a

much stronger proprietary or custodial attitude to marine resources than most other societies,

even in cases where ownership of resources has been officially assumed by the state (Adams

and Ledua, 1997).

Fisheries authorities in the Pacific are often hindered by a paucity of financial resources and

enforcement is, consequently, minimal. Dalzell et al. (1996) stated, however, that in many

countries, despite varying levels of government “interference”, local communities have

continued to manage local fisheries, particularly the non-commercial food fin-fish that still

make up the majority of the catch from Pacific Island coastal waters. Local level, common

property type systems of marine tenure regulate access to, and use of, resources, and as such

function as fisheries management systems (Hviding and Baines, 1994). Such systems of

customary marine tenure define the property rights of marine resource owners, such that the

owners accrue all the benefits from the resource but are equally responsible for any detriment

that is caused. Traditional owners, consequently, have a vested interest in managing their

marine estate efficiently and in a sustainable manner (Donnelly et al., 2000).

In Solomon Islands, Hviding (1996) described the traditional regulations imposed on fishing

rights holders within each customarily held estate of land and sea in Marovo Lagoon. Specific

prohibitions concerning types of fish or certain fishing grounds were explicitly announced and

enforced by clan leaders at any time, sometimes for a duration of several years. These

prohibitions, or spiritually sanctioned taboos, were defined as hope. The general fishing

taboo, hope chinaba, applied to all types of fishing in an area of reef marked by raised sticks.

This would be imposed by a chief in preparation for a large feast or simply as a response to

localized overfishing. Hope chinaba involved a rotation among taboo and non-taboo reefs and

such rotational closures practiced today are a continuation of these ancient taboos.

Occasionally hope chinaba was applied to the channels in Marovo lagoon to protect spawning

aggregations when the community considered the aggregations required some protection.

48

Please refer to Section 4.3) for a more detailed description of the structure of customary

marine resource management in the three study areas in Solomon Islands.

Explicit management of exploitation of spawning aggregations in Solomon Islands today

arose from concern about fish stocks targeted for the LRFFT. From his assessment of the

LRFFT in Marovo Lagoon, Johannes (1999) reported that Michi villagers, the primary owners

of Charopoana Passage, declared that due to the heavy depletion of grouper spawning

aggregations perceived to have been brought about by the LRFFT, they proposed to close the

passage to all commercial fishing immediately. They hoped to be able to work with a nearby

resort at Uepi Island to make the passage and the area around it into a marine protected area.

Similarly the villagers of Rukutu, primary owners of Lumalihe Passage said they intended to

close this passage to commercial fishing for the same reason. Ownership of this passage has

been the subject of legal proceedings, with the villagers from Telina also claiming ownership.

The people of Ramata are primary owners of three passages (Ramata, Lolomo and Pipa) in

which grouper spawning aggregations occur. In 1998, they opened Ramata Passage to LRF

fishing. Out of a desire to protect their aggregations from overfishing, they are considering in

future years to open two out of the three passages for one year, then only one the following

year, then two again, and so on. Similar protection of spawning aggregations has occurred in

Palau. For some years seasonal closures have been enforced by local government authorities

on certain spawning aggregations considered to be overfished (Johannes et al., 1999). This is

the only known case of formal protection of spawning aggregations in the Pacific. The

Queensland Fisheries Service in Australia has proposed seasonal closures for the protection of

spawning aggregations, though it has not yet been legislated (QFMA 1999).

A permanent no-take sanctuary has been established by the Pelau community in Ontong Java,

an important conservation initiative that has come from the community leaders. It therefore

has a high level of local acceptance and community ownership. In areas where limited

government resources do not permit the effective policing of reserves, and where awareness

of tradition precludes the imposition of such measures without full agreement, the long-term

moratorium, as used traditionally in many Pacific Island societies, can fulfill many of the

ecological functions of a formal marine protected area. If ownership or local use rights are not

extinguished, and if the owner community can maintain control over the disposition of any

resultant benefits, the prospects for compliance are greatly increased, and the owning

community itself would carry out most of the protection (Adams and Ledua, 1997).

49

Traditional knowledge and long established management methods do not necessarily adapt

readily to the evolution of cash economies, rapid population growth, new export markets,

commercial fishing and advances in fishing gear technology. However, the pressure that these

changes exert on marine resources hastens demand for management measures to be

implemented. The success of precautionary and adaptive management initiatives in Vanuatu

(Johannes, 1998), based on education and cooperation with traditional resource owners,

emphasizes the need to integrate centralized (i.e. government) and community based

management regimes. Johannes (1998) found that depletion of trochus resources on near

shore reefs due to commercial pressure was denying villagers a vital source of cash income.

An education initiative was conducted by the Fisheries Division that focused on reproductive

biology of the species and management measures appropriate for their sustainable exploitation

– refugia, minimum sizes, seasonal closures etc. In the face of depletion of other species,

villagers enthusiastically sought further information that might be applied to other fisheries

within their marine estates.

In Solomon Islands, local fishers largely adhere to customary tenure and access rights.

Outside investors are obligated to obtain permission from traditional resource owners prior to

the commencement of commercial resource exploitation. The basis for integrated co-

management of fisheries resources is, therefore, well established.

4.1 Legal Framework for the Management of the LRFFT

4.1.1 International Conventions and Instruments

Solomon Islands is a party to a number of international conventions, which impact on the

conservation and management of fisheries resources. In addition to these, there are a number

of international instruments, which although not legally binding, are widely accepted as

principles that have significant moral persuasion in the management and conservation of

fisheries resources. The most pertinent conventions and instruments are outlined in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1. International conventions and instruments that apply to LRFFT management.

International Conventions Implications for LRFFT Management

1982 United Nations

Convention on the Law of

the Sea

• Imposes an obligation on States to conserve fisheries resources (Art 61) and

to protect and preserve the marine environment (Art 192).

• Gives coastal States considerable discretion in establishing measures that

would achieve the conservation obligations of UNCLOS, including

50

regulation of seasons and areas of fishing (Art 62(4)).

UN Fish Stocks Agreement • Application of the precautionary approach (Art 5(c)).

• Adoption of conservation and management measures for species belonging

to the same ecosystem, associated with or dependent upon the target stocks,

with a view to maintaining or restoring populations of such species above

levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened (Art

5(e)).

• Adoption of plans necessary to ensure the conservation of such species and

to protect habitats of special concern (Art 6(3)(d)).

1992 Convention on

Biological Diversity

• Sustainable use of “biological resources” includes “genetic resources,

organisms or parts thereof, populations, or any other biotic component of

ecosystems with actual or potential use value for humanity” (Art 2).

• Obliges States to identify and monitor “species and communities that are

threatened” and to adopt sound measures to act as incentives to the

conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity (Art 11).

International Instruments Implications for LRFFT Management

Chapter 17 of the Agenda 21

Programme of Action for

Sustainable Development

• Asserts approaches to management and development that are “integrated in

content and are precautionary and anticipatory in ambit”.

• Involve individuals, groups or organisations in planning and decision

making steps (paragraph. 17.5(b)).

FAO Code of Conduct for

Responsible Fishing

• Maintenance of the quality, diversity and availability of fishery resources in

sufficient quantities for present and future generations in the context of food

security, poverty alleviation and sustainable development (Art 5).

• Obliges States to facilitate the adoption of fisheries practices that avoid

conflict among fisheries resource users, and between them and other users of

the coastal area (Art 10.1.4).

Jakarta Mandate on Marine

and Coastal Biological

Diversity 1995

• Development of marine protected areas for conservation and sustainable

resource use.

• Monitoring of status and threats.

Kyoto Declaration and Plan

of Action on the Sustainable

Contribution of Fisheries to

Food Security 1995

• Emphasises the importance of fisheries as a food source for the world’s

population, particularly relevant in that reef fish is a major source of protein

for Solomon Islanders.

Adapted from Aqorau (2001)

51

4.1.2 National Framework for the Management of the LRFFT

The National legal framework consists of Acts of Parliament and Ministerial Regulations,

which are outline in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2. National framework for the conservation and management of the LRFFT.

National Legislation Implications for LRFFT Management

Fisheries Act 1998 Main legislative framework – see detailed description below.

Environment Act 1998 Requires developers (in the fishing & marine industry) to submit an

application to carry out any prescribed development. Once approved, the

developer must submit an EIS (§17).

Foreign Investment Act (Cap. 142) Foreign investors are required to apply to the Foreign Investment Board

for approval to conduct business in the LRFFT (§5)

Customs and Excise Act (Cap. 121) Has an implication for the LRFFT, especially in monitoring the volume of

exports and, potentially, the value of exports from Solomon Islands.

Adapted from Aqorau (2001)

4.1.3 The Fisheries Act 1998

Solomon Islands Fisheries Act 1998 is one of the most innovative and comprehensive

fisheries legislation in the South Pacific region. The Act sets out the objective of fisheries

management and development as the:

“long-term conservation and the sustainable utilisation of the fishery resources for

the benefit of the people of Solomon Islands” (§3)

This principle objective contrasts sharply with that of the previous Fisheries Act of 1972,

which emphasised maximum exploitation of marine resources. The 1998 Act applies modern

values of responsible fisheries management and introduces a new approach to fisheries

management through the formulation of fisheries management and development plans (§7)

stipulating the precautionary approach be applied to the conservation, management and

exploitation of fisheries resources and preservation of the marine environment (§11). The Act

calls for the formulation of a fisheries management and development plan if the:

“situation with respect to a single fishery or fishery management area is such as to

require special consideration, in respect of fisheries management or development

including specification of licensing programs or limitations of catch or effort,

52

special provisions may be made for such fishery or fishery management area

within the framework of a plan under subsection (1) or (2) or as a supplement to

the plan (§7(5)).

The moratorium, imposed on all new live fish export licenses, on the 6th February 1999

signified such ‘special consideration’ and necessitated the formulation of a management and

development plan for the LRFFT based fishery.

The Fisheries Act 1998 limits the powers of the Minister for Fisheries by requiring the

Minister to comply with strict principles for conservation and management of fisheries

resources (§4), including respect for customary fishing rights holders (§12). Importantly, in

recognition of the range of groups affected by fisheries related decisions, the Act adopts an

integrated approach to fisheries management by the establishment of a Fisheries Advisory

Council (§5), whose membership encompasses the major stakeholders in the fishery. The

purpose of the Council is to make the decision-making process for the Minister more wide-

ranging and transparent. Salient points from the Act that apply to management of the LRFFT

are presented in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3. Components of the Fisheries Act 1998 that are relevant to the management of the

LRFFT .

Component Description

Principles of

Conservation and

Management

Under §4 of the Fisheries Act, the Minister must have regard to:

• §4(a) The principle that Solomon Islands fisheries resources shall be managed,

developed and conserved so as to ensure, through proper conservation and

management measures, the maintenance of those resources is not endangered by

overexploitation, and that those resources are utilised at a level, which ensures their

optimum sustainable yield;

• (b) The principle that marine biodiversity, coastal and aquatic environments of

Solomon Islands shall be protected and managed in a sustainable manner;

• (c) The application of the precautionary approach shall be applied to the conservation,

management and exploitation of fisheries resources in order to protect the fisheries

resources and preserve the marine environment;

• (d) The sustainable utilisation of Solomon Islands fisheries resources so as to achieve

economic growth, human resource development, employment creation and a sound

ecological balance, consistent with its National development objectives;

• (g) Any customary rights of customary rights holders over or in relation to any area

within Solomon Islands waters; and

53

• (h) Respect for any fisheries management and development plans made in accordance

with the Fisheries Act 1998.

Fisheries

Management and

Development Plans

Fisheries Management and Development Plans must be prepared in accordance with the

foregoing principles. The Act provides some guidelines on the content of such plans

(§8)(1)). The plans must:

• §8(1)(a) Identify the fishery and its characteristics, including its current state of

exploitation;

• (b) Specify the objective to be achieved in the management of the fishery;

• (c) Specify the management and development strategies to be adopted for the fishery,

and the limitations, if any, to be applied to the issue of licenses in respect of the

fishery;

• (d) Identify any possible adverse environmental effects of the operation of fishing

activities in the fishery, together with proposals for the management of those effects;

• (e) Specify the information and other data required to be given or reported for

effective management and development; and

• (f) Take into account any relevant traditional fishing methods.

Role of Provincial

Governments

Under §7(2) of the Act, each Provincial government must prepare a management and

development plan for LRFFT operations in their Provincial waters, pursuant to a

designation of ‘special consideration’ under §7(5).

Under §10 of the Act, each Provincial government may make Ordinances not inconsistent

with the Act for the regulation of fisheries within its Provincial waters. Such ordinances

may provide for any or all of the following:

• §10(3)(a) Measures for the development of fisheries in Provincial waters and the

approval of fisheries development projects;

• (b) The registration or recording of customary fishing rights, their boundaries and the

persons or groups entitled under those rights;

• (c) Open and closed seasons for fishing for all or any species of fish or other aquatic

organisms in all or any areas of Provincial waters, based on scientific advice;

• (d) The closure of areas in which fishing for all or any species of fish or other aquatic

organisms may be prohibited;

• (e) Prescribing the minimum species sizes for all or any species of fish or other

aquatic organisms caught and retained or collected in all or any fisheries management

areas in Provincial waters;

• (g) Prohibiting specified methods of fishing that are harmful to fisheries and the

environment, or the use of specified types of fishing gear in Provincial waters; and

• (h) The establishment and protection of marine reserves.

54

Customary Fishing

Rights

• §12(1) the Act stipulates that commercial fishing, in waters subject to customary

fishing rights be carried out subject to such rights. Compensation may be claimed for

breaches of customary fishing rights (§12(3)).

Import and Export

of Live Fish

• §32 of the Act prohibits the import and export of live fish without the consent of the

Director. Persons seeking to import or export live fish must provide an environmental

impact statement (EIS). Where live fish is exported, the EIS should show the impact

of harvesting of live fish on the fishery resources.

• Under §59, the Minister may make regulations prescribing the prohibition or

regulation of the export of specified species of fish, other aquatic organisms and fish,

or other aquatic organism products and fish products.

Enforcement • Fisheries Officers, Police Officers and Provincial officers are empowered under §37

of the Act to stop, board and search any fishing vessel or fishing processing

establishment or premises, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Act has been

contravened.

• The enforcement powers under the Act are fairly broad and wide-ranging. For

instance, authorised officers may arrest a vessel outside Solomon Islands waters

without a warrant following pursuit.

(adapted from Aqorau, 2001 and Smith (unpublished), 1999).

4.2 Administrative Framework

Resource management is a shared responsibility between the National Government and

Provincial Governments, excluding Honiara. The demarcation of authority is spatially

determined. Under the Provincial Government Act 1997, Province’s have responsibility for all

fisheries except tuna, up to three nautical miles from each island in the Province. The LRFFT

would therefore be subject to Provincial Government Ordinances if the trade were confined to

Provincial waters. The LRFFT, however, traverses Provincial and National Government

jurisdiction. It is, consequently, not feasible for one body to manage the fishery at the

exclusion of the other (Aqorau, 2001).

4.2.1 Fisheries Division

The Fisheries Division of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources is responsible for

ensuring the sustainable development and management of Solomon Island’s living marine

resources. The Division is structured in three sections. The responsibilities attached to each

division are outlined in Table 4.4.

55

Table 4.4. Structure and responsibilities of the Solomon Islands Fisheries Division.

Section Responsibilities

Research and Resource

Management

• Provides technical and scientific advice to government on all aspects of

subsistence, artisanal and commercial fisheries development and

management, and has responsibility in these matters for both domestic and

foreign fishing.

• Undertakes resource assessment surveys relevant to the monitoring of

exploited stocks.

Licensing, Surveillance and

Enforcement

• Responsible for the licensing of fishing vessels and fish processing

establishments.

• In the case of vessels with foreign interests, licenses can only be issued by

the Section following approval of the proposed arrangement by the Foreign

Investment Board. Such vessels must also be registered in the Regional

Register maintained by the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency.

Provincial Development and

Extension Services

• Manages the development and management of rural fisheries, mostly

through the maintenance of fisheries centres.

• A number of externally funded projects come under the Section’s

responsibility. Such projects have included the OFCF-sponsored Coastal

Bottom Fish Fishery Development Project, the EU-sponsored Rural Fishing

Enterprises Project, a Canadian-sponsored project to establish rural fishing

cooperatives, a USAID-funded Rural Fishing and Marketing Project, and a

Japan International Cooperation Association-funded project aimed at

improving national fish marketing.

Fisheries Division’s role is to administer the live fishery and to work in collaboration with

Provincial Fisheries and traditional resource owners. Duties include, but are not limited to:

• Administration of licensing;

• Administration of fees and charges;

• Secretariat for Fisheries Advisory Committee and sub-committees;

• Data collection and management;

• Coordination of observer program;

• Training and operation of a spawning aggregation monitoring program;

• Carry out community extension for best-practice, including live fish handling, storage and

transportation to minimise post harvest losses;

• Encourage the use of marine protected areas;

56

• Provide advice to resource owners who wish to enter into a formal agreement with a live

reef fish export company to strengthen their ability to negotiate with foreign dealers;

• Collaborate with resource owners and Provincial Fisheries on enforcement of license

conditions and Reef Owner Agreement conditions; and

• Encourage the development of airfreight transport of live fish.

The ethnic tension (described in Chapter 3 Section 3.1.4) that beset sections of the Solomon

Island severely depleted the capacity of the Fisheries Division to maintain a presence in the

field for monitoring and performance both of the fishery and of the resource. However, upon

the resumption of social and economic stability, it is hoped that part of the international

assistance to Solomon Islands will include the resources necessary for the Fisheries Division

to undertake the duties and responsibilities listed above.

4.3 Customary Resource Management in Solomon Islands

4.3.1 Customary Marine Tenure System

In traditional Solomon Islands communities, the concept of fisheries management is well

known, and practised extensively. The system of customary marine tenure, more commonly

understood as traditional rights or customary law, promotes management at the tribal level

(Kilé et al., 2000). Hviding (1989) described “customary” as referring to a system that

emerges from firmly traditional roots, that constitutes part of what is often termed ‘customary

law’, and which has continuous links with local history as it adapts to changing contemporary

circumstances. He added that, in the context of the customary marine tenure system, “marine”

refers to reefs, lagoons, coasts, and open sea, as well as islands and islets contained in the

overall sea space, and that “tenure” refers to a social process of interacting activities

concerning control over territory and access to resources.

At the institutional level, fisheries departments are a fairly new development in the Pacific

Islands region. The oldest dedicated colonial government fisheries services came into being

during the late 1950s (Adams, 1998). Colonial governments attempted to extinguish the

custom of resource or reef ownership in many islands, installing instead the western model of

the marine commons, with ultimate ownership vested in the State. Such attempts have proved

largely ineffective. Legal rights have been gravely weakened in many places, but rights are

still exercised at the practical level. Many modern industrial fishery managers now embrace

the concept of fishery resource ownership as being possibly the only mechanism that will

mitigate the potential for future overfishing whilst being compatible with a market-regulated

57

economy (Adams and Ledua, 1997). Johannes and Riepen (1995) stated that, outside of

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, the only places where effective control over exploitation of

marine resources is being exercised are those where customary marine tenure or some other

form of local control over such activities exists.

In Solomon Islands, customary marine tenure evolved from the lack of indigenous separation

of land and sea spheres of ownership (Aswani, 1997). The guardianship of resources of

specific areas of barrier reefs, lagoon and open sea form part of the territorial rights that are

associated with ties to a particular kindred group. Access rights to marine resources are

dependent upon the strength of the kindred association. An important aspect of customary

marine tenure is the recognition that primary rights owners - people with a recognised tie,

through descent, filiation, marriage, or at least permanent residence (Hviding, 1996) -

formulate and enforce management of their own marine territory (Fong, 1994).

Tribal property rights usually extend from the forested inland to the outer extremity of reefs.

Customary marine tenure embraces far more than just fishing rights, and its functions range

beyond the organisation of economic activities (Hviding and Ruddle, 1991). In Solomon

Islands, customary marine tenure forms part of the framework that regulates social and

political relationships and defines cultural identities (Kilé et al., 2000). Local fishers largely

adhere to customary tenure and access rights. Outside investors are required to obtain

permission from traditional resource owners prior to the commencement of commercial

resource exploitation.

4.3.2 Village Decision-Making Systems

Village decision-making is vested in the chiefs and elders who have responsibility for running

the daily activities of the villages. There is a village headman in each village. In larger

villages and tribes (more than 600 people), there is a Paramount Chief, who will usually work

with at least 10 others. This group comprises the House of Chiefs for that village or area. In

smaller villages, a village ‘organiser’ is responsible for the everyday activities of the village.

The organiser must be the chief of the village or an “original” person of that village (Kilé et

al., 2000).

Marovo Lagoon

In Marovo Lagoon, the village chief, known as the “Bangara”, rules the chiefly system, which

covers certain areas of ‘Puava’, including land, islands and reefs (Hviding, 1988). ‘Puava’

58

traditionally referred to soil or land, but in the Marovo language it is now used to mean all

land and marine areas of a ‘Butubutu’. The word ‘Butubutu’ means relations or relatives

either living together or blood-tied.

With its five languages and 11,000 people, Marovo Lagoon has several Houses of Chiefs that

rule on matters ranging from small disputes to more serious land disputes and hearings on

timber rights (Kilé et al., 2000). Marovo Bangaras exact considerable respect from their

people. Bangaras have the ‘nginira’ or the ‘power to speak’ about the Puava (Hviding, 1996)

when it comes to commercial development or investment opportunities such as tourism,

commercial fishing, agricultural development or logging. This gives the Bangara the right to

dictate decisions as he wishes.

Religion plays a very important role in village decision-making in Marovo. There are two

main Christian denominations: Seventh Day Adventists and the Methodists/United Church;

and a smaller number of the Christian Fellowship Church in the north of the lagoon. A

proportion of villager’s income is spent on church contributions and people sacrifice a

considerable amount of their time undertaking church activities (see Chapter 4 Section 4.5.6).

Raising money to meet church targets and for the attendance of children at church schools

increases the demand for cash from village fishers.

Fishing for food or local consumption in Marovo Lagoon is unregulated, especially within an

individual’s ‘Puava’ (Hviding, 1996). Disputes occur when fishing happens within an area of

seasonal closure, or nearby to someone else’s village. The Marovo Bangaras have exclusive

rights to marine resources within their tribal area. Consequently, they control the type of use

and development that they prefer. They have the final say on resource use and management,

although they are only custodians to the Butubutus or relatives (Kilé et al., 2000).

Chiefs deal with minor conflicts and disputes but the police and the higher courts are called to

deal with more severe cases. Marovo chiefs also have a local court system that sits to hear

preliminary cases, with such hearings chaired by a President and recorded by a National

Magistrate Clerk.

Roviana Lagoon

Roviana Lagoon is the most cosmopolitan of the regions studied, with a developed township

(Munda), domestic airport and access to markets. Areas in and around Munda comprise

tribally integrated communities. Decision-making in Roviana is democratic rather than

59

autocratic. Tribal leaders appoint their own chiefs through merit, while also having a tribal

committee to take care of tribal affairs. Each village has a village council that comprises the

chief plus elders and young chiefs. The council discusses matters before bringing the village

together to hear what was decided (Kilé et al., 2000).

Roviana people follow the decisions of the Bangara in relation to the taking of marine

resources, and in relation to the type of fishing gear that can be utilised. The decisions made

are communicated to both outsiders and village members, and may include directives on

where fishing is permitted and at what times. Most local people know which parts of the sea

area belongs to which tribe and, consequently, individuals know where to fish, as well as

which places they must seek permission from the chiefs to access (Kilé et al., 2000). Fishing

for subsistence by outside groups is also usually allowed.

The tribal reefs and other in-shore areas contain different fish species that are specific and

important to individual tribes for special purposes. For example, the members of the tribe will

know when and where certain fish species aggregate, or at what lunar phase catches of

different species will be high. From this traditional knowledge about species, types of habitat

and fishing areas, local people are able to demarcate tribal fishing grounds. In Roviana, there

are several hundred fishing grounds owned by the tribes that are within and near the Lagoon

(Aswani, 1997).

Roviana chiefs have their own system of handling domestic conflicts and disputes through a

House of Chief’s court system. Settling of disputes and conflicts occurs almost daily, and is a

tradition that dates back to the headhunting days. Land disputes and tribal conflicts are,

however, dealt with primarily at the village level by the chiefs or through a chiefs’ hearing,

which is conducted by a group of chiefs appointed under the national legal system to hear

such cases. Village chiefs deal with only minor conflicts and disputes but they take the

initiative in reporting severe cases to the higher courts or the police for further action. Today,

Customary Law is not as strong as in the past because it is much easier to report the case to

the Police at Munda (Kilé et al., 2000).

Ontong Java

In Ontong Java there are two Houses of Chiefs, one in each of the principal villages of Pelau

and Luaniua. Luaniua has 13 chiefs, including the two high chiefs who control most of the

power in the community. The high chiefs of Luaniua are called “Keku’u”. The high chiefs

have a very strong say in both the running of the community and the administration of its sea

60

and land resources. Pelau also has a Paramount Chief and an assistant chief, with the

Paramount Chief again called “Keku’u”. These chiefs have identical powers to those in

Luaniua. Pelau also has a House of Chiefs, which in combination with the Luaniua House of

Chiefs comprises the Council of Chiefs for Ontong Java. The Council of Chiefs will hold a

meeting at any time in response to a request from any Keku’u.

Politically, Ontong Java elects a provincial member who represents the community of the

atoll in the Provincial government. At the national level, the member for the Malaita Outer

Islands represents Ontong Java. The elected national member can act only as an adviser to the

Keku’us. Religion plays a very important role in Luaniua village. One of the chiefs is also the

chairman of the church committee, with the village adhering to the Anglican faith - more

commonly called the Church of Melanesia in Solomon Islands. In addition to religious values,

the churches have also contributed to awareness raising in relation to such matters as gender,

social and cultural issues (Kilé et al., 2000).

Based on advice and information gathered from the community, the Keku’u in Ontong Java

decide on the type of fishing activities that should be employed. Certain fishing areas or

habitats are suited to different types of fishing techniques and the chief and his house will

decide which techniques will be employed in which areas. There are certain areas where the

chief will not allow netting, night diving, or spearing while other areas will be designated as

no-take zones. Bans placed on the exploitation of marine resources are the result of

cooperation between the Pelau Keku’u and the Luaniua Keku’u. The Council of Chiefs meets

to discuss the proposed ban on the harvesting of certain resources. They may also decide on

other matters affecting both communities (Kilé et al., 2000).

The Keku’us in the Houses of Chiefs on Ontong Java exercise the right of Custom Law and

implement it when dealing with conflicts and disputes. Based on this power, the chiefs may

also create by-laws to suit the community. The Keku’us have the right to punish those who

transgress Customary Law, and to impose fines according to such law. The chiefs make

special efforts to communicate the requirements of Customary Laws to the community.

Response from the Ontong Java communities shows that Customary Law is more closely

adhered to than National Law (World Bank, 1998). However, for serious criminal cases

requiring a magistrate, the Council of Chiefs will refer the case to Auki, the provincial

headquarters, or to Honiara, the national capital.

61

4.3.3 Effectiveness of Customary Fisheries Management

Kilé et al. (2000) stated that although customary marine tenure in the South Pacific may be

referred to as systems of “traditional resource management”, based on “customary law”, this

does not mean that such systems are static and rigid. Rather, tradition is a system of

knowledge and rules that has strong roots in local history and experience and which is

unwritten and uncodified, thereby allowing for flexibility in adapting to changing social,

political, economic or ecological circumstances. Far from being overwhelmed by

commercialisation and resource scarcity, the customary marine tenure systems appears to

have considerable capacity for handling and adapting to new circumstances, thereby

becoming potentially important tools in the contemporary management of fisheries.

This adaptability was demonstrated most poignantly in Ontong Java, where adherence to

custom law is strongest of the three study areas. The Council of Chiefs imposed a customary

closure or “tabu”, which is a practice that restricts the use of certain resources for

conservation purposes. They imposed an alternating 12-month ban on the harvest of bêche-de-

mer and trochus, beginning in 1991, due to apparent over-exploitation.

The growing demand for cash, combined with high population growth in Ontong Java, places

additional pressure on resources and the leadership of the resource owners. Notwithstanding

this, the Pelau House of Chiefs has established a no-take conservation area, comprising two

islands, a lagoon and fringing reef. It has a high level of local acceptance and community

ownership. The Pelau House of Chiefs also rejected the operational terms of the LRFFT

operator, even though the revenue from the fishery was highly sought. This autonomy is an

essential component of community-based co-management of the LRFFT in Solomon Islands.

4.3.4 Integration with Centralised Management

While customary management systems have much to offer to the management of inshore

fisheries such as the LRFFT, they tend to come under increased pressure when commercial

considerations become significant. Pressure from outside entrepreneurs, coupled with the

desire for increased cash incomes at the village level, have the potential to undermine

customary marine tenure and management systems. It is for this reason that supporting

government legislation is important to the management of the resources in question.

Furthermore, the government has an important role in the education of village fishers who

may not fully understand the medium and long-term impacts of certain fishing practices, such

as the targeting of spawning aggregations.

62

Legally established and endorsed community empowerment, coupled with clearly defined

property rights of traditional resource owners in relation to access to, and use of, resources

within traditional marine estates affords custom owners security of tenure. This provides

owners with the incentive to manage their marine resources in a sustainable manner. It also

relieves centralised fisheries authorities of the often-insurmountable task of comprehensive

enforcement of regulations. Traditional owners, bypassing the data-intensive, quantitative

models that typify the basis for modern fisheries management decision-making, can

implement management initiatives on a highly specific basis.

In Solomon Islands, traditional resource owners are eager to control access to, and use of,

resources within their marine estates, and to manage those resources in a sustainable manner.

However, these traditional owners require government support in the form of appropriate

legislation, education and assistance with legal arrangements. The bipartisan transfer of

technology, between decision-makers in clan-based groups and from government, is pivotal to

the establishment of appropriate policy and management guidelines.

4.4 Community-based Co-management

Pacific Islands economies are in a state of flux. One of the economic changes involves a

gradual transformation from subsistence fisheries to commercial fisheries. Currently, around

three-quarters of the coastal fishery products landed in the Pacific Islands do not enter the

cash economy, but find their way directly onto the tables of families in villages. As the cash

economy broadens, however, marine resources are one of the first ways that rural people can

develop incomes. However, traditional fishery governance systems are not geared to

entrepreneurial development, and many of the most commercially feasible reef resources are

ecologically fragile (Adams, 1997).

Centralised fisheries authorities, often a legacy of colonial occupation, assumed that access to

fishing in the sea was unrestricted and, as such, there was no incentive for an individual to

limit fishing effort. Fisheries management has, consequently, focused heavily on imposing

restrictions on fishing effort to prevent what was often seen as the inevitable overfishing and

depletion of fish stocks. Most Pacific islands, however, have small fisheries administrations,

with little research capacity to gather the comprehensive information required for

management. Consequently, centralised coastal fisheries management in much of the South

Pacific is largely based on intuition rather than on collected observations and experience.

Johannes (1994) argued that this very problem is an opportunity to seek a new paradigm for

63

fisheries management in the South Pacific - one that is not based on the conventional

approach of intensive data gathering and analysis, but based on self-reinforcing feedback

systems at the local level. Community-based approaches to management essentially involve

‘bottom-up’ or ‘grass-root’ planning. This means that communities would be involved in

determining fisheries management measures, supervising their implementation and invoking

penalties when management measures and guidelines are ignored (Doulman, 1992).

Research in recent years, into the widespread existence of local-level common property type

systems of marine tenure, has challenged the view of conventional fisheries management.

Such systems regulate access to and use of resources, thereby acting as fisheries management

systems (Hviding and Baines, 1994), Today, it is widely recognised, in the wake of degraded

inshore habitats and depleted fish stocks, that conventional fisheries management has largely

failed. Hviding (1996) stated that traditional reef-and-lagoon fisheries in Oceania are

invariably regulated by customary marine tenure. This relates partly to an apparent lack of

cognitive dichotomy between land and sea that characterises the region. Throughout Oceania,

both types of environment are usually considered subgroups of the same main category. This

represents the most striking difference between management ideologies in the Pacific and

those found elsewhere, where a dichotomy does exist and it is often contrasted as ‘regulated

land’ versus ‘unregulated sea’. The land-sea continuum contained within the estates of clan

groups reflects a lack of disengagement between humans and their environment. Both

environments are seen as necessary for the sustenance of clan members. This has fundamental

implications for daily human practice in using the environment, in a context whereby a proper

meal must contain the fruits of both land and sea.

Adams (1998) stated that almost all nations throughout the South Pacific practice some form

of localised stewardship over land and sea resources. This usually involves ownership of reefs

and lagoons, and sometimes a substantial portion of open sea, by a matrix of relatively small

social units. Community management of resources is usually beneficial to subsistence reef

fisheries because it operates at the scale of the individual reef. In small-island countries,

where almost all members of the local community make full and regular use of reef resources,

anomalies and trends are quickly spotted and corrective action can be quickly taken (Adams,

1996). Doulman (1992) observed that the exclusive right to use in-shore fisheries resources,

combined with communal decision making about their management, engenders a natural

concern for their proper use.

64

Prohibitions on the types of fish that could be caught and prohibitions on specific fishing

grounds have been practiced for many generations. Hviding (1996) stated that, in Morovo

Lagoon for example, there were closures in preparation for ceremonial feasts such as those

connected with funerary rites and there were closures whereby areas of reef would be opened

and closed on a rotational basis. These closures are likely to be a response to localised

overfishing. Johannes (1988) stated that marine resources have always existed in quantities

surplus to the requirements of the local population. There was little conservation ethic due to

little exploitative pressure exerted on the resources. Therefore, when an export market

develops and places added pressure on resources, fishers are often unaware of the

vulnerability of the resources to overexploitation.

Customary marine tenure is not the only factor that determines whether a commercial fishery

is managed effectively. Such cases demand integration of modern and traditional management

in order to reinstate a functional property rights structure, underwritten by appropriate

legislation. Management decisions are influenced by economic pressures and constraints,

which in turn are contingent on the price obtainable for the resource; the effort required in

obtaining the resource and then marketing it. Management is also informed by fishers’

knowledge of the biology, ecology and population dynamics of the target species (Johannes

1982). Such local knowledge may comprise several different categories of information, each

of which may be useful to the management of a fishery. Johannes (1998b) noted that this

intimacy with the local resource base forms a dataless, but up-to-date and cost effective way

of monitoring the status of fishery resources, whereby management prescriptions can be

applied quickly and highly specifically to a particular area.

4.4.1 Successes and Failures

In other countries, where declining fish stocks have necessitated action on behalf of

centralised fisheries management, compliance with management initiatives has relied heavily

on integration with traditional management systems.

In Samoa, King and Fa’asili (1999) found that village groups were willing to partition areas of

their marine estate as fish reserves in key habitat areas in an effort to mitigate stock decline.

Villagers undertook monitoring and enforcement of management initiatives because the

degree of benefit and detriment to their own resource base was their responsibility. An

important limitation should be noted in this case in that villagers, conscious of not

endangering their ability to provide food for their families, often chose areas of degraded reef

65

or of little conservation value to partition. This serves to highlight the need for the integration

of community level awareness raising in such projects.

Fa’asili and Kelekolo (1999) noted that cessation of destructive fishing techniques and

overexploitation of marine resources in Samoa was best achieved by the development of

village fisheries by-laws, formulated mainly by the villagers themselves. The most important

processes were found to be monitoring and enforcement. Breaches of such by-laws within the

village were dealt with using traditional fines of pigs and taro etc. Breaches from outside the

village community were dealt with through a court of law.

Johannes (1998a) detailed the complexity of traditional rights to marine tenure in Vanuatu.

More than 100 language groups adopt differing resource tenure customs. However, exercising

the right to exclude outsiders and to regulate activities on fishing grounds is intensifying.

Declining fish stocks heightened the urgency with which traditional owners sought to protect

marine resources within their estate. The emergence of a number of invertebrate species as

important exportable resources challenged the traditional management system concerning

sustainable exploitation. A process of cooperative management arose whereby the Fisheries

Department of Vanuatu provided advice concerning life histories and population dynamics to

resource owners, who subsequently, monitored the resource inventory and regulated the level

of exploitation within the boundaries of their own tenure.

Adams (1996) outlined the linkage between community and government in Fiji. The

government formally recognises the right of communities to recommend restrictions on

fishing gear, area, or target species on any license. The government then records the

boundaries of traditional fishing rights areas, and mediates the settlement of such boundaries

by agreement between neighbouring communities, or any changes that might subsequently

ensue. The community can formally nominate one of its number to be an honorary fish

warden, with powers to investigate fishing occurring within that area and to escort suspected

offenders to the nearest authority. Government fisheries officers cannot issue a fishing license

to any person who has not already obtained the written permission of the representative of the

customary fishing rights area where the intention is to fish. A separate permit must be

obtained for each such target area, each of which may apply a different set of access

conditions. There are also regular general meetings between the community administration

and government officers, at which fisheries management issues can be discussed.

66

Johannes (1998b) pointed out that traditional management systems were data-less and yet the

prescribed management measures of seasonal closures, size restrictions and restricted entry

were no different from that which is prescribed today. He noted that the data needed for

management were often not cost effective to generate, especially when the coastline is of a

prohibitive length. Traditional knowledge and long established management methods do not

necessarily adapt readily to the evolution of cash economies, rapid population growth, new

export markets, commercial fishing and advances in fishing gear technology. However, the

pressure that these changes exert on marine resources hastens demand for management

measures to be implemented. The success of precautionary and adaptive management

initiatives in Vanuatu (Johannes, 1998a) and Fiji (Fong, 1994), based on education and

cooperation with traditional resource owners, emphasises the need to integrate centralised and

community based management regimes.

Adams and Ledua (1997) point out that the Pacific Islands region is probably a lot further

along the path of effective coastal fisheries management and conservation than most other

tropical developing regions. Coastal fisheries over much of Southeast Asia are suffering from

excessive population pressure and widespread use of damaging fishing methods, and several

island food fisheries in the Caribbean are said to have collapsed. Many developing regions are

moving towards community measures and integrative co-management of artisanal fisheries of

a kind that is already practised over much of the Pacific.

67

Chapter 5: Socio-economics and the Impact of the LRFFT in Solomon

Islands

5.1 Introduction

Coral reef resources are coming under increasing pressure from human activities. This is an

issue of considerable urgency in countries where people depend on reefs for subsistence and

commercial fisheries. However, the lure of short-term financial gain, through export entry into

the international market place, has sometimes resulted in behaviour that adversely affects the

health of reef ecosystems. The diminished ability of reef ecosystems to sustain coastal

communities can result in some level of social upheaval. Coral reef degradation in the

Philippines, for example, has reduced rural food security, diminished income possibilities, and

increased malnutrition, unemployment and urban migration (Alvarez, 1996). The human

dimension of reef resource management must, therefore, play an important role in planning

the management initiatives that guide the extent to which such resources can be exploited.

5.2 Scope and Limitations of this Study

Village households in Marovo Lagoon, Roviana Lagoon and Ontong Java were surveyed to

determine the impact, if any, of the LRFFT on the social and economic environment in the

villages. The questionnaire used in this survey is included as Appendix 1. The survey

questions were based on information gathered during a pilot survey in Ontong Java and

Marovo Lagoon in late 1999 (see Appendix 2). The survey was conducted in a one-on-one

interview basis with a household member who answered questions on behalf of his or her

household. Questions compare activities conducted during the LRFFT to 1999 when there

was no LRFFT.

The questionnaire was designed in English. The Solomon Islands based research officer (RO)

then translated the questionnaire to Pijin in Marovo Lagoon. In Roviana Lagoon, the RO

conducted the survey in his native Roviana language, and then recorded responses in English.

The survey in Ontong Java was conducted by a replacement for the RO. For this arm of the

survey, it was necessary for a local assistant to be appointed so that the RO’s replacement

could read the survey and the assistant could translate the question into the Ontong Java

language then translate the response back to Pijin for recording in English. Every effort was

68

made to monitor the accuracy of responses to questions but it is expected that some

misinterpretation occurred. Overall, the data is presented with a high level of confidence.

The timing of the household survey was designed to coincide with the known spawning

season of the key target species. In this way, it was anticipated that the research team could be

on hand to supervise a creel survey. However, as a consequence of the February 1999

moratorium on the issue of new licenses to export live fish, no opportunity existed for a creel

survey. This negated the need to time the survey in this way. It became necessary to attain

fishing catch and effort data by means of the household questionnaire only. In this regard, it is

expected that fishing effort data can be presented with a high level of confidence but fishing

catch data should be used as a guide. The survey was rescheduled further to keep the project

active during the height of the ethnic tension, which is discussed in Chapter 3 (Section 3.1.3).

There was no LRFFT activity during the period of the survey, including the pilot survey.

5.3 Components of the Survey

The overall aim of the survey is to assess the impact on villagers of the LRFFT in Solomon

Islands during the period of its operation, prior to the imposition of a moratorium. The study

seeks to describe the prevailing socio-economic conditions in the three study regions and

draw comparisons between village life with, and without, the presence of a LRFFT. The

questionnaire was divided into six sections. The following section outlines the aims and

objectives for each section.

5.3.1 Activities of the household

Aim: To determine the impact on household activities, the division of labour, family and

community life that accompanied participation in the LRFFT.

Objective: Compare the amount of time that men and women in a household spent on various

tasks during the LRFFT and in the absence of the LRFFT.

5.3.2 Fishing Effort

Aim: To determine the impact on the pattern of fishing activity and the provision of

household catch that accompanied participation in the LRFFT.

Objective: Compare the weekly household fishing effort in the absence of the LRFFT to the

fishing effort exerted for the LRFFT.

69

5.3.3 Catch of LRFFT Target Species

Aim: To determine the proportion of the catch that comprises species targeted for the LRFFT.

Objective: Quantify the overall catch and the proportion of groupers in the catch whilst

fishing for the LRFFT and during 1999 in the absence of the LRFFT.

Objective: Quantify the proportion of by-catch whilst fishing for the LRFFT.

5.3.4 Patterns of Consumption of LRFFT Species

Aim: To determine the importance of key target species to the diet of village households.

Objective: Compare the frequency of household consumption of LRFFT target species.

5.3.5 Income and Expenditure

Aim: To determine the sources of villager’s income and the pattern of expenditure.

Objective: Describe the income and expenditure activity of village households.

Objective: Quantify the extent to which each nominated income and expenditure source

affects villagers.

5.3.6 Perceptions of Importance

Aim: To gauge villager’s perceptions on the relative importance of issues pertaining to, and

arising from participation in, and management of, the LRFFT.

Objective: Compare villagers’ perceptions on the importance of issues ranging from spawning

aggregations (in terms of exploitation and protection) and fisheries co-management, to the

maintenance of customary management systems.

5.4 Methods

5.4.1 Survey Implementation and Analysis

The survey sought to gain an understanding of socio-economic activities and perceptions from

villagers at the household level. Consequently, a fixed proportion of 25 per cent of the total

number of households was targeted from every village in each of the three areas previously

70

described. The survey was conducted prior to the completion of the report arising from the

1999 Census. Consequently, an estimate of the number of households in larger villages was

taken from the 1986 Census, together with consultation with local villagers. There were 252

households surveyed in Marovo Lagoon, 128 in Roviana Lagoon, and 100 in Ontong Java.

The questionnaire comprised six sections. Respondents were first asked some rudimentary

demographic questions relating to age, religion and whether or not they participated in the

LRFFT, after which the questionnaire followed the format outlined in the foregoing

‘Components of the Survey’ section.

Results were analysed and interpreted on two levels: on an inter-regional scale and on an

intra-regional scale whereby lagoons were divided, either by terms of religious affiliation (e.g.

Marovo Lagoon where Church teachings provide a basis for some of the organisational and

economic variation between communities), or by chiefly estates (e.g. Roviana Lagoon) and

clan-based estates (Ontong Java). Results were discussed in terms of:

� Perceived Necessity for the LRFFT

� Impact of the LRFFT on Village Households

� The Chilled Fishery

� Significance of the LRFFT Target Species

� Income Opportunities and the Cost of Living

� The Resource and its Management

The survey data were analysed using SPSS, a statistical package that includes analyses

appropriate for the social sciences. In order to understand the nature of socio-economic

activity in the three study areas, it was decided to adopt primarily descriptive statistics.

5.5 Inter-regional Results

5.5.1 Sample Description

A relatively basic subsistence culture and limited, but expanding, reliance on the cash

economy characterises the three study areas. Housing is typically in small dwellings in coastal

villages with relatively large households, as illustrated in Table 4.1. Limited income earning

opportunities exist and this prompted willing participation in the LRFFT, especially in

Ontong Java where isolation limits access to markets, particularly for the finfish resource.

71

Income and expenditure characteristics were separated into percentile ranges so that the

minority that earned and spent small and large sums did not overly affect the average income

and expenditure of the majority. Table 5.1 indicates that people in Roviana Lagoon earned

more in each percentile range than the other regions. Income from participation in the LRFFT

was found to be highest in Marovo Lagoon when viewed as a percentage of total income in

each percentile range. In the higher income bracket, Marovo fishers in the LRFFT earned, on

average, about 40 percent of the average total income in that bracket.

Bycatch from the LRFFT was highest in Ontong Java where the company bought little more

than half of the catch from fishers. Most of the bycatch in Marovo and Roviana Lagoons was

taken back to villages for consumption. In Ontong Java, the bycatch was mostly taken to

remote camps in close proximity to deepwater passages where fishers consumed what they

could. Participants in the LRFFT seek a large increase in payment for live fish relative to that

previously received. Fishers from Marovo and Roviana Lagoons also seek large increases in

the village royalty component relative to that previously received.

Table 5.1. Characteristics of the sample in the three study areas.

Marovo Lagoon Roviana Lagoon Ontong Java

% Households Surveyed 25 25 25

No. Respondents 252 (52.5% of total) 128 (26.7% of total) 100 (20.8% of total)

Av. Size of Household 6.6 7.3 6.4

Av. Age of Respondent 41.9 38.7 40.7

Fished in the LRFFT 115 (45.6% of ML tot.) 65 (50.8% of RL total) 65 (65.0% of OJ total)

Mean Income and Expend - 1999 Income Expend. Income Expend. Income Expend.

0% to 25% range ($SI) 853 1,676 4,235 2,017 1,134 1,662

25% to 75% ($SI) 4,984 4,097 9,117 4,558 4,437 3,610

75% to 100% range ($SI) 14,352 9,049 18,451 9,249 14,851 8,424

Mean Income and Expend - LRFFT Income Expend. Income Expend. Income Expend.

0% to 25% range ($SI) 123 9 269 38 132 55

25% to 75% ($SI) 665 56 1,106 103 528 150

75% to 100% range ($SI) 4,400 540 4,234 260 2,286 375

LRFFT Bycatch

% of the catch that Co. bought

Mean

64.3

Mean

70.9

Mean

55.9

Bycatch use (%) Mean Mean Mean

Taken to the village 57.7 63.1 28.0

Eaten at fishers camp 12.7 20.2 60.3

Sold at a market 10.0 9.4 0.0

72

Fed to captive live fish 4.5 1.7 3.3

Discarded 2.1 1.5 3.1

Released 0.0 2.8 5.4

Price Responsiveness Median Median Median

Co. should pay the fisher ($SI/kg) 20.00 20.00 25.00

Co. should pay the village ($SI/kg) 20.00 18.00 5.00

5.5.2 Activities of the Household

Figure 5.1. Householder participation and mean hours spent per week conducting particular

activities in the presence, and absence, of the LRFFT.

Marovo Lagoon - Men

0

20

40

60

80

100

Gardening Repairs Art Copra Teaching Church

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n (

%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1999 % LRFFT % 1999 Hrs/wk LRFFT Hrs/wk

Roviana Lagoon - Men

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n (

%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Ontong Java - Men

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n (

%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Marovo Lagoon - Women

0

20

40

60

80

100


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ho

urs

pe

r W

ee

k

1999 % LRFFT % LRFFT Hrs/wk LRFFT Hrs/wk

Roviana Lagoon - Women

0

20

40

60

80

100


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ho

urs

pe

r W

ee

k


Ontong Java - Women

0

20

40

60

80

100


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ho

urs

pe

r W

ee

k


73

NB. Sample size pertaining to Figure 5.1.

n Men Women

1999 LRFFT 1999 LRFFT

Marovo Lagoon 249 91 250 51

Roviana Lagoon 127 65 128 47

Ontong Java 100 65 94 62

Respondents were asked the average number of hours per day, and the number of days per

week, that a man and a woman from within their household carried out nominated household

activities. This central question was divided into two parts:

1. During 1999 when there was no LRFFT in operation; and

2. During the LRFFT

An important limitation in these data was identified. The respondent could sometimes only

guess the amount of time spent on activities by other members of the household. This was

particularly apparent when men who participated in the LRFFT established a camp on an

island away from the village and were, hence, absent from witnessing the activity of women.

This scenario also applied in reverse. To circumvent this, most activities with a perceived

gender bias were removed. These activities included “Cooking”, “Household Chores” and

“Mat Weaving”. “Collecting Firewood” was excluded on the advice that this activity often

coincided with gardening. “House Repairs” was included despite the implication of the

activity as a male role. This was because men are mostly involved in the fishing activity and a

substantial increase in fishing might result in less time dedicated to the repair of the relatively

high maintenance dwellings that typify those in the villages.

In regard to measuring the amount of time dedicated to certain household activities, the

number of responses of zero hours per week was used to deduce the level of participation in

the particular activities asked of respondents. For example, 2.8 percent of Marovo men

responded zero hours per week dedicated to gardening in 1999. Consequently, the level of

participation in that activity is reported as 97.2 percent. The number of hours per week

presented in Figure 5.1 represents the mean number of hours per week for those that

participated in that activity.

In Marovo Lagoon, it is clear that both the level of participation in everyday household

activities and the number of hours dedicated per week were substantially reduced during the

operation of the LRFFT. This is more apparent for men than for women even though women

74

also participated in the LRFFT. Participation of Marovo men in gardening and farming during

the LRFFT was just over half that of 1999 and the amount of time dedicated to the activity

was also halved. The participation rate of Marovo women in gardening during the LRFFT fell

by about 35 percent. However, those that did participate spent only marginally less time. Time

spent conducting house repairs by Marovo men more than halved and the number of those

that did repair the house fell by 40 percent. Art and craft, symbolic of Marovo Lagoon, was

practiced by about 20 percent of Marovo men, compared to about 45 percent in 1999. Men

spent 10 hours per week less on their carving during the LRFFT. It is instructive to note that

marked differences exist between the amounts of time dedicated to traditional carving in

different areas within the lagoon. Please refer to Chapter 6 (Section 6.2.1) for a more detailed

examination. There was no difference for either men or women in the time dedicated to

teaching children traditional knowledge or attending to Church activities, however the rate of

participation in this activity declined during the LRFFT.

Householders in Roviana Lagoon experienced similar impacts from the LRFFT to people

from Marovo Lagoon. All nominated activities recorded a decline in the rate of participation

during the LRFFT, compared with that in 1999. Copra production, carried out by about 45

percent of respondents, fell to less than 10 percent during the LRFFT and those that did

produce copra dedicated about half as many hours per week during the LRFFT. Half as many

men, and less than half as many women, carried out house repairs during the LRFFT as they

did outside the LRFFT period. The average amount of time that men dedicated to house

repairs fell steeply from more than 12 hours per week in 1999 to less than two hours per week

during the LRFFT period. Participation rates for women teaching children traditional

knowledge and attending Church activities were affected by the occurrence of the LRFFT to a

greater extent than men, although the trade made little impact on the time dedicated to these

activities by those that did participate.

Participation in household activities by men in Ontong Java was greatly affected by the

presence of the LRFFT. All six nominated activities recorded substantial declines in

participation on behalf of the men of the household. The number of hours per week dedicated

to activities by those that did participate demonstrated little alteration to 1999. More time was

dedicated to repairing the house during the LRFFT by those that participated, than in 1999.

The atoll’s copra production declined sharply during the LRFFT with participation falling

from 84 percent to just 20 percent during the LRFFT.

75


Respondents were asked questions regarding, firstly, fishing activity during 1999 when there

was no LRFFT in operation. Fishing activity in 1999 was divided into two sections:

1. Household catch

2. Chilled fish to Honiara

Each of these sections was then further divided into two distinct periods within 1999:

I. During the known spawning period of LRFFT target species; and

II. Outside of this period.

Confusion arose from this division (between I and II). Consequently, most data for 1999

pertained to the year as a whole with no division, vis-à-vis, in or out of spawning season.

Insufficient data for the 1999 spawning period meant that those data could not be used to

analyse seasonal differences in fishing effort.

During the LRFFT, it was common practice to return to the village with fish that were not

bought by the operator. When groups of fishers established a camp away from the village,

they would return to the village on weekends and take any remaining bycatch with them.

During this time, there was little fishing activity, by those participating in the LRFFT,

specifically for the household. For this reason, a measure of comparison between fishing

activity in 1999 (household fishery) and for the LRFFT was recorded. Results of this

comparison are presented in Table 5.2.

Table 5.2. Comparison of fishing effort in 1999 and during the LRFFT.

No. householders No. trips/wk No. hrs/trip No. hrs/wk

1999 LRFFT 1999 LRFFT 1999 LRFFT 1999 LRFFT

Marovo n 252 115 247 112 244 113 244 111

Lagoon Mean 2.9 2.24 3.2 4.5 2.7 6.9 8.1 32.0

Median 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 24.0

Roviana n 128 65 127 65 128 65 127 65

Lagoon Mean 2.7 1.8 3.6 4.5 2.5 6.3 9.0 29.2

Median 2.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 6.0 8.0 25.0

Ontong n 100 65 97 65 97 65 97 65

Java Mean 1.3 1.3 2.6 5.2 5.2 8.0 13.7 43.3

Median 1.0 1.0 2.0 6.0 5.0 8.0 12.0 48.0

76

Table 5.2 indicates that fishers in Ontong Java exerted greater average individual fishing

effort, for both the household fishery and for the LRFFT, than individual fishers in either

Marovo or Roviana Lagoons. However, the number of household members that participated

in either fishery in Ontong Java was about half of the number that fished in Marovo and

Roviana Lagoons. There was a dramatic increase, in all three regions, in weekly fishing

activity during the operation of the LRFFT, compared with fishing activity in 1999. This

three-fold increase was, again, most substantial in Ontong Java where weekly fishing effort

left little time for the conduct of other activities in the household and village. Nearly a quarter

of respondents from Ontong Java reported an average duration of 10 hours per trip during the

LRFFT and one in five respondents recorded having spent 60 hours per week fishing in the

trade.

The eskies fishery (which exports chilled fish to Honiara) in Marovo Lagoon was found to

play a major role in the overall fishing activity of village fishers. Table 5.3 indicates that just

under half of the respondents fished in the eskies fishery. More than 70 per cent of households

that participated in the fishery did so with one or two members, and just fewer than 90 per

cent of these fished one or two trips per week at an average of around eight hours per trip. In

Roviana Lagoon, the fishery played a minor role with about 15 percent of respondents

indicating that they participated. Those that did, however, dedicated approximately one full

day per week to the fishery. Fishers in Ontong Java did not participate in the chilled finfish

fishery.

Table 5.3. Fishing effort in the fishery that ships chilled fish in eskies to Honiara.

Eskies fishery in 1999 Part. (%) Months H/holders Trips/wk Hrs/trip Hrs/wk

Marovo Lagoon n 49.2 125 124 122 125 122

Mean 6. 9 2.3 1.6 7.7 11.6

Median 6.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 11.0

Roviana Lagoon n 14.8 19 19 17 20 16

Mean 7.2 1.7 1.1 8.0 8.4

Median 8.0 1.0 1.0 8.0 8.0

Ontong Java n 0.0 0 0 0 0 0

77

5.5.4 Fishing Catch

Respondents were asked questions regarding fishing catch in 1999 and during the LRFFT that

corresponded with the questions regarding fishing effort. The questions were designed to

ascertain the number of fish caught per fishing trip and the number of groupers (rock cods and

coral trouts – note that photographs of these species were shown to respondents – that were

caught per fishing trip. This was done to ascertain the proportion of the total catch that

comprises species commonly targeted for the LRFFT. Questions regarding catch for 1999

related to:

1. Household catch

a) Number of fish caught

b) Number of groupers caught

2. Chilled fish to Honiara

a) Number of fish caught

b) Number of groupers caught

Each of these sections was then further divided into two distinct periods within 1999:

I. During the known spawning period of LRFFT target species; and

II. Outside of this period.

Confusion arose from this division (between I and II). Consequently, most data for 1999

pertained to the year as a whole with no differentiation with regard to spawning season.

Insufficient data for the 1999 spawning period meant that those data could not be used to

analyse seasonal differences in catch. Inconsistency in the data collection resulted in a poor

data set for fishing catch in Marovo Lagoon. This is due, in part, to a small change to the

questionnaire after a design fault led to grossly exaggerated recollections of catch in the early

part of the survey.

Table 5.4 indicates that fishers in Ontong Java caught substantially more fish than did fishers

in either of the other two regions. However, the proportion of groupers in the household catch

was highest in Marovo Lagoon (25 per cent of the median score), with Ontong Java recording

just 15 per cent of the median score for total catch.

78

Consistent with data presented for fishing effort, a measure of comparison between fishing

catch in 1999 (household fishery) and for the LRFFT was recorded. The results of this

comparison (Table 5.4) indicate that fishers in Ontong Java catch substantially more fish per

trip than fishers in either Marovo or Roviana Lagoons but the proportion of groupers caught is

greater in both Marovo and Roviana Lagoons. The median number of groupers caught per trip

during the operation of the LRFFT varied little between the three regions but the grouper

proportion of the total catch was markedly less in Ontong Java during this period. This

proportion increased greatly during the LRFFT from that experienced in 1999 in all three

study areas.

Table 5.4. Comparison of total catch, and the component of which were groupers, between

fishing activity in 1999 and during the LRFFT.

Total fish caught per trip Groupers caught per trip Grouper proportion of catch

1999 LRFFT 1999 LRFFT 1999 LRFFT

Marovo n 76 15 75 15

Lagoon Mean 15.1 11.9 4.0 10.7 26.6% 89.9%

Median 12.0 10.0 3.0 9.0

Roviana n 127 65 127 65

Lagoon Mean 11.3 11.9 2.7 9.1 24.3% 96.0%

Median 10.0 12.0 2.0 9.0

Ontong n 97 65 97 65

Java Mean 21.4 30.7 3.8 14.7 17.9% 47.8%

Median 20.0 30.0 3.0 10.0

Fishers participating in the chilled finfish fishery in Marovo and Roviana Lagoons in 1999

reported similar catch rates of around 20 fish per trip. The proportion of groupers in this catch

was slightly higher in Marovo Lagoon (Table 5.5) but, in both regions, this proportion was

low relative to that experienced during the LRFFT.

Table 5.5. Total catch and proportion of the catch comprising groupers in the chilled fishery.

Eskies Fishery - 1999 Total fish caught per trip Groupers caught per trip Grouper proportion of catch

n 38 38

Mean 24.2 4.8 19.8%

Marovo

Lagoon

Median 20.0 4.0

n 20 20

Mean 19.4 2.5 12.6%

Roviana

Lagoon

Median 18.0 3.0

79

Ontong Java n 0 0

5.5.5 Frequency of Consumption of LRFFT Target Species

Respondents were asked questions relating to how often they eat particular fish species.

Photographs of grouper species commonly targeted for the LRFFT were shown to

respondents in order to circumvent problems associated with localised nomenclature. These

questions were designed to ascertain the importance of target species to the diet of villagers in

each region. Respondents were also asked to nominate the frequency with which they

consume these species during the known spawning season with a view to gauging whether the

occurrence of seasonal spawning aggregations altered the dietary habits of villagers.

Results reported in Figure 5.2 utilised responses of “Never” to deduce the percentage of the

sample that eat the LRFFT target species; and those that responded with “Everyday”, “Four or

five times per week”, “Two or three times per week” and “Once per week” to form a category

called “Daily-to-Weekly”, which was used to illustrate frequent consumption of the species in

question.

A striking feature of the pattern of consumption of key LRFFT species in Marovo Lagoon,

illustrated in Figure 5.2, is that whilst about two thirds of respondents reported that the three

main species (Plectropomus areolatus, Epinephelus polyphekadion and E. fuscoguttatus)

feature in their diet, only about 20 percent declared that these species feature one or more

times per week. This pattern remained static regardless of the occurrence of seasonal

spawning aggregations.

Consumption of species that do not feature in as great abundance in live fish exports from

Solomon Islands (P. leopardus, Variola louti and P. oligacanthus) did not feature

prominently in the diet of Marovo respondents. Around 50 percent of respondents reported

that these three species feature in their diet but only about five percent said that they

frequently eat them, regardless of spawning aggregations.

Almost all respondents from Roviana Lagoon (95 percent) reported that the three main

species feature in their diets (Figure 5.2). There was a substantial increase in the frequency of

consumption in the presence of seasonal spawning aggregations. Three quarters of Roviana

respondents reported eating P. areolatus and E. fuscoguttatus at least once per week during

the spawning season. About 60 percent consumed E. polyphekadion at least once per week

during this period. Outside of the spawning season, frequent consumption of P. areolatus fell

80

to 45 percent and just under 40 percent for E. fuscoguttatus and about a quarter of Roviana

respondents reported consuming E. polyphekadion at least once per week.

P. leopardus featured in the diet of three quarters of Roviana respondents. However, frequent

consumption of this species was restricted to 15 percent of respondents during the spawning

season and just six percent outside of this period. More than three quarters of Roviana

respondents indicated that V. louti did not feature in their diet at all, regardless of season. No

respondents reported eating this species, or P. oligacanthus, on a regular basis.

More than three quarters of respondents from Ontong Java reported that the three main

LRFFT target species feature in their diet. It is, however, instructive to note that substantial

differences exist in the dietary importance of LRFFT target species between different areas

within the atoll’s lagoon (refer to Chapter 8 (Section 8.2.5) for a more detailed examination of

this topic). During the spawning season, P. areolatus and E. fuscoguttatus form an integral

part of villager’s diet, with two thirds of respondents reporting eating them at least once per

week and more than half reporting the same frequency for E. polyphekadion. The frequency

of consumption of these species is markedly lower outside of the spawning season, when one

quarter of respondents reported eating P. areolatus at least once per week; 30 percent ate E.

polyphekadion on a regular basis; and slightly more than 35 percent ate E. fuscoguttatus at

least once per week.

Two thirds of Ontong Java respondents reported that P. leopardus featured in their diet during

the spawning season, compared to 45 percent outside of this period. During spawning, more

than 40 percent frequently consumed this species, compared to just 15 percent outside of this

period. Consumption of V. louti in Ontong Java surpassed, substantially, that of the other

regions that hosted the LRFFT. More than 90 percent of respondents reported that this species

features in their diet during the spawning season, with only a minor reduction outside of this

period. During the spawning season, more than 70 percent of people ate V. louti at least once

per week. This figure fell to 47 percent outside of the spawning season. P. oligacanthus

featured in the diets of more than half the respondents during the spawning season, when

about a third reported consuming the species regularly. This figure declined considerably

outside of this period.

81

Figure 5.2. Consumption and consumption frequency of LRFFT target species.

NB. Marovo Lagoon: n = 252; Roviana Lagoon: n = 128; and Ontong Java: n = 100

Consumption of LRFFT Target Species - Spawning Season

0

20

40

60

80

100

Plectropomus

areolatus

Epinephelus

polyphekadion

Epinephelus

fuscoguttatus

Plectropomus

leopardus

Variola louti Plectropomus

oligacanthus

Pe

rce

nt th

at e

at ta

rge

t sp

ecie

s

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt th

at e

at "D

aily-t

o-W

ee

kly

"

Marovo % that eat target species Roviana % that eat target species Ontong Java % that eat target species

Marovo % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly" Roviana % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly" Ontong Java % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly"

Consumption of LRFFT Target Species - Non-Spawning Season

0

20

40

60

80

100

Plectropomus

areolatus

Epinephelus

polyphekadion

Epinephelus

fuscoguttatus

Plectropomus

leopardus


oligacanthus

Pe

rce

nt th

at e

at ta

rge

t sp

ecie

s

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt th

at e

at "D

aily-t

o-W

ee

kly

"

Marovo % that eat target species Roviana % that eat target species Ontong Java % that eat target species

Marovo % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly" Roviana % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly" Ontong Java % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly"

82


Income

Respondents were asked how much money they earned from sources that were determined

during the pilot survey. Questions related to how much money householders received from

each source and how many times, during 1999, this amount was received. This gave the

annual income by source for 1999. Money earned from the LRFFT was also attained and this

is included in Figure 5.3 to gauge the relative importance of the trade to the income of village

householders. Responses of zero income by source were used to deduce the level of

participation in each income source. For example, 76 percent of Marovo respondents recorded

zero income from the sale of bêche-de-mer in 1999. Consequently, participation in that

income source was recorded as 24 percent of the sample. Average earning is that calculated

by those that participated in that income source. The data were reduced into percentile ranges

(0-25%, 25-75% and 75-100%) so that the minority that earned small and large sums did not

overly affect the average income of the majority. Average income in each percentile range is

presented in Table 5.6, whilst Figure 5.3 illustrates the average income for the 25-75 percent

range, considered to be most characteristic of the income pattern in the respective regions.

The sources of income that attracted most attention from householders in Marovo Lagoon in

1999, as illustrated in Figure 5.3, included the sale of chilled finfish to intermediaries for the

Honiara market, gardening and farming, and the sale of artistic works, mostly wood carvings.

The highest average earnings in the 25-75 percent income bracket, however, were received by

the 28 percent that earned a wage and the 24 percent that had business interests in the lagoon.

Participants in the eskies fishery earned an average of just under $1,5001 in 1999. Nearly a

quarter of the Marovo respondents indicated that they dived for bêche-de-mer but the income

received from this fishery was minimal. The sale of garden produce contributed to the income

stream of some 84 percent of householders, yet the average income in the middle range was

just $908. Average income for the 43 percent that earned money from the sale of artworks

was $1,673. Table 5.6, however, indicates that the top 25 percent of income earners from this

source averaged $7,519.

1 All income and expenditure is reported in Solomon Island dollars (SI$1.00 = AU$0.37)

83

Figure 5.3. Income by source in the 25-75% range for the regions that hosted the LRFFT.


Remittances from a relative working elsewhere were received by 28 percent of Marovo

households and constituted an average of $558 in the middle-income bracket during 1999. For

the 45 percent of people that participated in the LRFFT, average income from the sale of live

fish was a modest $665. Table 5.6, however, indicates that the top 25 percent of income

earners from the trade averaged $4,400.

Respondents from Roviana Lagoon recorded participation in a diverse range of income

sources. Figure 5.3 indicates that just 16 percent fished for the chilled fish market, but the

average income was $1,764, which was about $300 more than their Marovo counterparts.

Nearly all of the respondents from Roviana earned an income from the sale of garden

produce. Income earned from this source averaged $3,028 in the middle bracket. The bêche-

de-mer fishery attracted 43 percent of respondents, but middle range returns averaged $805 in

1999. Similar figures applied to those who made money from the production of copra.

Remittances in Roviana Lagoon were received by more than half of the respondents with an

average total of $518 in the middle-income bracket. The largest incomes were received by the

38 percent that earned a wage. Wage earners in Roviana averaged $5,928 in the middle range

and $12,408 in the uppermost 25 percent income range (Table 5.6). The 27 percent of

Roviana respondents with business interests earned an average of just under $3,500 in 1999.

For the 51 percent that participated in the LRFFT, average income from the sale of live fish

Income and Income Sources

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Eskies Beche-

de-mer

Trochus Copra Farming Art Wages Business Relative LRFFT

Pe

rce

nt th

at E

arn

ed

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Av. In

co

me

- 2

5%

-75

% R

an

ge

Marovo Lagoon % that Earned Roviana Lagoon % that Earned Ontong Java % that Earned

Marovo Lagoon Income 25%-75% Roviana Lagoon Income 25%-75% Ontong Java Income 25%-75%

84

was a modest $1,106. Table 5.6, however, indicates that the top 25 percent of income earners

from the LRFFT averaged $4,234.

Ontong Java is characterised by a paucity of income earning opportunities. There is no market

for the sale of the finfish resource from the atoll and there is little opportunity for the sale of

garden produce on anything more than a small scale. The sources that attracted the most

participation by survey respondents were the bêche-de-mer fishery (94 percent), which netted

the middle-income earner an average of $2,378 in 1999, and the production of copra. Three

quarters of respondents produced copra, yet the returns in the 25-75 percentile averaged just

$796 in 1999. Table 5.6 indicates that income earners in the uppermost range averaged high

returns from both bêche-de-mer and copra. The nine percent that earned wages in Ontong

Java earned an average of $7,380 in the middle range. The 16 percent with business interests

on the atoll earned an average of $4,314 in 1999. Table 5.6 indicates that those who earned

the uppermost 25 percent from these sources earned substantially more money in 1999 than

the total income of the majority of respondents. Given the lack of income earning alternatives

on the atoll and the absence of a market for finfish, it is little wonder that 62 percent of

respondents earned money from the LRFFT. Average income in the middle bracket, however,

was just $528.

Table 5.6. Average income by source for the three regions that hosted the LRFFT.


0-25% 25-75% 75-100% 0-25% 25-75% 75-100% 0-25% 25-75% 75-100%

Eskies 188 1,472 5,639 142 176 4,630 0 0 0

Bêche-de-mer 166 496 2,920 227 805 2,981 455 2,378 6,192

Trochus 33 168 1,033 59 263 929 0 0 0

Copra 105 448 1,250 282 843 2,800 267 796 3,276

Farming 183 908 3,707 820 3,028 6,412 58 259 420

Art 218 1,673 7,519 318 1,106 4,275 5 34 283

Wages 917 3,925 9,837 1,892 5,928 12,408 933 7,380 13,800

Business 389 1,225 10,411 665 3,465 7,286 75 4,314 12,600

Relative 167 558 1,647 197 518 1,628 140 421 1,075

Total 853 4,984 14,352 4,235 9,117 18,451 1,134 4,437 14,851

LRFFT 123 665 4,400 269 1,106 4,234 132 528 2,286

85

Expenditure

Respondents were asked how much money they spent in 1999 from expenditure categories

that were determined during the pilot survey. Questions related to how much money

householders spent on each category and how many times, during 1999, this amount was

spent. This gave the annual expenditure, by category, for 1999. Responses of zero expenditure

by category were used to deduce the level of participation in each expenditure source. The

data were reduced into percentile ranges (0-25%, 25-75% and 75-100%) so that the minority

that spent small and large sums did not overly affect the average expenditure of the majority.

Consistent with the format for income, average expenditure in each percentile range is

presented in Table 5.7, whilst Figure 5.4 illustrates the average expenditure for the 25-75

percent range, considered to be most characteristic of the expenditure pattern in the respective

regions.

Figure 5.4. Expenditure by source in the 25-75% range for the regions that hosted the LRFFT.


Figure 4.4 indicates that there was a consistent pattern of expenditure throughout the regions

that hosted the LRFFT. Throughout the three regions, the main destination for householder’s

money was found to be school fees and related expenses, fuel for transport and lighting, food

and tobacco. Average total expenditure was very similar across the regions, in contrast to the

disparity in income, particularly that which was received in Roviana Lagoon.

Expenditure and Expenditure Sources

0

20

40

60

80

100

School Church Marriage Fuel Food Clothing Medical Fishing Tobacco LRFFT

Pe

rce

nt th

at S

pen

t

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Av. E

xp

en

d. -

25

%-7

5%

Ra

ng

e

Marovo Lagoon % that Spent Roviana Lagoon % that Spent Ontong Java % that Spent

Marovo Lagoon Expend. 25%-75% Roviana Lagoon Expend. 25%-75% Ontong Java Expend. 25%-75%

86

In Marovo Lagoon, 76 percent of respondents paid school fees in 1999 and whilst the amount

paid for schooling does not differ markedly to that experienced in Roviana Lagoon (see Table

5.7), it is noteworthy that substantial differences exist between the amounts paid for schooling

in different areas within the lagoon (refer to Chapter 6 (Section 6.2.6) for a more detailed

examination of this aspect). Contributions to the Church comprised an average of $295 for the

middle range in Marovo Lagoon. Table 5.7 indicates that such contributions are substantially

larger in Marovo than in the other regions that hosted the trade, particularly among the upper

25 percent of spending. Households in the 25-75 percent range in Marovo spent an average of

$1,732 on food.

In Roviana Lagoon, where the average household contains 7.34 people (Table 5.1), 91 percent

of households incurred school fees. The fees constitute one of the major expenditure items

faced by householders with a middle range expenditure average of $573 and upper range

average of $2,153 (Table 5.7). Fuel requirements in Roviana Lagoon incurred an average cost

of $679. Table 5.7 indicates that this requirement in the upper percentile range ($1,703) was

considerably less than that incurred in either Marovo Lagoon or Ontong Java. More money

was spent on food in the middle range in Roviana Lagoon, where the middle range of

spending averaged $2,059, establishing food as the largest expense incurred by village

households. Another substantial category of spending in Roviana proved to be tobacco, where

82 percent of respondents indicated that they spent some money on tobacco. In the middle

expenditure range, more money was spent on tobacco than on school fees, fuel and clothing.

School fees and related expenses were less expensive in Ontong Java, where 72 percent of

households incurred such costs. The average costs associated with sending children to school

in the middle and upper percentile ranges were up to a third of that which was spent in

Marovo and Roviana Lagoons (see Table 5.7). Money spent on food was less in Ontong Java

than in the other regions (Figure 5.4), and while similar amounts were spent on medically

related expenses, only 15 percent incurred such costs in 1999 compared to about half of the

respondents from Marovo and Roviana. More than two thirds of respondents spent money on

tobacco in 1999 but smokers in Ontong Java spent substantially less.

87

Table 5.7. Average expenditure by source for the three regions that hosted the LRFFT.


0-25% 25-75% 75-100% 0-25% 25-75% 75-100% 0-25% 25-75% 75-100%

School 33 541 2,864 94 573 2,153 16 196 1,254

Church 63 295 1,193 33 92 321 8 46 300

Marriage 45 163 965 49 167 592 72 272 1,445

Fuel 145 466 1,789 216 679 1,703 65 667 2,304

Food 538 1,732 3,475 717 2,059 3,713 528 1,432 4,135

Clothing 42 179 674 69 282 673 96 335 986

Medical 14 107 662 8 88 577 15 67 525

Tobacco 19 94 1,134 22 68 209 20 60 379

Fishing 94 513 1,648 180 633 1,631 104 330 1,123

Total 1,676 4,097 9,249 2,017 4,558 9,154 1,162 3,610 8,424

LRFFT 9 56 540 38 103 260 55 150 375


Respondents were asked questions that related to a number of issues that were central to

gauging the potential acceptance of management of the LRFFT. The questions gauged

respondent’s perceptions regarding:

1. The grouper resource, in terms of providing food and income;

2. Spawning aggregations, in terms of protection and providing food and income;

3. The moratorium on the issue of live fish export licenses, and the lifting of the same;

4. Customary fishing rights and respect for such rights; and

5. Integration of modern management initiatives.

These questions sought answers on a scale of one to five from: “not important at all”; “not

very important”; “don’t know”; “reasonably important” to “important”. The overwhelming

majority of answers fell in to the categories at either end of this spectrum and few respondents

answered “don’t know”. Consequently, responses were collapsed to form categories of “not

important” and “important”. In this section, the percentage of respondents that answered,

“important” is reported.

Figure 5.5 describes the responses of “important” to five questions relating to grouper

spawning aggregations and the grouper resource.

88

Figure 5.5. Respondents in the three regions that hosted the LRFFT that believed issues

surrounding spawning aggregations were important.


Marovo Roviana Ontong Java

Spawning aggregations to having groupers in the future 76 128 100

Fishing in passages during spawning season to feed the family 76 128 100

Fishing in passages during spawning season to make money 76 128 100

Not fishing in passages during spawning season 172 128 100

Protected areas i.e. No fishing 174 128 100

Respondents from Roviana Lagoon and Ontong Java overwhelmingly believed that spawning

aggregations were important to having groupers in the future. Two thirds of those from

Marovo Lagoon agreed, however, by implication, one third did not see the aggregations as

important for maintaining the resource into the future. Around half of Marovo and Roviana

respondents believe it is important to fish in spawning aggregations. Just 21 percent of

Ontong Java respondents take that view. Nearly 60 percent of Marovo respondents believe it

is important to target spawning aggregations in order to make money. A quarter of Roviana

respondents and just 15 percent of Ontong Java respondents take that view. Around 90

percent of respondents from Roviana and Ontong Java believe it is important to avoid fishing

in deepwater passages during the spawning season. Less than 70 percent from Marovo share

this view, indicating that more than 30 percent do not believe it is important. Most

0

20

40

60

80

100

Spawning

aggregations to

having groupers

in the future

Fishing in

passages during

spawning season

to feed the family

Fishing in

passages during

spawning season

to make money

Not fishing in

passages during

the spawning

season

Protected areas

ie. no fishing

Responses o

f "I

mport

ant"

(%

) Marovo Lagoon

Roviana Lagoon

Ontong Java

89

respondents from throughout the three regions that hosted the LRFFT believe that it is

important to set aside areas where no fishing is allowed. The implication from these results is

that while more than half the Marovo respondents believe that fishing in seasonal spawning

aggregations is detrimental to future resource stocks, both for providing food and income,

there remains a substantial proportion that are not convinced of this. Most Roviana

respondents believe that the aggregations are important and that protection should be afforded

to these sites. However, the sites are still important for food and some people still wish to

exploit them for money. Respondents from Ontong Java recognise the importance of the

aggregations. Few see it as important to exploit the aggregations for food or money and most

believe that the aggregations should be afforded protection against fishing.

Figure 5.6 describes perceptions of importance from respondents with regard to the use of

customary resource management systems, the imposition of the moratorium on the issue of

new live fish export licenses, and the adoption of modern fisheries management techniques.

Around three quarters of Marovo respondents described customary rights to fishing areas and

respecting these rights as important. Two thirds of Roviana respondents subscribed to that

view. In this regard, there is an element within the two Western Province lagoons that do not

regard the system of customary rights as important. Almost all respondents in Ontong Java

believed that these rights and respecting them were important, which establishes a sound

foundation on which community-based co-management can proceed. About 60 percent of

Marovo respondent recognised the importance of the moratorium and just over half said that it

was important that the moratorium be lifted. More than 70 percent of respondents from

Roviana Lagoon considered the moratorium to be important and just a quarter said that it was

important to lift it, implying that three quarters saw it as important to retain the moratorium.

In Ontong Java, more than 90 percent recognized the importance of the moratorium and less

than half thought it was important to lift it. Two thirds of respondents from Marovo and

Roviana Lagoons considered adopting modern fisheries management to be important, whereas

just one third of Ontong Java thought it to be important.

90

Figure 5.6. Respondents in the three regions that hosted the LRFFT that believed issues

surrounding management were important.


Marovo Roviana Ontong Java

Customary rights regarding fishing areas 174 128 100

Respect for customary rights 174 128 100

The moratorium banning live fish exports 175 128 100

Lifting the moratorium 174 128 100

Adopting modern fisheries management 76 128 100

5.6 Discussion of Inter regional Results

It is clear from the results of the household survey that the LRFFT, and the resources at the

centre of the trade, have varying levels of importance to villagers throughout the three regions

that hosted the trade prior to the moratorium. The grouper resource, or more specifically, the

species that aggregate to spawn in overlapping variables of time and space, are at risk of

serious depletion by intensively targeting the widely known aggregation sites during the

season and lunar phase during which such aggregations occur. The political will associated

with the conservation of this resource is, in part, generated by the significance of the resource

to the people in question. Another important influence affecting the extent to which villagers

participate in the trade is the number of income earning opportunities available to them and

0

20

40

60

80

100

Customary rights

regarding fishing

areas

Respect for

customary rights

The moratorium

banning live fish

export

Lifting the

moratorium

Adopting modern

fisheries

management

Responses o

f "I

mport

ant"

(%

)Marovo Lagoon

Roviana Lagoon

Ontong Java

91

the income generating potential of each source that is available. The strength and support for

traditional means of managing fisheries resources also affects the potential for success of

establishing a plan of management for the LRFFT.

5.6.1 Impact of the LRFFT on Village Households

The household survey sought to describe the prevailing socio-economic conditions in the

regions that hosted the trade and to gauge the impacts; both experienced and potential that

accompanies participation in the trade. Fishing effort during the LRFFT, which would have

been more accurately quantified via a creel survey had that been possible, indicated that

respondents dedicated extraordinary hours to the trade. This is due mostly to the fact that the

trade operated on a limited time frame in each area, a time frame that coincided with the

occurrence of seasonal spawning aggregations of the target species. Table 5.2 illustrates that

average weekly fishing effort during the LRFFT in Marovo and Roviana lagoons was about

30 hours. In Ontong Java, it was more than 43 hours. This is a dramatic increase in fishing

effort from that normally exerted, and this investment of time was found to result in an impact

on the attention paid to normal household duties and activities of a cultural nature.

Many fishers, primarily in Ontong Java, and to a lesser extent in Marovo and Roviana

Lagoons, established camps on islands in close proximity to spawning aggregation sites. In

Marovo Lagoon, whole families might relocate to the camps during the week as women

participated in the trade also. In Ontong Java, however, only the men fished. The LRFFT

dominated the men’s weekly activity during this time. Men would often return to the village

on weekends, bringing with them any remaining bycatch. The impact of this increase in time

investment resulted in a marked fall in the rate of participation in the household activities

nominated in the questionnaire. Figure 5.1 indicates that, in Marovo and Roviana lagoons,

where for the most part, fishers returned to the village after fishing each day, participation in

household activities such as gardening and conducting maintenance and repair work to the

dwelling declined considerably. In Marovo Lagoon, work on the famous wood carving

declined while carvers fished in the trade and there was even a decline in the level of

participation in teaching children traditional knowledge. Adherence to religious beliefs and

attendance at Church did not decline very much during the LRFFT for respondents from

Marovo or Roviana lagoons.

In Ontong Java, where income earning opportunities are limited, men dedicated their efforts

to the LRFFT. Figure 5.1 clearly illustrates that all nominated activities showed a dramatic

92

decrease in participation during the LRFFT, mainly because the men were not in the village

for most of the week. In this regard, it is difficult to quantify how this absence affected the

activities of women in Ontong Java because, as mentioned previously, male respondents

could only guess as to the activities of their wives while they were camped on a remote island.

The absence of a male role model for children and the need for upkeep to high maintenance

dwellings, however, is a considerable by-product of the LRFFT as it previously functioned.

This by-product adds weight to the argument that the LRFFT would be more sustainably

structured if it was in operation year round, with the exception that the spawning aggregation

sites be closed to fishing during the period of peak spawning activity. To structure the trade in

this manner would reduce the impact, not only on the resource base, but also on the normal

functioning of village households, including the division of labour.

5.6.2 Chilled Fishery

The fishery that ships chilled fish in eskies to the municipal market in Honiara provides

income for half of the respondents from Marovo Lagoon and just 15 percent of respondents

from Roviana Lagoon. Table 5.3 indicates that an average of little more than 11 hours per

week are dedicated to the fishery in Marovo Lagoon and about one full day is spent fishing

for the eskies fishery in Roviana Lagoon. In Marovo Lagoon, in particular, there is potential

to combine the eskies fishery with the LRFFT by using the facilities at the Fisheries Centre in

Seghe. The establishment of a shore-based transhipment facility in Honiara that handled

domestic shipments from regions where the LRFFT operates, prior to export by airfreight,

could operate year-round. The shipments in the chilled finfishery would thereby increase

because a component of the shipment to the shore-based facility would be LRFFT bycatch,

which could then be transported to the municipal market. In this way, there would be little

post-harvest mortality from fish retained for long periods of time in net cages or from a long

sea voyage to Hong Kong. The fisher, the intermediary and the LRFFT operator would be

able to value add by receiving an income from two fisheries simultaneously.

In Roviana Lagoon, access to the markets in Munda provides fishers with a point of sale for

finfish resources. There is a fisheries centre that buys fish from village fishers and sells them

on to townsfolk. There is also a resort that buys a limited number of fish. Table 5.3 indicates

that the fishers that participated in the “eskies” fishery did so for little more than half of the

year in 1999. The extent of the effort applied to the fishery is indicative of the fact that there

is no electricity for refrigeration and that fishers use the fishery to supplement their income.

As with the case in Marovo Lagoon, potential exists in Roviana to develop this fishery

93

further, in conjunction with transport arrangements for a LRFFT that is managed around air

freighting of the live catch. The remote location of Ontong Java precluded involvement in the

chilled finfishery as sea transport is infrequent and the journey long.

5.6.3 Significance of the LRFFT Target Species

An important component of the political will required to consciously act to conserve the

grouper resource can be gauged by measuring the significance of the target species to the diet

of those that would exploit the resource for money. Results depicted in Figure 5.2 show that

in Marovo Lagoon, the three major species, Plectropomus areolatus, Epinephelus

polyphekadion and E. fuscoguttatus, feature in the diet of 60-70 percent of respondents, but

only about 20 percent report eating the species at least once per week, whether the species are

aggregating to spawn or not. Species of lesser importance to the trade in Solomon Islands (P.

leopardus, Variola louti and P. oligacanthus) feature in less than half of Marovo respondents’

diet and less than 10 percent eat these species on a frequent basis.

The most prevalent form of transportation in Marovo Lagoon is wooden paddle canoe. In

some instances, the distances from villages to deepwater passages that might host grouper

spawning aggregations are prohibitive. Given that these three species do not feature

prominently in the diet of Marovo villagers, the will to act to conserve the grouper resource as

an important food source is diminished and might enhance the desire to exploit the resource as

an income source. Either way, overexploitation of the seasonal spawning aggregations cannot

be sustained and the need to extend that message to village communities cannot be overstated.

Marovo fishers are, however, eager to see a more equitable return for their live catch, stating

that they think the LRFFT operator should pay $20/kg to both the individual fisher and for the

village royalty (Table 5.1). Perhaps this not a realistic expectation but it does demonstrate the

indignation felt by fishers toward the price paid for the live fish being offered by the operator

prior to the moratorium.

Almost all Roviana Lagoon respondents reported that the three key target species feature in

their diet. Consumption frequency of these species increased substantially during the

spawning season, indicating that fishers target the aggregations for the purpose of feeding

their household. Few respondents reported eating the lesser three species more than once per

week, regardless of season. In addition, very few ate V. louti, in particular. Given the range of

income earning opportunities in Roviana Lagoon (see Figure 5.3) and the prevalence of the

main LRFFT target species in the diet of villagers, as illustrated in Figure 5.2, it might be

94

concluded that fishers in Roviana Lagoon would be less than emphatic in their willingness to

again fish in the LRFFT in the manner that the trade was previously practiced. Table 5.1

indicated that Roviana respondents want the LRFFT operator to pay $20/kg to the fisher and a

further $18/kg to the village in the form of royalty. This indicates a reticence to see the trade

re-established in its previous form.

Results presented in Figure 5.2 regarding Ontong Java are atypical for the atoll as a whole due

to the substantial disparity that exists between the two communities in relation to consumption

of LRFFT target species (refer to Chapter 8 (Section 8.2.5) for a more detailed examination of

this difference). Generally speaking, however, the species commonly targeted for the LRFFT

do feature prominently in the diets of villagers from Ontong Java, although more so in the

diets of people from the Luaniua community. This, together with the dearth of income earning

opportunities, might explain the zeal with which Pelau respondents participated in the

LRFFT.

5.6.4 Income Earning Opportunities and the Cost of Living

Pressure for integration into the cash economy is ever-increasing in Solomon Islands. School

fees, food and fuel for transport and lighting comprise regular costs to the household that must

be supported by regular income. Added to this, tobacco smoking is widespread in the three

regions that hosted the LRFFT, particularly in Roviana Lagoon. Expenses associated with

smoking are often comparable with that which is spent on sending children to school (see

Figure 5.4). Opportunities to achieve the income required to meet household expenditure

varied across the three regions.

Half of the respondents in Marovo Lagoon participated in the “eskies” fishery. The fishery is

poorly developed due to the absence of electricity for refrigeration and the frequency of

shipping. Table 5.3 indicates that the median number of months in 1999 that Marovo

respondents participated in the fishery accounted for just half the year, and slightly more for

the 15 percent of Roviana respondents that participated in the eskies fishery. Potential exists

for expansion of this fishery through shipping chilled fish to Honiara in conjunction with

regular shipments of live fish for the LRFFT. This would entail the utilisation of the regional

Fisheries Centres for purposes of refrigerated storage, and would facilitate participation in the

fishery on a year-round basis. Development of the eskies fishery such that the income stream

is consistent throughout the year might negate the apparent zeal with which fishers

participated in the live fishery prior to the moratorium.

95

In Ontong Java, where there is no market for the finfish resource, the re-establishment of the

LRFFT in a manner that is sustainable will not only provide villagers with a consistent

income stream throughout the year but will also serve to relieve pressure on stocks of bêche-

de-mer and trochus. Regular shipments of live fish to Honiara for airfreight might also lead to

the development of an eskies fishery for the atoll. Clearly, the paucity of income earning

opportunities in Ontong Java, and the poor return from copra production, suggests that

appropriate development of finfisheries, both live and chilled, would benefit the people of the

atoll while spreading the extent of exploitation across a number of marine resources.

The sale of garden produce remains an important source of income for many people in

Marovo and Roviana lagoons. Figure 5.3 indicates, however, that for the 84 percent of

Marovo respondents who earned an income from this source, the average return in the middle

range was a modest $908. Produce is sold at small markets in Marovo Lagoon such as the one

at Batuna. Villagers transport their produce to the market from nearby villages in wooden

paddle canoes and the commodities sell quickly. Pricing is very competitive. In Roviana

Lagoon, almost all respondents earned money from the sale of garden produce but the average

return in the middle range exceeded $3,000. The market environment is different in Roviana

than in Marovo Lagoon. Villagers can transport produce to markets in Munda, and supply

retail outlets in the town or the tourist resorts. On the low lying coral isles in Ontong Java,

garden produce is grown on a small scale, often just for subsistence purposes.

An important component of cultural identity in Marovo Lagoon, in particular, is the

production of ornate wood carvings. This art form is practiced widely in Western Province but

is most highly concentrated among the SDA villages in Marovo Lagoon. More than 40

percent of Marovo respondents stated that income is generated in this manner. Table 5.6

indicates that the majority of carvers, those in the 25-75 percentile, earned an average of

$1,673, which is marginally more than was earned on average in the eskies fishery. The upper

25 percent of villagers who earned an income from carving averaged more than $7,500. Aside

from the important cultural identification attached to the production of the wood carving, it is

also an important source of income for a substantial proportion of the population. During the

operation of the LRFFT, however, just 20 percent of Marovo respondents dedicated any time

to carving and those that did spent about 10 hours per week less than they did in the absence

of the trade (Figure 5.1).

More than 45 percent of Marovo respondents fished in the LRFFT. However, average income

received in the 25-75 percentile was just $665. Clearly, the limited period that fishers were

96

exposed to live fish buyers during the LRFFT encouraged villagers to literally drop

everything and dedicate their time to fishing for the trade. The returns to the majority of

LRFFT participants for so doing did not justify the time commitment and it might be argued

that the income derived did not justify the disruption to normal daily life. The upper 25

percent of earners in the LRFFT did, however, gain substantial benefit from fishing in the

trade, with fishers in Marovo and Roviana Lagoons averaging well over $4,000 in the period

that the trade operated. The most successful fishers in Ontong Java did not register such high

returns. Average returns in the upper 25 percent of earners was $2,286, which is even more

surprising given the extent of fishing effort exerted during the LRFFT. Ontong Java

participants averaged more than 43 hours per week while their counterparts from Marovo and

Roviana Lagoons averaged about 30 hours per week (see Table 5.2). Therefore, Ontong Java

fishers worked much harder for lower returns than those from the other two lagoon sites

surveyed in this study.

While much of the population is employed in the subsistence sector, a less traditional

commercial economy is growing. Those that earn a wage or have business interests earned

substantial income, relative to other sources. More than a quarter of Marovo respondents

earned a wage in 1999. Average earnings in the 25-75 percentile were just less than $4,000. In

Roviana Lagoon, where commercial interests in Munda and the cannery at Noro employ

many people, 38 percent of respondents earned a wage. Average wage earnings in the mid

range were just less than $6,000, with the upper 25 percent of wage earners averaging

$12,400 (Table 5.6). In Ontong Java, just nine percent earned a wage but for those that did,

average returns were higher than the other study areas. Similarly, those with business interests

in the three regions generated a higher average income than those that earned a living from

the more traditional means of fishing or exploiting marine resources in general.

The growing reliance on earning an income in order to maintain a standard of living

characterised, in part, by formal education for children and rising consumption of imported

packaged foods has seen the emergence of a fledgling level of industrialisation in rural areas.

A growing number of villagers are engaging in wage employment and business activities to

achieve income levels and security that might not otherwise be realised by more traditional

means. As lifestyles change from subsistence to cash-driven societies reliant on budgetary

assistance and remittances, the traditional dependence on natural resources for daily needs

remains. The importance of these resources to the villagers themselves should guide the

political will necessary for the success of management prescriptions.

97

5.6.5 The Grouper Resource and its Management

Responses to questions regarding the importance of the grouper resource and the manner in

which it is managed in the wake of its importance to the LRFFT, demonstrated some variation

in attitudes between the three regions that hosted the trade. Figure 5.5 indicates that while it

was widely understood in Roviana Lagoon and Ontong Java that the occurrence of spawning

aggregations was important to having grouper species in the future, this was not reflected in

the results received from respondents in Marovo Lagoon. Little more than 60 percent

recognised the importance of such aggregations to having groupers in the future. This reflects

an acceptance by some of the regenerative capacity of the aggregations in the light of

subsistence exploitation but not of the effect of disproportionate effort that accompanies

participation in the LRFFT. Community education programmes relating to the LRFFT must

emphasise that intensive fishing in the spawning aggregations leads to their demise.

Highlighting the price disparity between that received by fishers and that paid by diners in

Hong Kong might rally fishers, but the real issue is that regardless of the price received, the

focus on spawning aggregations will deplete the resource beyond critical levels.

In Marovo and Roviana Lagoons, more than half of the respondents indicated that it was

important to fish in deep water passages in order to feed their family. Just 20 percent of

Ontong Java respondents indicated this. Proximity to passages is an important issue in that

subsistence fishing activities are normally conducted from wooden paddle canoes. In Ontong

Java, deep water passages are often beyond the distance that most fishers are willing to

paddle. Those with outboard motors are keenly aware of the costs associated with their use

and the paucity of opportunities to make the money to meet such costs. This question was

asked to gauge the impact of proposed seasonal closures of spawning aggregation sites on the

normal subsistence fishing activities. About half the respondents from Marovo and Roviana

would be temporarily affected by such closures.

Around 60 percent of Marovo respondents indicated that it was important to fish in deep

water passages during the spawning season to make money. This question was asked to gauge

the reliance on such activities for meeting cash needs. Figure 5.5 indicates that the majority of

respondents from Roviana Lagoon and Ontong Java would not be affected by seasonal

closures. Respondents from Roviana Lagoon have a range of income sources and those from

Ontong Java have no market for finfish resources.

98

Importantly, the overwhelming majority of respondents from the three regions that hosted the

LRFFT recognised the importance of not fishing in the passages during the spawning season.

This is not to say that the subsistence fishery depletes such aggregations. It does, however,

imply a willingness to accept the wisdom behind temporary closures of deepwater passages

that are known to host grouper spawning aggregations. Establishment of protected areas

where no fishing is permitted was also widely seen as important. In Ontong Java, such a

protected area has been established and respect for the sanctity of the area is widespread

among community members who stand to benefit from the area in its capacity as a nursery.

Figure 5.6 indicates that respondents from Ontong Java have a strong bond with the

traditional customary rights and associated rules that govern them. Nearly all Ontong Java

respondents indicated that the customary rights regarding fishing areas, and the respect for

such rights, was important. Furthermore, just a third of Ontong Java respondents indicated

that adopting modern fisheries management techniques was important, about half the number

from Marovo and Roviana Lagoons. The overwhelming majority of respondents believed that

the moratorium was important but now, about a half believes that it should be lifted. The

prospects for sustainable management of the LRFFT in Ontong Java are very good. A paucity

of income earning opportunities has made people there willing participants in the trade, yet

strong and wise leadership, together with widespread respect for customs and tradition, set a

firm platform upon which the LRFFT might be conducted on a sustainable basis.

Respondents from Marovo and Roviana Lagoons, on the other hand, were less vehement in

their support for customary management, respect for such systems, or the moratorium.

However, the majority of respondents, particularly those from Marovo Lagoon, indicated that

customary rights regarding fishing, and respect for such rights, was important. It does indicate

that about a quarter of respondents did not believe these things to be important, reflecting

some sort of erosion of traditional authority, particularly in Roviana Lagoon. Little more than

half of Marovo respondents viewed the moratorium as important while little less than half

thought that it was important to lift it. This reflects the limited income earning opportunities

in the lagoon and the lack of importance of the resource as a food source. More SDA

respondents in Marovo saw lifting the moratorium as important than those that thought

imposing it was important. In that part of the lagoon, expenditure commitments for schooling

and fuel were more demanding. See Chapter 6 (Section 6.2.7) for further detail.

A range of income earning opportunities in Roviana lagoon is reflected in Figure 5.6. Two

thirds of Roviana respondents thought it was important for the moratorium to be imposed,

99

whereas just a quarter thought lifting it was important. There are other ways of making a

living so there is no desperation to see the trade reinstated unless it is to their liking. Like

Marovo, Roviana respondents saw importance in adopting modern fisheries management

techniques. The reinstatement of the trade in Roviana has potential for success so long as

seasonal closures of spawning aggregation sites are fully observed. Integration with chilled

fish exports to Honiara should also be considered.

100

Chapter 6: Socio-economics and the Impact of the LRFFT in Marovo

Lagoon

6.1 Introduction

Marovo Lagoon is essentially an expanse of inland sea of around 700 km2, bounded by a

raised barrier reef intersected by deepwater passages that connect the lagoon with the open

sea (Figure 6.1). Throughout the Marovo area, a reasonably uniform system of territorial

holdings and resource tenure operates. These localised kinship groups act as corporate units,

controlling a defined area of land and sea and the reefs and resources contained therein

(Hviding and Baines, 1994). Hviding (1996) describes the intricacies of this system of tenure,

and a synopsis of the customary means of managing natural resources is included in Chapter

8. Three Church denominations are represented (Seventh Day Adventist, United Church and

Christian Fellowship Church), and their teachings provide a basis for some of the

organisational and economic variation between communities. The results and discussion that

follow divide the 11,000-strong population of the lagoon along these lines as there is

geographical distinction accompanying religious adherence. It is important to note that the

people of Telina village, aligned with the SDA Church, chose not to participate in the survey.

Participating villages are listed in Table 6.1.

101

Figure 6.1. Marovo Lagoon, Western Province.

102

Table 6.1. Participating villages and their religious affiliations.

Seventh Day Adventist United Church Christian Fellowship Church

Village No. Households Village No. Households Village No. Households

Sombiro 8 Rukutu 8 Kolombaghea 7

Mbili 8 Chubikopi 16 Keru 8

Tengomo 1 Gepae 2 Bunabunasa 6

Mbunikalo 2 Michi 10

Kokete 8 Vakambo 10

Manabuso 5 Onne 6

Ketoketo 7 Abu 2

Honggitasina 3 Chuchulu 6

Rakata 8 Newland 6

Lolovuro 6 Patutiva 22

Bisuana 8 Nazareth 14

Cheke 8

Chea 8

Sasaghana 12

Ramata 10

Baini 7

Bareho 10

Mbunitusa 10

Telina* 0

TOTAL 129 TOTAL 102 TOTAL 21

* Chose not to participate in the survey.

6.2 Results


Householders that are affiliated with the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) and United Churches

(UC) comprise the majority of the population of Marovo Lagoon. Table 6.2 indicates that half

the respondents were affiliated with the SDA Church, about 40 percent with the UC and about

10 percent belonged to the Christian Fellowship Church (CFC). More than half of the SDA

respondents fished in the LRFFT, whilst little more than a third of the UC respondents did so.

The average income in 1999 of SDA respondents in the 25-75 percentile was almost $1,200

higher than the average for the whole of Marovo Lagoon, whereas the average income of CFC

103

respondents was $2,462 less than the lagoon average. A narrow margin exists between

average income and average expenditure throughout the lagoon for the majority of income

earners (those in the 25-75 percentile). Table 6.2 indicates that middle-income returns for

LRFFT participants were highest in the SDA part of the lagoon.

Bycatch from the LRFFT was highest in UC villages where the company (Ika Holdings)

bought little more than half of the catch from fishers. Three quarters of the bycatch in this

area was taken back to villages. Around two thirds of the live catch from SDA respondents

was purchased by the operator and about half of the bycatch was consumed in the village.

More than 15 percent of the bycatch was taken to fisher’s camps in close proximity to

spawning aggregation sites.

Table 6.2. Characteristics of the sample in Marovo Lagoon.

Marovo Lagoon SDA UC CFC

% Households Surveyed 25 25 25

No. Respondents 128 (50.8% of ML tot) 100 (39.7% of ML tot) 24 (9.5% of ML tot)



Fished in the LRFFT 68 (53.1% of SDA tot) 35 (35.0% of UC tot) 12 (50.0% of CFC tot)

Mean Income and Expend - 1999 Income Expend. Income Expend. Income Expend.

0% to 25% range ($) 1,136 1,985 790 2,033 358 623

25% to 75% range ($) 6,158 4,623 4,383 3,887 2,522 1,772

75% to 100% range ($) 15,600 10,041 13,657 8,039 8,510 5,991

Mean Income and Expend - LRFFT Income Expend. Income Expend. Income Expend.

0% to 25% range ($) 215 14 162 9 37 5

25% to 75% range ($) 1,102 67 595 41 126 10

75% to 100% range ($) 5,668 553 3,455 296 250 18

Extent of LRFFT Bycatch Mean Mean Mean

% of the catch that Co. bought 65.5 57.7 78.2

Bycatch Use (%) Mean Mean Mean

Taken to the village 50.4 75.1 48.3

Eaten at fishers camp 15.6 7.4 11.7

Sold at a market 12.8 0.6 21.7

Fed to captive live fish 4.6 5.4 1.7

Discarded 3.5 0.0 0.0

Released 0.0 0.0 0.0


Co. should pay the fisher ($/kg) 15.00 20.00 27.50

Co. should pay the village ($/kg) 15.00 75.00 -

104


Throughout Marovo Lagoon, the level of participation in everyday household activities and

the number of hours dedicated per week was substantially reduced during the operation of the

LRFFT. Figure 6.2 illustrates the level of participation in certain household activities in the

presence and absence of the LRFFT and illustrates the difference in the amount of time

dedicated to such tasks by those that did undertake them.

Figure 6.2 indicates that participation in gardening activity by men and women from SDA

villages was reduced during the LRFFT. Those that did participate in gardening spent six

hours per week less than they did during the LRFFT. House repairs were undertaken by just

18 percent of SDA men during the LRFFT compared to more than 50 percent in 1999. Less

time was spent on this task also as both men and women dedicated much of their time to

fishing for the LRFFT. Marovo Lagoon in general and the SDA community in particular, is

renowned for wood carvings. In 1999, nearly three quarters of SDA men spent an average of

27 hours per week undertaking this activity. During the LRFFT, just one third undertook their

traditional art, spending 17 hours per week. About half of the SDA women who participated

in the production of the carvings in 1999 did so during the LRFFT. Teaching children

traditional knowledge was found to be an activity that two thirds of SDA men undertook in

1999 but only one third did so during the LRFFT. There was little alteration to the regimen of

Church attendance by respondents from SDA villages between the 1999 and LRFFT periods.

Less than half of the UC respondents that gardened in 1999 participated in the activity during

the LRFFT. UC women that participated in gardening activity during the LRFFT spent more

time on the task than they did in 1999, an indication that some compensation was required due

to the absence of the men. House repairs and maintenance were conducted by less than four

percent of UC men during the LRFFT. These men spent an average of just three hours per

week on the task. In 1999, about half of the men spent an average of more than 17 hours per

week. Whilst the production of artworks is not as extensive among the UC community as the

SDA, more than 16 percent of UC men undertook the activity for an average of just under 15

hours per week. During the LRFFT, participation declined slightly, but those that did

participate spent just four hours per week on artworks. Less UC men taught their children

traditional knowledge during the LRFFT than in 1999, but slightly more women took on this

role during the LRFFT. Again, there was little alteration to the regimen of Church attendance

by respondents from UC villages.Whilst the sample size (n values) for the CFC villages is

small, a broad indication can be attained from the comparisons used for the other

105

communities. Around half the number of CFC men participated in gardening during the

LRFFT than did so in 1999, and those that did spent less time doing so. Participation by

women in this activity suffered a 60 percent decline during the LRFFT. Conducting repairs

and maintenance to dwellings attracted little attention from CFC men during the LRFFT

compared to a participation rate of almost 80 percent in 1999. Copra is produced in the area of

Marovo Lagoon populated mostly by people with CFC affiliation.

106

Figure 6.2. Householder participation and hours spent per week conducting particular

activities in the presence and absence of the LRFFT in Marovo Lagoon.


n Men Women


SDA 127 56 128 32

UC 98 27 99 14

CFC 24 8 23 5

SDA - Men

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n (

%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


SDA - Women

0

20

40

60

80

100


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ho

urs

pe

r W

ee

k


UC - Men

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n (

%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


UC - Women

0

20

40

60

80

100


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ho

urs

pe

r W

ee

k


CFC - Men

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n (

%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


CFC - Women

0

20

40

60

80

100


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ho

urs

pe

r W

ee

k1999 % LRFFT % 1999 Hrs/wk LRFFT Hrs/wk

107

In 1999, almost 17 percent of CFC men spent an average of about 35 hours per week

undertaking this activity. During the LRFFT, participation declined slightly but the time

dedicated to the task fell to 14 hours per week. No CFC women produced copra during the

LRFFT. Women’s regimen of Church attendance was altered during the LRFFT more than

that of men. Attendance at Church by CFC women suffered a 20 percent decline during this

time and the average amount of time dedicated to Church activities also fell. CFC men, on the

other hand spent marginally more time in Church during the LRFFT than they did in 1999.


Table 6.3 indicates that respondents from the UC villages exerted more individual fishing

effort during the LRFFT than respondents from the SDA or CFC villages. Fishing effort in the

household fishery varied little throughout the lagoon, with respondents generally making two

or three trips per week for an average duration of two or three hours. There was a dramatic

increase, in all three sections of the lagoon, in weekly fishing activity during the operation of

the LRFFT compared with during 1999. UC respondents reported median weekly fishing

effort during the LRFFT of 36 hours (average of 37.2 hours). Results from SDA villages

recorded a median score of 24 hours per week (average of 32.5 hours) during the LRFFT.

Weekly fishing effort for respondents from CFC villages was substantially less than that of

SDA and UC villages during the LRFFT (see Table 6.3).

Table 6.3. Comparison of fishing effort in 1999 and during the LRFFT in Marovo Lagoon.

Marovo Lagoon No. householders No. trips/wk No. hrs/trip No. hrs/wk


SDA n 128 68 126 67 125 68 125 67

Mean 3.1 2.2 2.9 4.8 2.9 6.7 7.5 32.5

Median 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 6.0 6.00 24.0

UC n 100 35 97 33 95 33 95 32

Mean 3.0 2.3 3.5 4.5 2.6 7.9 9.2 37.2

Median 2.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 8.0 8.0 36.0

CFC n 24 12 24 12 24 12 24 12

Mean 2.1 2.7 3.5 2.8 2.2 5.4 7.5 15.2

Median 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 11.0

The fishery that ships chilled fish in eskies to Honiara played an integral role in the lives of

respondents from SDA villages. Table 6.4 indicates that almost two thirds of SDA

respondents fished in the fishery and did so for an average of more than seven months in

108

1999, although more than 40 percent reported that they fished in the eskies fishery throughout

the year. SDA villagers that fished in this fishery dedicated about two full days per week to

the fishery. Respondents from UC villages participated in the fishery to a lesser extent. More

than half of participating UC respondents indicated that they participated for three months or

less in 1999. Those that did join this fishery, again, dedicated about two full days per week to

the fishery. CFC respondents provided an insufficient sample size from which conclusions

can be drawn about participation in the eskies fishery.

Table 6.4. Fishing effort in the “Eskies” fishery from Marovo Lagoon to Honiara.

Eskies fishery -

1999 Participation No. months H/holders Trips/wk Hrs/trip Hrs/wk

SDA n 63. 8% 83 83 81 83 81

Mean 7.5 2.4 1.8 6.9 11.6

Median 7.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 12.0

UC n 37.0% 38 37 37 38 37

Mean 5.8 2.0 1.2 9.1 11.4

Median 3.0 2.0 1.0 8.0 10.0

CFC n 4 4 4 4 4

Mean 4.8 2.8 1. 12.0 12.0

Median

16.7%

3.0 1.0 1.0 12.0 12.0

6.2.4 Fishing Catch

Table 6.5 indicates that fishers from both SDA and UC villages recorded similar catch rates of

around a dozen fish per trip whilst fishing for the household. The grouper component of this

catch was not dissimilar at three or four groupers per trip. The sample size for the LRFFT

catch is small but some indication can be gained as to the characteristics of the catch. SDA

participants in the LRFFT caught marginally more fish whilst fishing for the trade than they

did while fishing for the household, even though average trip duration during the LRFFT was

double that dedicated to the household fishing effort. UC fishers in the LRFFT caught

substantially less fish per trip than they did while fishing for the household, even though

average trip duration during the LRFFT was up to four times that dedicated to the household

fishing effort. The grouper component of the catch during the LRFFT was very high.

However, given that the bycatch during this time represented about 40 percent (Table 6.2), it

can be assumed that some of the groupers caught were not species that the operator was

buying.

109


fishing activity in 1999 and during the LRFFT in Marovo Lagoon.

Marovo Lagoon Total no. fish caught per

trip

No. groupers caught per

trip Grouper proportion of catch


SDA n 20 10 20 10

Mean 16. 14.2 3.5 13.0 20.8% 91.6%

Median 12.0 15. 3.0 13.5

UC n 54 5 53 5

Mean 14.7 7.2 4.2 6.0 28.6% 83.3%

Median 12.0 7.0 3.0 6.0

CFC Insufficient Data

Fishers from UC villages participating in the chilled finfish fishery in Marovo Lagoon in 1999

caught marginally more fish per fishing trip than their counterparts in SDA villages,

averaging about 26 fish per trip. The proportion of groupers in this catch was similar to that of

fishers from SDA villages (Table 6.6) but, in both communities, this proportion was low

relative to that experienced in the LRFFT (see Table 6.5).

Table 6.6. Total catch and grouper component in the “Eskies” fishery in Marovo Lagoon.

Eskies Catch Fish caught/trip Groupers/trip Percent Grouper

SDA n 12 12

Mean 20.0 3.8 5.3

Median 20.0 2.5

UC n 24 24

Mean 26.5 5.5 4.8

Median 23.0 5.0

CFC Insufficient Data

6.2.5 Frequency of Consumption of LRFFT Species

More than 70 percent of respondents from SDA villages reported that Plectropomus areolatus

featured in their diet and about 20 percent eat that species at least once per week (Figure 6.3).

There was little variation in this pattern according to the presence or absence of spawning

activity. Epinephelus polyphekadion featured in the diet of just over half SDA respondents,

with around 12 percent frequently eating the species. Similar figures apply to E. fuscoguttatus

but less than 10 percent reported eating the species at least once per week, regardless of

110

season. Less than half the SDA respondents reported that the lesser LRFFT target species of

P. leopardus, Variola louti and P. oligacanthus featured in their diet, and less than 10 percent

reported frequent consumption of these species, whether aggregating to spawn or not.

Figure 6.3 illustrates that respondents from UC villages consumed the three main species with

much greater frequency than their SDA neighbours. Three quarters of respondents from UC

villages reported that P. areolatus featured in their diet, and just less than a quarter eat that

species at least once per week. Similar figures apply to E. polyphekadion, but E. fuscoguttatus

features in the diet of well over 80 percent of UC respondents, in or out of spawning season.

Around a third of UC respondents eat this species at least once per week regardless of season.

P. leopardus, V. louti and P. oligacanthus do not feature strongly in the diet of respondents

from UC villages. Regardless of season, less than 10 percent of respondents reported frequent

consumption of these species and less than half reported eating them at all.

The pattern of consumption of P. areolatus by respondents from CFC villages was similar to

that of SDA and UC villages. However, just four per cent eat E. polyphekadion on a frequent

basis during the spawning season compared to nearly 17 percent in the non-spawning season

(Figure 6.3). Although nearly 80 percent indicated that E. fuscoguttatus feature in their diet,

just one quarter of UC respondents eat the species at least once per week in the spawning

season and one third reported eating them frequently outside of this period. More than half of

CFC respondents stated that V. louti features in their diet and 70 percent reported the same for

P. oligacanthus. Frequent consumption of these species, however, was reported by a small

number of respondents.

111

Figure 6.3. Consumption and consumption frequency of LRFFT target species in Marovo

Lagoon.

NB. SDA: n = 128; UC: n = 100; and CFC: n = 24.


0

20

40

60

80

100

Plectropomus

areolatus

Epinephelus

polyphekadion

Epinephelus

fuscoguttatus

Plectropomus

leopardus


oligacanthus

Pe

rcen

t th

at e

at ta

rge

t sp

ecie

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

Perc

en

t th

at e

at "D

aily-t

o-W

ee

kly

"SDA % that eat target species UC % that eat target species CFC % that eat target speciesSDA % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly" UC % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly" CFC % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly"


0

20

40

60

80

100

Plectropomus

areolatus

Epinephelus

polyphekadion

Epinephelus

fuscoguttatus

Plectropomus

leopardus


oligacanthus

Pe

rce

nt th

at ea

t ta

rge

t sp

ecie

s

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rcen

t th

at e

at "D

aily-t

o-W

ee

kly

"

SDA % that eat target species UC % that eat target species CFC % that eat target species

SDA % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly" UC % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly" CFC % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly"

112


Income

Figure 6.4 illustrates that the sources of income that attracted the highest rates of participation

from respondents from SDA villages were fishing in the “eskies” fishery, the sale of garden

produce, and the sale of artwork comprised mostly of wood carvings. The highest returns in

the 25-75 percentile were gained by the 23.6 percent of respondents that earned a wage. Wage

earners in this bracket averaged $3,447 in 1999. Table 6.7 indicates that in the upper 25

percent of income earners, wage earners averaged just over $10,000. Two thirds of SDA

respondents earned money from the eskies fishery. Middle-income earners averaged $1,660 in

1999 whilst the upper 25 percent earned an average of $6,088. Two thirds of SDA

respondents earned money from wood carving, compared to 16 and 20 percent of respondents

from UC and CFC villages, respectively. Figure 6.4 indicates that SDA respondents in the

middle-income bracket earned an average of $2,146 from wood carving, while the upper 25

percent of earners gained an average of $8,546. Whilst gardening and farming provided

income for more than 80 percent of SDA villagers, returns from this income source were

modest. Few SDA respondents earned money from diving in the bêche-de-mer or trochus

fisheries, or from the production of copra. More than half participated in the LRFFT and

average earnings for middle-income earners from this fishery were over $1,100 or almost

double that received by their UC neighbours. Remittances were received by a quarter of SDA

respondents to an average value of $866 for middle-income earners.

Around 40 percent of UC respondents participated in the eskies and bêche-de-mer fisheries.

The eskies fishery provided an average of $1,012 for middle-income earners and the upper 25

percent of earners earned an average of $4,458 in 1999 from the fishery (Table 6.6). More

than 80 percent of UC respondents earned money from the sale of garden produce. UC

gardeners were more successful than their SDA and CFC neighbours with a middle-income

average of just less than $1,000 and upper percentile bracket average of $4,705, which is

almost $1,900 more than SDA respondents in this bracket earned in 1999. For the one third of

respondents that earned a wage in 1999, earnings in the mid-range averaged just more than

$5,000, which constituted the most lucrative income source.

113

Figure 6.4. Income (SI$) by source in the 25-75% range for householders in Marovo Lagoon.


Around a quarter of UC respondents held some business interests in the lagoon and their

earnings were modest in the middle-income range and averaging $7,650 in the upper 25

percentile, indicating that relatively few earned good returns from their ventures. Remittances

in the UC villages were received by about a quarter of the respondents. Returns for the 35

percent that fished in the LRFFT were a modest $595 in the middle-income range whilst the

upper 25 percent of earners averaged $3,455 from this source.

The sample size for CFC responses was too small to make any meaningful conclusions except

for the sale of garden produce, which attracted almost 96 percent participation and earned the

middle-income earner an average of just under $750 in 1999.


0

20

40

60

80

100

Eskies Beche-

de-mer


Pe

rce

nt th

at E

arn

ed

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Av. In

co

me

- 2

5%

-75

% R

an

ge

SDA % that Earned UC % that Earned CFC % that Earned

SDA Income 25%-75% UC Income 25%-75% CFC Income 25%-75%

114

Table 6.7. Average income by source for respondents from Marovo Lagoon.

Expenditure

The main items of expenditure throughout the lagoon are school fees, Church contributions,

fuel for transport and lighting, food and tobacco. Figure 6.6 illustrates that some disparity

exists between communities adhering to different religious faiths, particularly with regard to

expenditure on school fees and associated costs, food and tobacco. Food was found to be, by

far, the item of greatest expenditure.

More than 80 percent of SDA respondents paid school fees in 1999, at an average in the mid

range of $948. Table 6.8 indicates that the upper 25 percentile paid an average of $3,479 on

this expense during 1999. SDA practitioners made contributions to the Church of $436 on

average in the mid-range, with the upper range contributing an average of $1,434. This is

substantially more than their UC and CFC neighbours. Expenditure by SDA respondents

averaged $1,778 on food in 1999 in the mid-range. Expenditure on tobacco in 1999 showed

an interesting disparity among respondents affiliated with different religious groups. Just 17

percent of SDA respondents spent any money on tobacco in 1999, compared to three quarters

of respondents from UC and CFC villages. Those SDA respondents that did, however, spent

more money on tobacco than their UC and CFC neighbours.

SDA UC CFC Average Income

($ in 1999) 0-25% 25-75% 75-100% 0-25% 25-75% 75-100% 0-25% 25-75% 75-100%

Eskies 233 1,660 6,088 145 1,012 4,458 80 780 5,200

Bêche-de-mer 193 472 5,250 140 567 2,920 200 370 1,250

Trochus 55 248 1,200 25 81 925 10 140 300

Copra 173 520 2,000 70 350 1,000 0 400 1,000

Farming 169 850 2,831 308 955 4,705 70 734 1,965

Art 256 2,146 8,545 165 660 1,987 720 1,200 1,500

Wages 918 3,447 10,023 824 5,026 10,814 2,100 4,236 7,800

Business 404 1,955 11,983 218 923 7,650 0 600 6,000

Relative 225 866 2,400 187 525 1,463 130 450 950

Total 1,136 6,158 15,600 790 4,383 13,657 358 2,522 8,510

LRFFT 215 1,102 5,668 162 595 3,455 37 126 250

115

Three quarters of respondents from UC villages spent money on school fees. However, the

average amount spent in the mid range was just $236, about a quarter of the cost incurred by

SDA respondents in the same category. Table 6.8 indicates that spending in the upper 25

percentile averaged a little less than $2,000 in 1999. Food was by far the greatest expense for

UC respondents who spent an average $1,865 in 1999.

Figure 6.5. Expenditure by item in the 25-75% range for respondents from Marovo Lagoon.


Little more than half of the respondents from CFC villages indicated that they spent any

money in 1999 on school fees and related expenses. Those that did spent very little money on

those items. There were large differences found between mid-range expenditure and upper 25

percentile expenditure averages for fuel, food and tobacco. Those who spent in the upper 25

percentile clearly had a far superior ability to pay for goods compared to those in the lower

categories of expenditure.


0

20

40

60

80

100


Pe

rce

nt th

at S

pe

nt

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

Av. E

xp

en

ditu

re -

25

%-7

5%

Ra

ng

e

SDA % that Spent UC % that Spent CFC % that Spent

SDA Expend. 25%-75% UC Expend. 25%-75% CFC Expend. 25%-75%

116

Table 6.8. Average expenditure by source for respondents from Marovo Lagoon.


Responses to questions regarding the importance of grouper spawning aggregations revealed a

noncommittal attitude toward the aggregations in terms of resource protection, either for food

or income. Whilst about two thirds of respondents from the SDA and UC villages considered

that spawning aggregations were important to having the resource in the future, by

implication there were approximately one third of respondents who do not support this view

(Figure 6.6). Just 40 percent of SDA respondents considered fishing in spawning aggregations

to feed their family to be important, whereas half considered the aggregations to be an

important source of income. Three quarters of SDA respondents believed it was important not

to fish in passages during the spawning season and nearly 90 percent saw the importance of

the concept of protected areas where there is no fishing allowed.

More than half of UC respondents considered fishing in the deepwater passages during the

spawning season important both to feeding the family (53.7 percent) and to making a living

(57.4 percent), although 68.3 percent believe it is important not to fish in these passages at

this time. Some conflict exists within this community group, however, the majority believe it

is important to not fish the spawning aggregations, and three quarters of respondents support

Expenditure SDA UC CFC

Averages ($) 0-25% 25-75% 75-100% 0-25% 25-75% 75-100% 0-25% 25-75% 75-100%

School 199 948 3,479 29 236 1,986 5 22 150

Church 93 436 1,434 49 184 746 5 30 408

Marriage 42 142 539 70 208 413 100 200 9,000

Fuel 153 535 2,120 154 432 1,385 105 360 1,669

Food 513 1,778 3,721 789 1,865 3,485 170 786 2,478

Clothing 47 202 735 44 190 661 24 74 396

Medical 14 80 284 9 93 1,238 40 250 1,000

Fishing 23 114 1,001 15 59 1,136 20 50 1,200

Tobacco 107 698 2,425 99 541 1,493 27 365 1,944

Total 1,985 4,623 10,041 2,033 3,887 8,039 623 1,772 5,991

LRFFT 14 67 553 9 41 296 5 10 18

117

the concept of protected areas, increasing the likelihood of acceptance of temporal closures on

spawning aggregation sites.

The sample size for CFC responses was too small to be considered representative of the views

of the whole community. However, the views expressed by respondents from this group are

consistent with those from the rest of the lagoon.

Figure 6.6. Respondents from Marovo Lagoon that believed issues surrounding spawning

aggregations were important.


SDA UC CFC

Spawning aggregations to having groupers in the future 20 54 2

Fishing in passages during spawning season to feed the family 20 54 2

Fishing in passages during spawning season to make money 20 54 2

Not fishing in passages during spawning season 77 82 13

Protected areas ie. No fishing 78 83 13

Around three quarters of SDA and UC respondents described customary rights to fishing

areas and respecting these rights as important (Figure 6.7). However, some respondents within

these communities did not regard the system of customary rights as important. This result

reflects some deterioration in the willingness to adhere to customary rules regarding fishing

rights. About 60 percent of SDA and UC respondents recognized the importance of the

0

20

40

60

80

100

Spawning

aggregations to

having groupers

in the future

Fishing in

passages during

spawning season

to feed the family

Fishing in

passages during

spawning season

to make money

Not fishing in

passages during

the spawning

season

Protected areas

ie. no fishing

Responses o

f "I

mport

ant"

(%

)

SDA

UC

CFC

118

moratorium on the LRFFT. Two thirds of SDA respondents said that it was important that the

moratorium be lifted. Less than half (43.37 percent) of UC respondents considered it

important to lift the moratorium, implying that more than half saw it as important to retain the

moratorium. Three quarters of SDA respondents considered adopting modern fisheries

management to be important, whereas two thirds of UC respondents thought it to be

important.

Figure 6.7. Respondents from Marovo Lagoon that believed issues surrounding management

were important.

NB. Sample size pertaining to Figure 6.7

SDA UC CFC

Customary rights regarding fishing areas 77 83 14

Respect for customary rights 77 83 14

The moratorium banning live fish exports 78 83 14

Lifting the moratorium 78 83 13

Adopting modern fisheries management 20 54 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Customary rights

regarding fishing

areas

Respect for

customary rights

The moratorium

banning live fish

export

Lifting the

moratorium

Adopting modern

fisheries

management

Responses o

f "I

mport

ant"

(%

)

SDA

UC

CFC

119

6.3 Discussion

6.3.1 Perceived Necessity for the LRFFT in Marovo Lagoon

Marovo Lagoon covers a large area and is populated almost entirely of villages that are

inhabited by people living a largely subsistence-agrarian existence, although there is a steadily

increasing reliance on the cash economy. There is a market for the finfish resource, under-

utilised because the Fisheries Centre at Seghe is not used to its full potential. Participation in

the trochus and bêche-de-mer fisheries is minimal and there is little copra production.

Interviews accompanying the pilot survey in October 1999 and informal discussions with

fishers in February 2000 indicated that some villagers were eager for the trade to be resumed

due to a perception that the central fisheries authority was denying them the opportunity to

make a living. Others reasons cited by fishers for resumption of the trade included the need

for money to pay school fees, and because the only other market for finfish, the “eskies”

fishery, provided insufficient income because there was no power for refrigeration. The

Fisheries Centre is a long distance away from many of the villages and most people had

wooden paddle canoes, which limited their ability to transport their catch to the Centre.

Informal discussions during the conduct of the survey indicated that some villagers were

unhappy with the disparity between the price paid to fishers for their live catch and the price

that diners in Hong Kong pay for the fish, which left some feeling disgruntled with the

LRFFT operator. There was concern expressed that the royalty payment, made by the

company to resource owners, was not being equitably distributed through village

infrastructure development. Some saw this type of unsettling influence of the LRFFT on the

social status quo, as an undesirable byproduct accompanying a fishery that provided a

substantial income for just a short period of time. Table 6.7 indicates that while the upper 25

percent of income earners made relatively high returns from the LRFFT, for those in the 25-

75 percentile of income earners, the returns were moderate at best. Figure 6.7 indicates that

opinion was divided as to whether it was important, firstly, to impose the moratorium, and

secondly, to lift the moratorium and resume activity in the fishery.

120

6.3.2 Impact of the LRFFT on Village Households in Marovo Lagoon

The extent of fishing effort exerted during the operation of the LRFFT had a marked effect on

day-to-day village life throughout Marovo Lagoon. Table 6.3 indicates that, during the

operation of the trade, respondents from SDA villages spent an average of more than 32 hours

per week fishing (median of 24 hours) compared to an average of 7.47 hours per week in

1999. Respondents from UC villages averaged more than 37 hours per week fishing during

the trade (median of 36 hours) compared to an average of 9.17 hours week in 1999, while

CFC respondents exerted double the fishing effort than would ordinarily be the case. For

people from SDA and UC villages, in particular, this left little time for the conduct of usual

household duties.

More than half of SDA respondents participated in the LRFFT (Table 6.2). Just 15 percent of

LRFFT participants stated that live fishery bycatch was consumed at remote camps, indicating

that the establishment of such camps was not widespread throughout the SDA community.

The camps, however, comprised whole families with women also fishing. Absence from the

village for long periods of fishing activity through the day, or through the week for those that

established camps, resulted in less time dedicated to village and household activities. Figure

6.2 indicates that there was a substantial reduction in participation in nominated household

activities.

Gardening, an activity that provides an income for 84 percent of Marovo Lagoon respondents

(Figure 6.3), had a substantial reduction in participation among respondents, particularly from

the UC and CFC communities. Less than half those that spent time gardening in 1999,

participated in the activity during the LRFFT (Figure 6.3). The ramifications of this might be

a shortage of fresh produce at local markets during the operation of the trade, an increase in

the cost of such produce during this time as a result, and an increase in the need to purchase

food from outside of the local area. Respondents from SDA villages also reported a decline in

participation in this activity but the extent of the decline was less marked.

The conduct of household repairs throughout Marovo Lagoon virtually ceased during the

LRFFT. Art and craft, particularly but not exclusively, the production of carvings from

coconut, kerosene wood and ebony that so epitomise Marovo Lagoon and the cultural

expression of the people, is practiced throughout the lagoon but the highest concentration of

this activity is among the villages in the SDA community. Other forms of art and craft include

production of fish hooks and lures, and woven fabrics. Figure 6.3 indicates that more than 70

121

percent of male SDA respondents spent an average of nearly 27 hours per week producing art

in 1999. During the LRFFT, this proportion declined to about a third and those that did

continue with art works spent about 10 hours per week less on the activity. The role typically

played by women in the production of the wood carvings involves finishing, an activity

involving fine sanding and polishing. Figure 6.4 indicates that 43 percent of SDA respondents

earned money from their art. Table 6.7 indicates that this income was lucrative by comparison

with other sources. In the 25-75 percentile of income earners, the average income from the

production of art and craft was about double that earned by participants in the LRFFT in the

same percentile range.

There was a decline in the rate of participation of teaching traditional knowledge to children

during the operation of the LRFFT, particularly among household men. Women largely

maintained the extent to which this was practiced. There was even a small increase in

participation among women from the UC villages during the LRFFT.

The dominance of villager’s time and effort during the operation of the LRFFT, concentrated

into the period during which the target species aggregate to spawn, results in an unbalanced

allocation of time to everyday tasks that must be undertaken. Year round operation of the

trade, interrupted only by closure during the lunar phases that coincide with peak spawning

activity during the spawning season, would ease the urgency with which fishers participate in

the trade and allow more time to dedicate to tasks commensurate with the needs of the

household and the village as a whole.

6.3.3 Chilled Fishery in Marovo Lagoon

The fishery that exports fish on ice in eskies to Honiara is a significant, yet underdeveloped

fishery in Marovo Lagoon. Almost two thirds of SDA respondents indicated that they

participated in the fishery. Table 6.4 indicates that this was typically carried out by two

household members who conducted two trips each per week of about six hours in duration,

for around seven months of the year. The lack of electricity for refrigeration and the distance

of most SDA villages from those services available at the Fisheries Centre in Seghe, limit the

extent to which participation is currently possible. Fishing for the eskies fishery was typically

carried out during the period just prior to the anticipated arrival of the boat that backfills with

eskies for the return leg to Honiara. It is most likely that there is a component of the effort and

catch details recorded for the eskies fishery that applies to the household fishery, because

122

some of the catch that is ostensibly for sale would be kept for household consumption. In the

absence of a creel survey, however, these data provide a reasonable guide.

Income derived from this fishery was most significant among SDA respondents. Figure 6.4

indicates that those in the 25-75 percentile of income earners made an average of $1,660 from

the sale of chilled fish in 1999. This figure is about $650 more than was earned that year by

those from UC villages. The upper 25 percent of earners averaged more than $6,000 from the

fishery, making it a very significant source of income in the area. SDA school fees are high

relative to those attended by UC and CFC children (Figure 6.5) and Church fundraising

targets are pursued eagerly by SDA practitioners.

The catch details for the eskies fishery (Table 6.6) indicate that both SDA and UC participants

caught an average of 20-25 fish per trip. The grouper component of the catch was just five

percent, indicating that the fishing activity for the eskies fishery was generally carried out in

the lagoon in habitats that might be frequented during fishing trips for the household where

fishers would likely target species that are preferred in their diet.

A little more than one third of UC respondents indicated that they participated in the eskies

fishery. Fishing effort applied was not dissimilar to that applied by SDA fishers. However,

more than half of the UC participants indicated that they fished in the eskies fisheries for three

months or less in 1999. The UC villages, listed in Table 6.1, are situated in the general

vicinity of the Fisheries Centre at Seghe. Fishers in these villages, in particular, would benefit

from the refrigeration facilities at the centre. Development of the LRFFT in Marovo Lagoon,

with an emphasis on airfreight of live fish to Hong Kong, would involve the use of the

Fisheries Centre at Seghe for holding of live fish and chilled fish for transport to Honiara. The

Rural Fisheries Enterprise Project, which established the centre, is in the process of giving the

centre to the communities who are in a position to use it. The Centre will be capable of

managing the marketing of a diverse range of marine products (Rory Stewart, personal

communication, 2001).

6.3.4 Significance of the LRFFT Target Species in Marovo Lagoon

Groupers, or pajara (both rock cods and coral trouts) do not feature prominently in the diet of

villagers (see Figure 6.2). This result is indicative of the fact that fishers do not necessarily

fish in deepwater passages for subsistence purposes. Proximity to passages plays a key role in

this factor due to the basic nature of transportation. In interviews conducted during the pilot

123

survey in October 1999, villagers reported that mara (trevally spp.) was eaten much more

frequently than pajara.

Figure 6.3 indicates that, while species commonly targeted for the LRFFT did occur in the

diets of respondents in Marovo Lagoon, few respondents reported consuming the species at

least once per week. This was found to be particularly true of respondents from SDA villages,

whose pattern of consumption of these species demonstrated little variation in the presence or

absence of seasonal spawning aggregations. Twenty percent of SDA respondents indicated

that they eat Plectropomos areolatus at least once per week. However, consumption

frequency of other nominated species suggests that the species do not retain great value as a

food resource. This result has implications for the will to conserve the resource for this

purpose.

Exploitation of the resource for financial reward, however, also requires conservation

measures to avert collapse of the resource base. More than 60 percent of SDA respondents

indicated that they believed spawning aggregations were important to having these species in

the future and more than three quarters believed it was important to avoid fishing in

deepwater passages during the spawning season. In addition, more than 88 percent of SDA

respondents indicated that it was important to establish protected areas where no fishing was

permitted (Figure 6.6). This suggests that, although the will to conserve stocks of these

species as a food resource is relatively weak, the basis for acceptance of management

measures that conserve stocks for future trade is strong. In this regard, raising awareness of

the consequences of targeting seasonal spawning aggregations is emphasised so that

management prescriptions initiated by resource owners are fully understood.

Respondents from UC villages indicated that the three main LRFFT species featured in their

diets and that the frequency of consumption was substantially greater than their SDA

neighbours. This was particularly true for the two Epinephelid species, where one quarter of

UC respondents indicated that they ate Epinephelus polyphekadion at least once per week,

and one third reported the same with regard to E. fuscoguttatus. The presence or absence of

seasonal spawning aggregations created very little variation in these results. The frequency

with which respondents consumed the lesser LRFFT species (Plectropomus leopardus,

Variola louti and P. oligacanthus) suggests that these species occur in smaller numbers in

Marovo Lagoon, and that the habitats present do not support large numbers of these species.

This serves to intensify the fishing pressure on the three main species during the operation of

124

the LRFFT and strengthens the argument for a year-round operation of the trade with spatial

and temporal closure of spawning aggregation sites.

The size of the catch, illustrated in Table 4.4, indicates that in Marovo Lagoon the average

number of fish caught per trip was actually higher in 1999 than it was during the LRFFT

despite the average trip duration being three times longer during the LRFFT (Table 4.2). In

informal discussions during the conduct of the questionnaire, a Marovo fisher stated that

fishing effort during the trade in the vicinity of his village was condensed into a small area in

deep water passages (above spawning aggregations) and this crowding affected the level of

success of the individual fisher. The proportion of the catch that comprised groupers in

Marovo Lagoon was about a quarter of the catch in the absence of the LRFFT. Fishers that

participated in the trade reported that nearly 90 percent of the catch per trip comprised

grouper species, indicating that intensive targeting of spawning aggregations was widespread

throughout the lagoon, a fact already accepted by observers.

6.3.5 Income Opportunities and the Cost of Living in Marovo Lagoon

Income in Marovo Lagoon is derived mostly from fishing and agriculture with a relatively

small number of people involved in wage employment and business activities. The rising

costs of living in rural areas stem from transport difficulties, and expenses relating to sending

the large number of children to schools, the need for fuel for transport and lighting, and the

growing predilection for imported packaged foods and tobacco.

Figure 6.4 indicates that the extent of participation in the various income sources varied

among the communities affiliated with different Church groups. Nearly two thirds of SDA

respondents earned money from the eskies fishery compared to 38 percent from UC villages

and just 17 percent from the CFC community. Average income in the middle range from this

source was found to be considerably higher among SDA fishers. Costs associated with

sending children to school were found to be considerably more expensive for SDA

respondents than for those from either UC or CFC villages. Figure 6.5 indicates that school

fees and other school associated costs in the 25-75 percentile range for expenditure averaged

$948 for SDA respondents compared to $236 for those from UC villages.

SDA respondents were also found to be greater contributors to Church fundraising. Average

contributions in the middle range from SDA respondents were more than double that offered

by UC respondents. Hviding (1996 p211) noted that tithe obligations imposed by the SDA

Church require at least 10 percent of any fish catch to be given to the church. This mandatory

125

offering takes the form of either “feeding the pastor” – giving fresh fish directly to Church

employees who rarely fish themselves – or selling the fish and offering the money as special

tithe. SDA respondents also spent more on fuel for transport and lighting. Even tobacco

smoking, engaged in by just 17 percent of SDA respondents compared to 75 percent from UC

and CFC villages, still cost the average SDA smoker considerably more than those aligned

with other Churches. In all, it is apparent that the cost of living is highest for those

respondents aligned with the SDA Church.

Income received by SDA respondents, however, was found to be substantially higher than

those from UC and CFC villages (Table 6.7). The most lucrative source of income in Marovo

Lagoon was from wage employment. One quarter of respondents from SDA villages and one

third of those from UC and CFC villages indicated that they earned a wage in 1999. The

average income derived from this source in the 25-75 percentile was the highest return

generated by any income source, especially for respondents from UC and CFC villages where

the average annual wage was around four times that of the second highest source. Whether

these respondents worked in logging camps or for tourist accommodation facilities, for

example, is unknown. The overwhelming majority of respondents throughout the lagoon earn

money from selling garden produce. The returns, however, are not substantial and it is not

surprising that villagers aim to increase their income by undertaking wage employment to

meet the spiralling cost of living.

Two thirds of SDA respondents earned money from producing art. This mostly comprises

wood carving and is one of the key income sources. Average earnings in the 25-75 percentile

were more than $2,000 and the upper 25 percent of earners from the production of art

averaged more than $8,500 (Table 6.7). Aside from being an enduring element in the culture

of Solomon Islands and an identifiable symbol of Marovo Lagoon, the earnings of wood

carvers constitute a substantial component of annual income and represent a substantial

injection into the local economy. Many of the carvers are also fishers who provide for their

families and earn an income from the eskies fishery. Few respondents dived for bêche-de-mer

or trochus or produced copra. About a quarter received remittances from a relative working

elsewhere, usually in the urban sector and this averaged $866 for the majority of recipients.

There is relatively few income earning opportunities throughout Marovo Lagoon, yet the

integration into the cash economy is well established, particularly as money is needed for the

attendance of children at church schools. Comments made during the conduct of the survey,

from fishers that were opposed to the moratorium, emphasised that participation in the

126

LRFFT enabled them to afford to pay school fees. Others complained that the moratorium

was another restriction on their income earning potential following the ban on the sale of

crocodile. However, as others were not pleased with the price paid to fishers for their live

catch and the extent of post harvest mortality, opinion was divided as to whether, firstly, to

participate in the fishery and, secondly, whether the moratorium should have been imposed

and subsequently lifted, particularly as the lifting of the moratorium was accompanied by

little alteration to the structure of the trade. Conducted on a year round basis with small,

frequent shipments to Honiara for airfreight, the LRFFT would create a regular income stream

for villagers, while developing the eskies fishery further and relieving the pressure on the

reproductive capacity of the grouper resource by closing spawning aggregation sites to fishing

during the spawning season.

6.3.6 The Grouper Resource and its Management in Marovo Lagoon


which it is managed demonstrated little variation between the three Church communities in

the lagoon. Figure 6.6 indicates that about two thirds of respondents understood that the

occurrence of spawning aggregations was important to having grouper species in the future.

As mentioned earlier, this is something that should feature in LRFFT awareness-raising.

Broadly speaking, about half the respondents from the SDA and UC villages indicated that it

was important to fish in deep water passages in order to feed their family and to make money.

An insufficient sample size for CFC respondents precludes comment. Proximity to passages is

an important issue in Marovo Lagoon, given that subsistence fishing activities are normally

conducted from wooden paddle canoes. Proposed seasonal closures of spawning aggregation

sites in deep water passages would temporarily affect the normal subsistence fishing activities

of about half the respondents from Marovo Lagoon. However, due to the low frequency with

which Marovo people consume the species in question and the fact that closure would entail

about ten days per month for three months of the year, the benefits accrued in terms of stock

retention must be balanced with the inconvenience that might accompany such closure.

Around three quarters of the respondents from the SDA and UC villages recognised the

importance of not fishing in the passages during the spawning season. This implies a

willingness to accept temporary closures of deepwater passages that are known to host

grouper spawning aggregations. Establishment of protected areas where no fishing is

permitted was also widely seen as important. Around 90 percent of SDA and CFC

127

respondents believed protected areas to be important, whereas less than three quarters of UC

respondents held this view.

Figure 6.7 indicates that respondents from CFC villages (n = 13) have a marginally stronger

bond with the traditional customary rights and associated rules that govern them than

respondents from SDA and UC villages. However, a majority of respondents throughout the

lagoon indicated that the customary rights regarding fishing areas, and the respect for such

rights, was important. About 60 percent of respondents believed that the moratorium was

important. However, nearly 70 percent of SDA respondents believe that it is important that

the moratorium be lifted, compared to little more than 40 percent of UC respondents who held

that view. Nearly 80 percent of SDA respondents indicated that adopting modern fisheries

management techniques was important, marginally more than those from UC villagers. This

result augers well for the adoption of a co-management approach, where resource exploitation

decisions are made by the resource owners with input of a more technical nature provided by

the Fisheries Division.

128

Chapter 7: Socio-economics and the Impact of the LRFFT in Roviana

Lagoon

7.1 Introduction

Roviana Lagoon encompasses an area of several hundred square kilometres and extends more

than 50 km southward from Munda to Kalena Bay (Figure 7.1). The lagoon is protected by a

series of offshore raised coral reef islands. Numerous human settlements occur on the barrier

islands. Aswani (1997) stated that the inhabitants comprise various tribal groups, sharing

cultural and linguistic affinities. The largest tribal groups are the Saikile and Kalikoqu chiefly

districts and the smaller Munda area districts surrounding Nusa Roviana. Munda itself is

comprised of several decentralised tribal groups that have traditional political authority over

relatively small land and sea territories. Munda has evolved into a small regional government

and trade centre.

Tenure control in the chiefly districts of Kalikoqu and Saikile is centralised, and territorial

boundaries are clearly defined and uncontested. Constituent systems of governance within

each political enclave have, after several generations of intermarriage, pooled their land and

sea entitlements under the jurisdiction of each respective chief. Entitlement holders are

nucleated in various villages and live adjacent to their collective reefs. The Nusa Roviana and

Munda area, on the other hand, is presently composed of several decentralised tribal groups

that have traditional political authority over relatively smaller land and sea territories. Marine

boundaries project seaward from each village, and marine entitlements are not jurisdictionally

pooled as in Saikile and Kalikoqu, but remain under each village’s control.

Church affiliation is the primary differentiating element for each tribal group in Roviana

Lagoon. Saikile and Kalikoqu adhere mainly to the Christian Fellowship Church. The Church

is a major focus in the cultural, social, political and spiritual life of people throughout the

lagoon. In the Munda and Nusa Roviana area, many smaller churches are in operation but the

United Church predominates. There are also small enclaves of United Church followers in the

Saikile and Kalikoqu chiefly districts.

The local economy is largely subsistence, focusing on fishing and agriculture. The tuna

cannery at Noro provides wage employment for many local inhabitants and there are logging

camps and commercial interests in Munda that also provide entry into the labour market.

129

Figure 7.1. Roviana Lagoon, Western Province (Source: Aswani, 1997).

Table 7.1. Participating Roviana villages.

Munda/Nusa Roviana Kalikoqu Saikile

Village No. Households Village No. Households Village No. Households

Nusa Roviana 18 Sasavele 15 Nusa Hope 20

Mbulelavata 10 Nusa Banga 20 Olive 15

Barahulu 15 Hapai 10

Araroso 5

TOTAL 28 TOTAL 50 TOTAL 50

130

7.2 Results


People affiliated with the Saikile and Kalikoqu chiefly districts comprised more than 78

percent of respondents and those from the Munda/Nusa Roviana district comprised 22

percent. Table 7.1 summarises the participating villages. Little separates the data from

householders from the different districts within the lagoon. Significantly, householders from

Roviana Lagoon earned more in 1999 than their counterparts in other regions that hosted the

LRFFT, and the difference between average income and average expenditure is greater,

indicating greater financial security. Table 7.2 indicates that more than half of Kalikoqu

respondents and around three quarters of those from Saikile fished in the LRFFT.

Significantly, there was no participation in the LRFFT by respondents from the Munda/Nusa

Roviana district. A high proportion of live fish were bought by the LRFFT operator, and most

of the remaining bycatch was taken back to villages for consumption. Around 20 percent of

the bycatch was consumed in camps set up specifically for maximising fishing effort in the

trade. Kalikoqu respondents were able to sell some of their bycatch in a local market.

Villagers throughout the lagoon are seeking a significant increase in the price paid by the

operator, both to the fisher and in village royalty. Prices paid were a major issue prior to the

moratorium and fishers now seek substantial remuneration for live fish.

Table 7.2. Characteristics of the sample in Roviana Lagoon.

Roviana Lagoon Munda/Nusa Roviana Kalikoqu Saikile

% Households Surveyed ~25 25 25

No. Respondents 28 (21.9% of RL tot) 50 (39.1% of RL tot) 50 (39.1% of RL tot)



Fished in the LRFFT 0 28 (56% of Kalikoqu) 37 (74% of Saikile)

Mean Income & Expend: 1999 Income Expend. Income Expend. Income Expend.

0% to 25% range ($) 3,836 2,005 4,434 1,953 4,516 2,167

25% to 75% range ($) 8,859 4,559 10,136 4,725 9,276 4,361

75% to 100% range ($) 20,521 9,408 22,872 8,343 20,639 10,005

Mean Income & Expend: LRFFT Income Expend. Income Expend. Income Expend.

0% to 25% range ($) 0 0 214 23 234 50

25% to 75% range ($) 0 0 1,441 90 871 72

75% to 100% range ($) 0 0 4,447 350 2,850 128

Extent of LRFFT Bycatch Mean Mean Mean

131

% of the catch that Co. bought n/a 67.9 73.2

Bycatch Use (%) Mean Mean Mean

Taken to the village n/a 62.9 63.2

Eaten at fishers camp n/a 16.4 23.0

Sold at a market n/a 13.2 6.5

Fed to captive live fish n/a 2.1 1.4

Discarded n/a 2.1 1.1

Released n/a 0.0 4.9


Co. should pay the fisher ($/kg) n/a 22.00 20.00

Co. should pay the village ($/kg) n/a 19.00 18.00


Throughout Roviana Lagoon, participation in everyday household activities was greatly

reduced during the operation of the LRFFT. The number of hours per week dedicated to the

tasks by those that did perform them was also significantly reduced. Figure 7.2 illustrates that

most men from the Saikile villages continued to actively work in the garden during the

operation of the LRFFT but the time dedicated to the task declined sharply. Gardening

activity from Kalikoqu men declined by 40 percent during the LRFFT. Gardening by women

in Saikile villages declined by 40 percent during the LRFFT. More than half of the Saikile

men spent an average of nearly 15 hours per week repairing and maintaining the house.

During the LRFFT, however, 20 percent spent an average of just one and a half hours per

week on this task. Production of copra all but ceased during the LRFFT, freeing an average of

around 24 hours per week throughout the lagoon. Teaching children and attending Church

declined significantly during the LRFFT, particularly among the women. Those that did

attend to these tasks dedicated the same amount of time during the LRFFT as in 1999.

132

Figure 7.2. Participation in household activities in the presence and absence of the LRFFT.


n Men Women


Munda/Nusa Roviana 28 0 28 0

Kalikoqu 50 28 50 28

Saikile 50 37 50 37

Munda/Nusa Roviana - Men

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n (

%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Kalikoqu - Men

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n (

%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Kalikoqu - Women

0

20

40

60

80

100


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Ho

urs

pe

r W

ee

k


Munda/Nusa Roviana - Women

0

20

40

60

80

100


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Ho

urs

pe

r W

ee

k


Saikile - Men

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n (

%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Saikile - Women

0

20

40

60

80

100


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Ho

urs

pe

r W

ee

k


133


Table 7.3 indicates that respondents from the Kalikoqu villages exerted slightly more

individual fishing effort during the LRFFT than respondents from the Saikile villages. Fishing

effort in the household fishery varied little throughout the lagoon, with respondents generally

making three or more trips per week for an average duration of about two hours. There was a

dramatic increase, throughout the Kalikoqu and Saikile chiefly districts, in weekly fishing

activity during the operation of the LRFFT compare to fishing effort in 1999. Kalikoqu

respondents reported average weekly fishing effort during the LRFFT of 30.3 hours.

Respondents from Saikile villages recorded an average of 28.4 hours during the LRFFT.

Table 7.3. Comparison of fishing effort in 1999 and during the LRFFT in Roviana Lagoon.

Roviana Lagoon No. householders No. trips/wk No. hrs/trip No. hrs/wk


n 28 0 28 0 28 0 28 0

Mean 2.7 3.6 2.7 9.5

Munda/Nusa

Roviana

Median 2.0 3.5 2.0 8.5

Kalikoqu n 50 28 49 28 50 28 49 28

Mean 2.6 2.1 3.7 4.7 2.3 6.4 8.3 30.3

Median 2.0 2.0 3.0 5.5 2.0 6.0 8.0 25.0

Saikile n 50 37 50 37 50 37 50 37

Mean 2.8 1.6 3.5 4.4 2.5 6.3 9.4 28.4

Median 3.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 7.0 25.0

The “eskies” fishery does not play a major role in the lives of the survey respondents from

Roviana Lagoon. Table 7.4 indicates that participation in the fishery dwindled with increased

distance from Munda. Whilst the fishery produced relatively high returns for some (see

Section 7.2.6), the level of participation was found to be minimal. Those that did participate

did so for around half the year and dedicated about one full day per week to it. Respondents

from Saikile villages reported significantly longer trip duration than respondents from

elsewhere in the lagoon.

Table 7.4. Fishing effort in the “Eskies” fishery from Roviana Lagoon to Honiara.

Eskies fishery - 1999 Participation No. months H/holders Trips/wk Hrs/trip Hrs/wk

n 21.4% 5 6 5 6 4

Mean 6.0 2.0 1.2 5.3 9.5

Munda/Nusa

Roviana

Median 3.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 9.0

134

Kalikoqu n 16.0% 8 7 6 8 6

Mean 8.5 2.0 1.0 4.8 6.3

Median 10.5 2.0 1.0 5.5 7.0

Saikile n 12.0% 6 6 6 6 6

Mean 6.3 2.0 1.0 9.7 9.7

Median 4.5 1.0 1.0 10.5 10.5

7.2.4 Fishing Catch

Respondents from the Kalikoqu and Saikile chiefly districts reported very similar catch rates

whilst fishing both for the household and for the LRFFT. The proportion of the household

catch that comprised grouper species was about a quarter of the total catch for all Roviana

respondents. Considering the significant increase in trip duration during the LRFFT (see

Table 7.3), the extent of the catch displayed minimal variation. The average number of fish

caught by Kalikoqu and Saikile respondents during the operation of the trade remained

remarkably static in the light of such a significant increase in fishing effort during this time.

The proportion of the catch that comprised groupers increased to about three quarters of the

total catch during the LRFFT.


fishing activity in 1999 and during the LRFFT in Roviana Lagoon.

Roviana Lagoon Total no. fish caught per

trip

No. groupers caught per

trip

Grouper proportion of

catch


n 28 0 28 0 Munda/Nusa

Roviana Mean 10.8 2.5 22.9%

Median 9.5 2.5

Kalikoqu n 49 28 49 28

Mean 10.4 11.4 2.0 9.1 19.3% 80.2%

Median 8.0 12.0 2.0 9.5

Saikile n 50 37 50 37

Mean 12.5 12.3 3.6 9.0 29.1% 73.0%

Median 10.0 12.0 3.0 8.0

Due to the level of participation in the eskies fishery in Roviana Lagoon, the sample size is

quite small but from the available data it can be seen (in Table 7.6) that the one full day that

participating respondents dedicated to the fishery per week resulted in an average total catch

ranging from 10.4 fish per trip for Kalikoqu participants to 27.8 fish per trip for Saikile

135

participants. This is a reflection of the additional time spent fishing per trip for this fishery

(Table 7.4). The average proportion of groupers in this catch was minimal at about 15 percent.

Table 7.6. Total catch and grouper component in the “Eskies” fishery in Roviana Lagoon.

Eskies Catch Fish caught/trip Groupers/trip Percent grouper

Munda/Nusa Roviana n 6 6

Mean 14.3 2.5 17.4%

Median 16.5 3.0

Kalikoqu n 8 8

Mean 10.4 1.8 16.9%

Median 12.0 1.5

Saikile n 6 6

Mean 26.8 3.3 12.4%

Median 27.0 3.5


The outstanding feature of the results pertaining to consumption of LRFFT target species in

Roviana Lagoon is that although it is known that mara (trevallies) are the preferred food fish

(Hamilton and Walter, 1999), the nominated grouper species do form an integral part of the

diet of villagers. The three main LRFFT species feature prominently, especially during the

known spawning season. Figure 7.3 illustrates the pattern of consumption of LRFFT target

species by villagers from the three districts within the lagoon.

Figure 7.3 indicates that more than 95 percent of Roviana respondents from throughout the

lagoon reported that Plectropomus areolatus, Epinephelus polyphekadion and E.

fuscoguttatus featured in their diet throughout the year, regardless of the occurrence of

seasonal spawning activity. Consumption frequency of P. areolatus outside of the known

spawning season increased with distance from Munda. During the spawning season, 88

percent of Kalikoqu respondents and 68 percent of Saikile respondents reported eating this

species at least once per week. More than half of the respondents from the Munda/Nusa

Roviana area stated that they eat P. areolatus at least once per week.

136

Figure 7.3. Consumption and consumption frequency of LRFFT target species in Roviana

Lagoon.

NB. Munda/Nusa Roviana: n = 28; Kalikoqu: n = 50; and Saikile: n = 50.


0

20

40

60

80

100

Plectropomus

areolatus

Epinephelus

polyphekadion

Epinephelus

fuscoguttatus

Plectropomus

leopardus


oligacanthus

Pe

rce

nt th

at e

at ta

rge

t sp

ecie

s

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt th

at e

at "D

aily-t

o-W

ee

kly

"

Munda % that eat target species Kalikoqu % that eat target species Saikile % that eat target species

Munda % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly" Kalikoqu % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly" Saikile % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly"


0

20

40

60

80

100

Plectropomus

areolatus

Epinephelus

polyphekadion

Epinephelus

fuscoguttatus

Plectropomus

leopardus


oligacanthus

Pe

rce

nt th

at e

at ta

rge

t sp

ecie

s

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt th

at e

at "D

aily-t

o-W

ee

kly

"

Munda % that eat target species Kalikoqu % that eat target species Saikile % that eat target species

Munda % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly" Kalikoqu % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly" Saikile % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly"

137

Forty percent of Saikile respondents frequently ate E. polyphekadion outside of the spawning

season. During the spawning period, nearly 60 percent of Saikile respondents frequently ate

this species while 70 percent of Kalikoqu respondents and more than 40 percent of

Munda/Nusa Roviana respondents did so. More than half of Saikile respondents consumed E.

fuscoguttatus at least once per week outside of the spawning season. This frequency increased

to 80 percent during the spawning season. The most dramatic increases in the consumption

frequency of the three main LRFFT target species was reported by respondents from Kalikoqu

villages. Munda/Nusa Roviana respondents also reported dramatic increases in consumption

frequency during the spawning period of species targeted for the LRFFT.

Consumption of species that do not feature in as great abundance in live fish exports from

Solomon Islands (P. leopardus, Variola louti and P. oligacanthus) did not feature

prominently in the diet of Roviana respondents. Around 70 to 80 percent of respondents

reported that P. leopardus feature in their diet throughout the year but just a small proportion

ate them frequently outside of the spawning season, with a marginal increase in this frequency

during the season of spawning activity. The coronation trout (V. louti) featured in the diet of

about a quarter of respondents anywhere in the lagoon and at any time of the year. There were

no responses of “Daily-to-Weekly” consumption of this species outside of the spawning

season and minimal frequent consumption during the spawning season. Consumption of P.

oligacanthus by all respondents varied little throughout the year. The inclusion of this species

in villager’s diets appears to decrease with distance from Munda.

138


Income

Figure 7.4. Income by source (SI$) in the 25-75% range for householders in Roviana Lagoon.


Figure 7.4 indicates that the source of income in Roviana Lagoon that created the highest

return in 1999 was wage employment. Around 40 percent of respondents earned money from

wages with the average in the 25-75 percentile decreasing with distance from Munda. The

upper 25 percent of wage earners averaged more than $20,000 in the Munda/Nusa Roviana

area, and less than $10,000 for respondents from the Kalikoqu and Saikile chiefly districts

(see Table 7.7). The major source of income was from the sale of garden produce. Almost all

respondents reported earning money in this way. The most successful farmers were found to

be respondents from Kalikoqu villages who averaged nearly $4,000 in the middle range and

more than $8,500 in the upper 25 percent of earners. Diving for bêche-de-mer, producing

copra and receiving remittances from relatives working elsewhere were also important

sources of income, albeit that the return from these sources was not as high as that of wage

earners and those with business interests in the lagoon. More than three quarters of Saikile

respondents and more than half of respondents from Kalikoqu villages fished in the LRFFT.

Income from participation in the fishery was higher for respondents from Kalikoqu villages


0

20

40

60

80

100

Eskies Bêche-

de-mer


Pe

rce

nt th

at E

arn

ed

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Av. In

co

me -

25

%-7

5%

Ran

ge

Munda/Nusa Roviana % that Earned Kalikoqu % that Earned Saikile % that Earned

Munda/Nusa Roviana Income 25%-75% Kalikoqu Income 25%-75% Saikile Income 25%-75%

139

but represented returns comparable to those that participated in the eskies fishery. Considering

the extent of participation from respondents from Saikile villages, returns for most fishers

were not significant. Even those that earned in the upper 25 percent averaged just half that

earned in that range by respondents from Kalikoqu villages. Table 7.7 indicates the disparity

between low and high income earners by source in Roviana Lagoon. Householders in Roviana

Lagoon have a range of income earning options.

Table 7.7. Average income by source for respondents from Roviana Lagoon.

Income Munda/Nusa Roviana Kalikoqu Saikile

Averages ($) 0-25% 25-75% 75-

100% 0-25% 25-75%

75-

100% 0-25% 25-75%

75-

100%

Eskies 90 1,620 3,900 400 1,530 4,050 514 2,640 5,280

Bêche-de-mer 410 943 2,000 190 742 4,650 217 760 2,000

Trochus 147 520 1,750 44 185 567 57 208 665

Copra 323 941 3,733 225 833 2,333 444 975 4,000

Farming 620 2,662 5,616 1,193 3,979 8,515 854 2,568 5,669

Art 1,200 1,500 2,600 450 835 5,250 50 510 4,000

Wages 2,060 7,150 20,800 2,268 6,793 9,620 2,190 5,100 9,767

Business 1,107 3,000 6,000 483 3,738 6,000 850 3,500 9,000

Relative 300 769 1,750 211 680 2,700 150 363 864

Total 3,969 8,859 20,521 4,434 10,043 22,872 4,568 9,171 20,639

LRFFT 0 0 0 253 1,257 5,470 282 994 2,622

Expenditure

Consistent with the other regions that hosted the LRFFT, the major items of expenditure in

Roviana Lagoon were food, school related costs, fuel for transport and lighting, and tobacco.

Little separated the amount that was incurred by householders throughout the lagoon in the

25-75 percentile range, with the exception of the purchase of food (Figure 7.5). Munda/Nusa

Roviana respondents in this range paid about $300 on average more than their neighbours

from the Kalikoqu and Saikile chiefly districts (see Table 7.8). A very high percentage of

respondents spent money on tobacco throughout the lagoon, with around 80 percent incurring

costs associated with smoking. The average cost in the 25-75 percentile was comparable to

that which was spent on schooling in the same range. Respondents from the Munda/Nusa

Roviana area spent more on fuel than respondents from other districts within Roviana

Lagoon.

140

Figure 7.5. Expenditure by item in the 25-75% range for respondents from Roviana Lagoon.


Table 7.8. Average expenditure by source for respondents from Roviana Lagoon.

Expenditure Munda/Nusa Roviana Kalikoqu Saikile

0-25% 25-75% 75-

100% 0-25% 25-75%

75-

100% 0-25% 25-75%

75-

100%

School 85 622 1,958 115 619 2,312 90 550 1,900

Church 54 105 404 35 110 374 26 77 178

Marriage 59 160 333 75 196 443 43 169 839

Fuel 199 806 1,610 221 598 1,230 222 642 1,904

Food 797 1,819 3,497 637 2,124 3,332 769 2,167 4,222

Clothing 86 349 350 66 277 545 53 221 651

Medical 7 65 550 13 81 406 8 59 428

Fishing 17 42 120 30 88 227 24 58 134

Tobacco 134 697 1,947 149 633 1,521 141 635 1,680

TOTAL 2,005 4,559 9,408 1,953 4,725 8,343 2,167 4,361 10,005

LRFFT 0 0 0 25 96 260 50 77 128


0

20

40

60

80

100


0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Munda/Nusa Roviana % that Spent Kalikoqu % that Spent Saikile % that Spent

Munda/Nusa Roviana Expend. 25%-75% Kalikoqu Expend. 25%-75% Saikile Expend. 25%-75%

141


Responses to questions measuring perceptions of importance regarding issues affecting the

management of the LRFFT in Roviana Lagoon were consistent with those received

throughout the study. Figure 7.6 illustrates that around 90 percent of respondents believe that

spawning aggregations are important to having the fish resource in the future. More than half

believe that the spawning aggregations are an important source of food for their families,

including 62 percent of respondents from Saikile villages. Only 18 percent of respondents

from Kalikoqu villages saw the aggregations as important sources of income compared to 38

percent of those surveyed from Saikile villages. Less than 30 percent of Munda/Nusa Roviana

respondents held that view. The overwhelming majority of respondents believe that it is

important not to fish in seasonal grouper spawning aggregations and that the concept of

protected areas forbidding fishing is equally important.

Figure 7.6. Respondents from Roviana Lagoon that believed issues surrounding grouper

spawning aggregations were important.


Just 60 percent of respondents from Saikile villages and 76 percent from Kalikoqu villages

described customary rights to fishing areas and respecting these rights as important (Figure

7.7). This suggests that there is a significant element within the lagoon that does not regard

the system of customary rights as important and is a reflection of some deterioration in the

willingness to adhere to customary rules regarding fishing rights. Respondents from

Munda/Nusa Roviana and Saikile, in particular, recognized the importance of the moratorium.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Spawning

aggregations to

having groupers

in the future

Fishing in

passages during

spawning season

to feed the family

Fishing in

passages during

spawning season

to make money

Not fishing in

passages during

the spawning

season

Protected areas

ie. no fishing

Responses o

f "I

mport

ant"

(%

)

Munda/Nusa Roviana

Kalikoqu

Saikile

142

Opinions regarding the importance of lifting the moratorium declined with distance from

Munda. Significantly, the majority of respondents did not see lifting the moratorium as

important. About two thirds of Roviana respondents considered adopting modern fisheries

management to be important. Three quarters of respondents from Kalikoqu villages believe it

is important to incorporate modern fisheries management.

Figure 7.7. Respondents from Roviana Lagoon that believed issues surrounding management

were important.


7.3 Discussion

7.3.1 Perceived Necessity for the LRFFT in Roviana Lagoon

Roviana Lagoon covers a much smaller area than Marovo Lagoon but the lagoon is also

inhabited by people living a largely agrarian existence. The difference in Roviana is that the

townships of Munda with its markets, and Noro with its tuna cannery, are nearby and there is

a steadily increasing reliance on the cash economy, often accompanying entry into the labour

market. As in Marovo Lagoon, there is a market for the finfish resource in the “eskies” fishery

but participation in the fishery is minimal, particularly for those living further away from

Munda. The Fisheries Centre in Munda and some nearby resorts buy fish from local fishers.

More than 40 percent of respondents participated in the bêche-de-mer fishery, slightly less

dived for trochus and about half produced copra. Fishers in the Saikile village of Hapai, far

0

20

40

60

80

100

Customary rights

regarding fishing

areas

Respect for

customary rights

The moratorium

banning live fish

export

Lifting the

moratorium

Adopting modern

fisheries

management

Responses o

f "I

mport

ant"

(%

)

Munda/Nusa Roviana Kalikoqu Saikile

143

from the markets of Munda and the cannery at Noro, told Johannes (1999) that due to the

level of post-harvest mortality, the price received for live fish caused resentment among some

villagers and there was not much enthusiasm for the return of the LRFFT company even if the

moratorium was lifted. Nonetheless, 74 percent of respondents from Saikile villages

participated in the fishery (Table 7.2). Figure 7.7 indicates that 72 percent of Saikile

respondents stated that the moratorium was important and just 24 percent indicated that it was

important to lift the moratorium. Given that monetary losses resulting from post harvest

mortality was a significant issue in Roviana Lagoon, the reinstatement of the live fishery with

an emphasis on airfreight, in conjunction with further development of the eskies fishery, as

outlined in the Marovo Lagoon section of this paper, should induce a positive response from

fishers and resource owners.

7.3.2 Impact of the LRFFT on Village Households in Roviana Lagoon

The extent of fishing effort exerted during the operation of the LRFFT had a significant effect

on day-to-day village life throughout the Kalikoqu and Saikile chiefly districts of Roviana

Lagoon. Table 7.3 indicates that, during the operation of the trade, respondents from Kalikoqu

villages exerted an average of more than 30 hours per week fishing (median of 25 hours)

compared to an average of little more than eight hours per week in 1999. Respondents from

Saikile villages averaged more than 28 hours per week fishing during the trade (median of 25

hours) compared to an average of more than nine hours week in 1999, while Munda/Nusa

Roviana respondents did not participate in the LRFFT. For people from Kalikoqu and Saikile

villages, this left little time for the conduct of usual household duties.

More than half of respondents from Kalikoqu villages participated in the LRFFT (Table 7.2).

Just 16 percent of LRFFT participants stated that live fishery bycatch was consumed at

remote camps, indicating that the establishment of such camps was not widespread throughout

the Kalikoqu community. Absence from the village for long periods of fishing activity

through the day, or through the week for those that established camps, resulted in less time

dedicated to village and household activities. Figure 7.2 indicates that there was a substantial

reduction in participation in nominated household activities. Around 23 percent of

respondents from Saikile villages consumed LRFFT bycatch at remote camps and very few

were able to sell bycatch in a local market. This is indicative of the distance from Munda and

its markets and the proximity of Saikile villages to the deepwater passages that typically host

spawning aggregations.

144

Gardening, an activity that provides an income for 95 percent of Roviana Lagoon respondents

(Figure 4.3), saw a significant reduction in participation among respondents from the

Kalikoqu and Saikile communities. No comparison was possible for the respondents from the

Munda/Nusa Roviana area, as no respondents from this area had fished in the LRFFT. The

ramifications of the reduction in gardening activity during the LRFFT might be a shortage of

fresh produce at local markets during the operation of the trade, an increase in the cost of such

produce during this time as a result, and an increase in the need to purchase food from outside

the local area. Figure 7.4 indicates that the sale of gardening and farming produce represents a

significant component of the income for respondents from Kalikoqu villages. Participation in

the LRFFT represents an opportunity cost for these respondents, particularly as income

derived from participation in the trade was not great for the majority of participants (those in

the 25-75 percentile). There was also a decline in the rate of participation of teaching

traditional knowledge to children during the operation of the LRFFT, particularly among

household men. Women largely maintained the extent to which this was practiced.

The dominance of villager’s time and effort spent fishing during the operation of the LRFFT,

concentrated into the period during which the target species aggregate to spawn, results in an

unbalanced allocation of time to everyday tasks that must be undertaken. Participation, and

the extent to which fishers participated in the LRFFT, increased with distance from Munda.

The disruption to village and household life in general also increased with distance from

Munda. Year round operation of the trade, interrupted only by closure during the lunar phases

that coincide with peak spawning activity during the spawning season would ease the urgency

with which fishers participate in the trade and allow more time to dedicate to tasks

commensurate with the needs of the household and the village as a whole.

7.3.3 Chilled Fishery in Roviana Lagoon

The fishery that exports fish on ice in eskies to Honiara is not a significant fishery in Roviana

Lagoon. It is a fishery that could be developed further, in conjunction with year-round

operation of the LRFFT. Little more than 20 percent of respondents from the Munda/Nusa

Roviana area indicated that they participated in the fishery. The proportion of participants in

the eskies fishery declined with distance from Honiara, with just 12 percent of respondents

from Saikile villages indicating that they fished in the eskies fishery. Table 7.4 indicates that

participation typically entailed the dedication of one full day per week, for around half of the

year. The lack of electricity for refrigeration and the distance from such services available at

the Fisheries Centre in Munda from most villages, particularly those from Kalikoqu and

145

Saikile chiefly districts, limit the extent to which participation is currently possible. Regular

shipping of live fish to a transhipment facility in Honiara might develop this fishery further,

thereby creating a market for LRFFT bycatch and bolstering the income stream for villagers

throughout the lagoon.

Income derived from the eskies fishery was most significant among respondents from Saikile

villages. Figure 7.4 indicates that those in the 25-75 percentile of income earners made an

average of $2,640 from the sale of chilled fish in 1999. This figure is about $1,000 more than

was earned that year by eskies fishery participants in the other areas of the lagoon. The upper

25 percent of earners averaged more than $5,200 from the fishery, making it a very significant

source of income in the area.

The catch details for the eskies fishery (Table 7.6) indicate that participants from Saikile

villages caught an average of 27 fish per trip. The grouper component of the catch was about

one out of every eight fish caught. The eskies catch was significantly greater for Saikile

villages. Respondents from these villages exerted more effort in the fishery but the extent of

the catch was disproportionate to this excess effort. The willingness of respondents from these

villages to exert such effort indicates that fishers from the villages in the Saikile district stand

to benefit from further development of the eskies fishery in conjunction with year-round

operation of the LRFFT with seasonal closures of spawning aggregation sites.

7.3.4 Significance of the LRFFT Target Species in Roviana Lagoon

Groupers, or pazara (both rock cods and coral trouts) (Hamilton and Walter, 1999), do not

feature prominently in the diet of villagers (see Figure 4.2). This result is indicative of the fact

that fishers do not necessarily fish in deepwater passages for subsistence purposes. Proximity

to passages plays a key role in this due to the basic nature of transportation for most villagers,

particularly for those in more remote areas of the lagoon. Hamilton and Walter (1999)

reported that mara (a generic term covering a range of trevally spp.) form a significant

component of Roviana villager’s diet. Their study of Roviana fisher’s intimate knowledge of

mara behaviour based in the Kalikoqu district, revealed fishers target aggregations of mara

moving through a deep water passage in pursuit of baitfish that move in and out of the lagoon

on the tide. Whilst these species are important food fish in Roviana Lagoon, fishing activity in

deep water passages will likely encounter species of pazara.

Figure 7.3 indicates that pazara species, those commonly targeted for the LRFFT, also

featured prominently in the diets of respondents in Roviana Lagoon. Outside of the spawning

146

season, responses noting frequent consumption of the three main species increased with

distance from Munda. During the spawning season, the overwhelming majority of

respondents reported eating the three main species at least once per week. This was found to

be particularly true of respondents from Kalikoqu villages, whose pattern of consumption of

these species demonstrated substantial increases in consumption during seasonal spawning

aggregations.

Just fewer than 90 percent of Kalikoqu respondents indicated that they eat Plectropomos

areolatus at least once per week during the spawning season. Consumption rates for

Epinephelus polyphekadion and E. fuscoguttatus were less frequent but form a significant

component of the diet of respondents. Consumption of the species of lesser importance to the

LRFFT in Solomon Islands was found to be much less significant. Few respondents

consumed Variola louti, for example, on a frequent basis, regardless of spawning activity.

This result has implications for the will to conserve the resource for this purpose, particularly

the three main target species that aggregate to spawn in overlapping variables of time and

space. Given the range of income earning opportunities in Roviana Lagoon and the

significance of the resource in the subsistence fishery, it is not surprising that fishers were

reticent to continue fishing in the LRFFT for the price that they were offered by the operator

(see Johannes, 1999).

Around 90 percent of Roviana Lagoon respondents indicated that they believed spawning

aggregations were important to having these species in the future and a similar proportion

believed it was important to avoid fishing in deepwater passages during the spawning season.

In addition, around 90 percent of all respondents indicated that it was important to establish

protected areas where no fishing was permitted (Figure 7.6). This suggests that the basis for

acceptance of management measures that conserve stocks for food and for future trade is

strong.

The size of the catch, illustrated in Table 7.5, indicates that in Roviana Lagoon the average

number of fish caught per trip was only marginally higher during the LRFFT than it was in

1999, despite the average trip duration being more than three times longer during the LRFFT

(Table 7.3). Fishers that participated in the trade reported that around three quarters of the

catch per trip comprised grouper species, suggesting that the intensive targeting of spawning

aggregations could be depleting the aggregations of spawning fish at an alarming rate. These

results suggest that a management initiative for the LRFFT that endorses year-round live

147

fishing activity with seasonal closure of spawning aggregation sites would conserve stocks of

pazara both as a component of villager’s diets and as a source of income in the future.

7.3.5 Income Opportunities and the Cost of Living in Roviana Lagoon

Income in Roviana Lagoon is characterised by the diversity of choice available to many

within the lagoon. Like Marovo, most income is derived from fishing and agriculture. An

increasing number of people are involved in wage employment and business activities.

Recipients of income from wage employment, in particular, earned significantly larger sums

than were obtained from other sources. Average income from wage employment in the 25-75

percentile was similar throughout the lagoon. The average amount earned from this source

did, however, decrease with distance from Munda. In the upper 25 percent of wage earners,

however, Munda/Nusa Roviana respondents averaged more than double that of respondents

from the Kalikoqu and Saikile chiefly districts. The township of Munda has numerous stores

that stock many imported foodstuffs, tobacco and other items. Figure 7.5 indicates that around

80 percent of respondents throughout the lagoon purchased tobacco in 1999 and that most

respondents - those in the 25-75 percentile - spent an average of around $650, which is

comparable to that which was spent on school fees and related expenditure.

Participation in the eskies fishery was minimal, but those that did participate, earned more in

the middle range than was earned from the production of copra, which required much greater

expenditure of time. For the 12 percent of respondents from Saikile villages that earned an

income from the eskies fishery, the returns in the 25-75 percentile were very similar to that

which was earned from gardening and farming. Development of this fishery in conjunction

with the LRFFT could add value to the LRFFT in Roviana Lagoon.

The overwhelming majority of respondents earned an income from gardening and farming.

All respondents from Kalikoqu villages earned a living in this way and the average earnings

of these respondents were significantly greater at all levels than their neighbours from the

other districts (Table 7.7). During the LRFFT, participation in gardening and farming for

respondents from Kalikoqu villages that fished in the trade declined to less than 60 percent.

Those that continued to garden during the LRFFT dedicated less time to it (Figure 7.2). Year-

round operation of the trade with seasonal closures of spawning aggregation sites, with small,

frequent shipments to Honiara for airfreight would allow villagers time to maintain normality

in village and household life. This would allow villagers to maintain the income stream from

148

the variety of sources currently utilised while also increasing the earnings from exploiting the

finfish resource on a more sustainable basis.

7.3.6 The Grouper Resource and its Management in Roviana Lagoon


which it is managed demonstrated little variation between the three divisions of the lagoon.

Figure 7.6 indicates that the overwhelming majority of respondents understood that the

occurrence of spawning aggregations was important to having grouper species in the future.

This is indicative that the grouper species do figure prominently in peoples’ diet, as indicated

in Figure 7.3.

More than half of the respondents from throughout Roviana Lagoon indicated that it was

important to fish in deep water passages in order to feed their family. This was highlighted

earlier in reference to the study by Hamilton and Walter (1999) who found that village fishers

caught species of mara in the passages en route to and from the open sea to the lagoon. Given

that the LRFFT target species occur prominently in the diet of Roviana respondents, it is clear

that there is a reticence to exploit the species for money if the scale of the return is deemed to

be insufficient. Low prices received and high losses of live fish left Roviana fishers less than

enthusiastic to see the LRFFT return.

Like Marovo Lagoon, proposed seasonal closures of spawning aggregation sites in deep water

passages would temporarily affect the normal subsistence fishing activities of about half the

respondents from Roviana Lagoon. However, due to the apparent importance of the species in

question, or at least the importance of other species that might be affected by intensive fishing

of the passages, the longer term benefits should be considered. As mentioned previously,

closure would likely entail about 10 days per month for three months of the year.

About 40 percent of respondents from the Saikile chiefly district considered fishing in the

passages during the grouper spawning to earn money to be important. This compares with half

that number in the Kalikoqu district. Saikile is the more remote area of the lagoon, situated

furthest from Munda and its markets. It is an area that is not as well endowed with income

earning opportunities compared with the areas closer to markets. However, the overall

proportion of respondents who considered fishing in deep water passages during the spawning

season to be important was not substantial.

149

On the contrary, more than 90 percent of respondents from all villages recognised the

importance of not fishing in the passages during the spawning season. This implies a

willingness to accept the wisdom behind temporary closures of deepwater passages that are

known to host grouper spawning aggregations. Establishment of protected areas where no

fishing is permitted was also widely seen as important, indicating in-principle support for

closures.

Figure 7.7 indicates a relatively homogenous response to questions regarding issues to do

with management. The importance of traditional customary rights and associated rules that

govern them was most significant among villagers from the Kalikoqu chiefly district. There is

not, however, overwhelming belief in the importance of customary rights and the level of

respect for such rights that exists, for example, in Ontong Java. Just 60 percent of Saikile

respondents declared the importance of such rights and respect for them. This reflects some

erosion of traditional authority, which should be expected in an area that is in relatively close

proximity to a commercial centre. Aswani (1997) noted, however, that there is adherence to

traditional law regarding fishing and the boundaries of marine estates.

More than two thirds of all respondents acknowledged the importance of the LRFFT

moratorium and less than one third believed that lifting the moratorium was important.

Fishers were unconcerned about the loss of a source of income from the LRFFT because there

are other sources of income so they needn’t rely on any one means of making a living. This

gives Roviana chiefs a powerful negotiating edge when prospective LRFFT operators seek to

buy live fish from their reefs.

150

Chapter 8: Socio-economics and the Impact of the LRFFT in Ontong Java

8.1 Introduction

Ontong Java, an atoll of Malaita Province, was the first island in the Solomons sighted by

Alvaro de Mendana during his first expedition across the Central Pacific, when one of his four

ships was nearly wrecked near the atolls on February 1, 1568. However, it was Abel Tasman

who found the atoll and named it Ontong Java on March 22, 1643. Another explorer, Captain

Hunter, saw the atoll in 1791 and named it Lord Howe. Ontong Java was under German

administration or rule from 1893 to 1899 before it was transferred to Britain. Ontong Java is a

50 km boot-shaped atoll made up of 122 islands lying just south of the equator and 258 km

north of Santa Isabel. Approximately 57 km long and 50 km wide with a total population of

1,700 Polynesian inhabitants, Ontong Java is the largest lagoon in the Solomon Sea, and is the

country’s northernmost point. The total land area is only 12 km2 with the widest stretch of dry

ground on the islands of Luaniua (population 1,300) and Pelau (400 people) measuring only

one kilometre. The average width of many of its islands is only a third of this. No island is

higher than 13m above sea level, with most islands barely two to three metres high and

composed mostly of coral debris (see Figure 8.1).

Apart from the two main villages of Luaniua and Pelau, a few other islands have temporary

shelters where a small number of about 50 people now live almost permanently. The two

populated islands have freshwater swamps where natural depressions have been artificially

deepened for mulching pits to cultivate taro crops, a staple diet on the atoll. Coastal areas

consist of narrow strips of coconut palms and scrub, mainly on the ocean side. Besides

collecting bêche-de-mer and trochus shells for the Hong Kong market, the people of Ontong

Java have few income earning opportunities. Houses are built flush to the ground with a

network of poles forming the frame with the roof thatched with pandanus leaves.

151

Figure 8.1. Ontong Java Atoll.

Table 8.1. Participating villages and their community affiliations

Luaniua Pelau

Village No. Households Village No. Households

Luaniua 70 Pelau 30

152

8.2 Results


Ontong Java is comprised of people from two clan-based groups that are situated remotely

from each other, and as such have means and needs that effect different socio-economic

environments. Respondents from the Luaniua community comprised 70 percent of the sample

(see Table 8.1). A noticeable factor is the narrow margin that exists between average income

and average expenditure in the 25-75 percentile range. More than half of respondents from

Luaniua fished in the LRFFT but the overwhelming majority (86.7 percent) of respondents

from Pelau participated in the fishery. Most fishers did not make a lot of money by fishing in

the LRFFT. As Table 8.2 indicates, average earnings in the mid range were less than $500 in

Luaniua and $700 in Pelau. The more successful fishers in the trade belonged to the Pelau

community where the average earnings in the top 25 percentile ($3,060) were some $1,200

greater than their neighbours at Luaniua.

There was considerable LRFFT bycatch in Ontong Java. Operators bought an average of just

more than half the fish caught. The bycatch in Luaniua was either taken back to the village or

was consumed at remote camps, established near spawning aggregation sites. In Pelau,

however, more than three quarters of the bycatch was taken to fisher’s camps and just five

percent was taken home to the village. Fishers in both communities are seeking greater

remuneration for the live catch, seeking to be paid about five times the previous rate of $5/kg

and $1/kg for the village.

The Anglican Church is the dominant faith on the atoll, although there are a small number of

CFC worshippers in Pelau. Division within Ontong Java is drawn along boundaries of

traditional ownership. In Ontong Java there are two Houses of Chiefs, one in each of the

principal villages of Pelau and Luaniua. The high chiefs from each House have a very strong

say in both the running of the community and the administration of its sea and land resources

(refer to Chapter 8 for more detailed discussion of this system). The population of Ontong

Java is subject to the rules imposed by one or both of these Houses of Chiefs.

153

Table 8.2. Characteristics of the sample in Ontong Java.

Ontong Java Luaniua Pelau

% Households Surveyed 25 25

No. Respondents 70 (70.0% of OJ total) 30 (30.0% of OJ total)

Av. Size of Household 6.8 5.6

Av. Age of Respondent 39.0 44.9

Fished in the LRFFT 39 (55.7% of Lu. total) 26 (86.7% of Pe. total)

Mean Income and Expend - 1999 Income Expend. Income Expend.

0% to 25% range ($) 1,190 1,366 841 1,012

25% to 75% range ($) 4,939 3,811 3,624 3,218

75% to 100% range ($) 16,372 9,166 12,237 6,484

Mean Income and Expend - LRFFT Income Expend. Income Expend.

0% to 25% range ($) 95 55 127 30

25% to 75% range ($) 492 181 700 115

75% to 100% range ($) 1,850 450 3,060 200

LRFFT Bycatch Mean Mean

% of the catch that Co. bought 58.9 51.5

Bycatch Use (%) Mean Mean

Taken to the village 43.1 5.4

Eaten at fishers camp 48.5 78.1

Sold at a market 0.0 0.0

Fed to captive live fish 2.1 5.0

Discarded 0.3 7.3

Released 6.2 4.2

Price Responsiveness Median Median

Co. should pay the fisher ($/kg) 30.00 25.00

Co. should pay the village ($/kg) 5.00 7.00


Throughout Ontong Java, participation by respondents in household activities was

dramatically reduced during the LRFFT. Figure 8.2 indicates that a large percentage of men

from Luaniua ceased to conduct normal household activities during the LRFFT. The activity

of Luaniua women, on the other hand, was only marginally affected during the LRFFT.

Women’s participation in copra production declined sharply but any other reduction in

participation was minimal.

In Pelau, a high proportion of both men and women of the household ceased to undertake the

nominated household activities during the LRFFT. This included teaching children in the

154

ways of traditional knowledge and attendance at Church. Undertaking of these activities by

women in Pelau was affected to a far greater extent than women in Luaniua.

Figure 8.2. Householder participation and hours spent per week conducting particular

activities in the presence and absence of the LRFFT in Ontong Java.


n Men Women


Luaniua 70 38 66 38

Pelau 30 26 28 24


Table 8.3 indicates that respondents from Pelau exerted far more individual fishing effort

during the LRFFT than respondents from Luaniua. Fishing effort in the household fishery

varied little throughout the lagoon, with respondents generally making two or three trips per

week for an average duration of five or six hours. There was a dramatic increase, in both

sections of the lagoon, in weekly fishing activity during the operation of the LRFFT from that

exerted in 1999. Pelau respondents reported median weekly fishing effort during the LRFFT

Luaniua - Men

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n (

%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Luaniua - Women

0

20

40

60

80

100


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ho

urs

pe

r W

ee

k


Pelau - Men

0

20

40

60

80

100


Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n (

%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


Pelau - Women

0

20

40

60

80

100


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Ho

urs

pe

r W

ee

k


155

of 60 hours (average of 55.6 hours). Results from Luaniua recorded a median score of 36

hours per week (average of 35.1 hours) during the LRFFT. There was no “eskies” fishery in

operation in Ontong Java.

Table 8.3. Comparison of fishing effort in 1999 and during the LRFFT in Ontong Java.

Ontong Java No. householders No. trips/wk No. hrs/trip No. hrs/wk


Luaniua n 70 38 67 39 67 39 67 39

Mean 1.3 1.3 2.6 4.9 4.8 6.8 12.2 35.1

Median 1.0 1.0 2.0 6.0 5.0 7.0 12.0 36.0

Pelau n 30 26 30 26 30 26 30 26

Mean 1.3 1.3 2.7 5.7 6.1 9.7 16.9 55.6

Median 1.0 1.0 3.0 6.0 6.0 10.0 15.5 60.0

8.2.4 Fishing Catch

Table 8.4 indicates that fishers from both Luaniua and Pelau recorded similar catch rates

whilst fishing for the household of around 20 fish. The grouper component of this catch was

not dissimilar at three or four groupers per trip. Pelau participants in the LRFFT caught

significantly more fish whilst fishing for the trade than they did while fishing for the

household, whereas there was little increase in the catch during the trade by Luaniua

participants. The proportion of groupers in the catch during the LRFFT was found to be

almost three times that caught whilst fishing for the household.


fishing activity in 1999 and during the LRFFT in Ontong Java.

Ontong Java Total no. fish caught per

trip

No. serranids caught per

trip

Serranid proportion of

catch


Luaniua n 67 39 67 39

Mean 20.8 23.7 3.9 12.1 18.6% 51.1%

Median 20.0 22.0 3.0 10.0

Pelau n 30 26 30 26

Mean 22.7 41.3 3.7 18.6 16.3% 45.0%

Median 22.0 37.5 3.0 14.0

156


The most outstanding feature of the results presented in Figure 8.3 is that the species

commonly targeted for the LRFFT feature prominently in the diet of respondents from

Luaniua, particularly during the spawning season. The species do not, however, feature as

prominently in the diet of respondents from Pelau regardless of season. Frequent consumption

of these species in Pelau is minimal and varies little throughout the year.

Figure 8.3. Consumption and consumption frequency of LRFFT target species in Ontong

Java.

NB. Luaniua: n = 70; and Pelau: n = 30.


0

20

40

60

80

100

Plectropomus

areolatus

Epinephelus

polyphekadion

Epinephelus

fuscoguttatus

Plectropomus

leopardus


oligacanthus

Pe

rce

nt th

at e

at ta

rge

t sp

ecie

s

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt th

at e

at "D

aily-t

o-W

ee

kly

"

Luaniua % that eat target species Pelau % that eat target species

Luaniua % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly" Pelau % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly"


0

20

40

60

80

100

Plectropomus

areolatus

Epinephelus

polyphekadion

Epinephelus

fuscoguttatus

Plectropomus

leopardus


oligacanthus

Pe

rce

nt th

at e

at ta

rge

t sp

ecie

s

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nt th

at e

at "D

aily-t

o-W

ee

kly

"

Luaniua % that eat target species Pelau % that eat target species

Luaniua % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly" Pelau % that eat "Daily-to-Weekly"

157

In Luaniua, more than three quarters of respondents reported that the three main species

(Plectropomus areolatus, Epinephelus polyphekadion and E. fuscoguttatus) featured in their

diet outside of spawning season. During this time, more than 80 percent said that they ate all

six of the nominated species. There was a marked difference in the occurrence of

consumption of the species on a daily to weekly basis between seasons. Figure 8.3 shows that

during the spawning season, 86 percent of Luaniua respondents frequently ate P. areolatus,

compared to just 20 percent outside of this time. Whereas all the nominated species featured

prominently in the diet of Luaniua respondents, consumption of P. leopardus and P.

oligacanthus were least common, particularly outside of the spawning season. Consumption

of Variola louti, however, remained frequent throughout the year in Luaniua with more than

half of the respondents reporting eating the species at least once per week outside of the

spawning season and about 90 percent reporting the same during the spawning season.

Respondents from Pelau reported that the key LRFFT target species did not feature

prominently in their diet. Less than 60 percent reported that P. areolatus and E. fuscoguttatus

featured in their diet at all and just 20 percent reported frequent consumption of these species.

E. polyphekadion, P. leopardus and P. oligacanthus were consumed on a frequent basis by

just a small number of respondents. The exception to this trend was that of V. louti, which

featured in the diet of nearly 70 percent of Pelau respondents’ diets throughout the year, with

more than a quarter reporting that they eat the species at least once per week.

Clearly, the LRFFT target species form an integral component of the diet of respondents from

Luaniua. Table 8.5 illustrates the percentage of respondents that reported eating each of the

six nominated species on a daily basis. This reinforces the disparity displayed in Figure 8.3

that exists between the two Ontong Java communities with regard to the importance not only

of the LRFFT target species but also of the importance of seasonal spawning aggregations as

a food resource.

158

Table 8.5. Occurrence of everyday consumption of LRFFT target species in Ontong Java.


Income

The outstanding feature of the income analysis for the two communities in Ontong Java,

illustrated in Figure 8.4, is the paucity of income earning opportunities available to

householders. There is no market for the finfish resource in the absence of the LRFFT and the

management regime for the bêche-de-mer and trochus resources is such that exploitation is

conducted on an alternating basis of one year for bêche-de-mer and the following for trochus.

Figure 8.4. Income by source (SI$) in the 25-75% range for householders in Ontong Java.


Consume Everyday (%) Luaniua Pelau

Spawning Not

Spawning Spawning

Not

Spawning

Plectropomus areolatus 20.0 4.3 0.0 0.0

Epinephelus polyphekadion 15.7 8.6 0.0 0.0

Epinephelus fuscoguttatus 14.3 8.6 0.0 0.0

Plectropomus leopardus 12.9 7.1 0.0 0.0

Variola louti 15.7 10.0 3.3 3.3

Plectropomus oligacanthus 7.1 4.3 0.0 0.0


0

20

40

60

80

100

Eskies Beche-

de-mer


Pe

rce

nt th

at E

arn

ed

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Av. In

co

me

- 2

5%

-75

% R

an

ge

Luaniua % that Earned Pelau % that Earned Luaniua Income 25%-75% Pelau Income 25%-75%

159

Participation in each source of income from either community is not dissimilar. Diving for

bêche-de-mer and producing copra were the sources that attracted the most participation in

1999. Average income in the 25-75 percentile group from Luaniua from bêche-de-mer was

more than two and a half times that received by Pelau respondents. Table 8.6 indicates that

the top 25 percent of earners from Luaniua in that fishery made an average exceeding double

that of earners from Pelau. Most Ontong Java respondents made some money from producing

copra. However, the returns from this source are minimal with the average earning in the mid

range not exceeding $1,000. The small number that earned a wage or held business interests

made the most money in 1999, consistent with Marovo and Roviana Lagoons. Fishing in the

LRFFT was not lucrative for the majority of participants.

Table 8.6. Average income by source for respondents from Ontong Java.

Luaniua Pelau Average Income

($ in 1999) 0-25% 25-75% 75-100% 0-25% 25-75% 75-100%

Eskies 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bêche-de-mer 689 3,253 8,500 299 1,230 4,071

Trochus 0 0 0 0 0 0

Copra 233 974 3,014 283 738 1,550

Farming 65 250 500 50 220 500

Art 5 34 283 0 0 0

Wages 250 5,261 16,800 4,800 8,000 10,800

Business 1,475 4,467 14,333 0 500 10,000

Relative 140 350 571 300 650 2,000

Total 1,315 5,053 15,567 841 3,609 12,237

LRFFT 129 524 2,086 137 640 3,060

Expenditure

An outstanding feature of the expenditure analysis for Ontong Java is the narrow margin that

exists between average income and average expenditure in the 25-75 percentile, particularly

in Pelau. The main items of expenditure throughout the atoll are attributed to school fees,

Church contributions, fuel for transport and lighting, food and tobacco. Figure 8.5 illustrates

that some disparity exists between communities, particularly with regard to expenditure on

fuel and tobacco. Food was found to be, by far, the item of greatest expenditure where both

communities spent an average of more than $1,400 in 1999 in the 25-75 percentile for

160

expenditure. This expense equates to almost 29 percent of average income in Luaniua and

almost 40 percent of average income in Pelau in the 25-75 percentile range. Figure 8.5

indicates that Luaniua respondents spent an average, in the mid range, of $843 on fuel for

transport and lighting in 1999, compared to $521 in Pelau. Table 8.7 indicates that Luaniua

respondents that spent on fuel in the upper 25 percentile did so at three times the level of

those in Pelau. Three quarters of Luaniua respondents spent money on tobacco, compared to

just over half from Pelau. However, the average expenditure on tobacco in the mid range in

Luaniua was just over half that spent in Pelau. In the upper range, Table 8.7 indicates that an

average of $1,114 was spent in Luaniua, some $200 more than that which was spent in Pelau.

Average expenditure on tobacco in Pelau in the mid range was about the same as that which

was spent on fuel for transport and lighting. Table 8.7 indicates that average total expenditure

in the upper 25 percentile was more than $2,600 above that which was spent by Pelau

respondents in the same bracket.

Figure 8.5. Expenditure by item in the 25-75% range for respondents from Ontong Java.



0

20

40

60

80

100


Pe

rce

nt th

at S

pe

nt

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Av. E

xp

en

d. -

25

%-7

5%

Ra

ng

e

Luaniua % that Spent Pelau % that Spent Luaniua Expend. 25%-75% Pelau Expend. 25%-75%

161

Table 8.7. Average expenditure by item for respondents from Ontong Java.

Expenditure Luaniua Pelau

Averages ($) 0-25% 25-75% 75-100% 0-25% 25-75% 75-100%

School 26 177 1,078 10 283 1,562

Church 8 46 274 13 52 350

Marriage 77 305 1,513 43 181 1,220

Fuel 71 843 2,820 67 521 970

Food 481 1,459 3,182 689 1,418 3,254

Clothing 134 409 1,200 76 264 630

Medical 17 90 800 10 65 300

Fishing 22 57 439 12 53 156

Tobacco 112 284 1,114 142 531 961

Total 1,366 3,811 9,166 1,012 3,218 6,484

LRFFT 55 181 450 30 115 200


Responses to questions regarding perceptions of importance regarding issues affecting the

management of the LRFFT in Ontong Java displayed conviction to the maintenance of custom

and tradition. Figure 8.6 illustrates that more than 90 percent of respondents believe that

spawning aggregations are important to having the resource in the future. A small percentage,

mostly in Luaniua, believes that it is important to target grouper spawning aggregations for

food and income, inferring that the majority do not hold this view. Most respondents in both

communities believe it is important to not fish in deepwater passages during the spawning

season and there is overwhelming support for the concept of protected areas.

162

Figure 8.6. Respondents from Ontong Java that believed issues surrounding spawning

aggregations were important.


Almost all Ontong Java respondents described customary rights to fishing areas and

respecting these rights as important (Figure 8.7). This suggests that there is a solid base for

the establishment of community-based co-management of the LRFFT within the lagoon. A

similar proportion of Ontong Java respondents recognised the importance of the moratorium,

although this view was held slightly more widely in the Pelau community. Just 37 percent of

Luaniua respondents considered it important to lift the moratorium, while this view was held

by more than two thirds of Pelau respondents. Just 20 percent of Luaniua respondents

considered adopting modern fisheries management to be important. In Pelau, where greater

effort was exerted during the conduct of the LRFFT, nearly two thirds of respondents

considered it important to adopt modern fisheries management.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Spawning

aggregations to

having groupers

in the future

Fishing in

passages during

spawning season

to feed the family

Fishing in

passages during

spawning season

to make money

Not fishing in

passages during

the spawning

season

Protected areas

ie. no fishing

Responses o

f "I

mport

ant"

(%

)

Luaniua

Pelau

163

Figure 8.7. Respondents from Ontong Java that believed issues surrounding management

were important.


The paucity of income earning opportunities and the absence of a market for the atoll’s finfish

resource is ample encouragement for fishers to join the LRFFT. Customary rights and

traditions are strong in Ontong Java. The resolve to dictate the manner in which marine

resources are exploited was demonstrated when the leaders of the Pelau community

confiscated gear belonging to the LRFFT operator following a dispute over the royalty

payment. Leaders from the Luaniua community endorsed the action and withdrew from

participation in the fishery.

The two main sources of income in Ontong Java from marine resource exploitation are

trochus and bêche-de-mer. However, the susceptibility of these species to overexploitation has

led to various attempts to modify fishing effort. The regimen in place at the time of the pilot

survey in 1999 involved collecting trochus and bêche-de-mer in alternate years, but this was

modified so that bêche-de-mer could be collected for a one-month period from mid-

November during the trochus year so that villagers could pay annual school fees. It was later

further modified to alternating six-month periods. Clearly, Ontong Java cannot sustainably

exploit the invertebrates discussed and adequately meet its cash needs. Exploitation of the

0

20

40

60

80

100

Customary rights

regarding fishing

areas

Respect for

customary rights

The moratorium

banning live fish

export

Lifting the

moratorium

Adopting modern

fisheries

management

Responses o

f "I

mport

ant"

(%

)Luaniua

Pelau

164

finfish resource might help meet these needs while allowing some level of replenishment of

the trochus and bêche-de-mer resources.

8.3 Discussion

8.3.1 Perceived Necessity for the LRFFT in Ontong Java

Ontong Java is remote. This precludes access to markets for perishable commodities such as

finfish. Income earning opportunities are very limited, with most men diving alternately for

trochus and bêche-de-mer. Women in Ontong Java tend not to go fishing. There is limited

marketing of garden produce due to the nature of the geography and little margin exists

between average income and average expenditure for most people. The dearth of income

earning opportunities and the absence of a market for the finfish resource encouraged many

Ontong Java fishers into the LRFFT. When the trade was in operation, however, village chiefs

in Pelau confiscated the gear belonging to the LRFFT company as a result of reluctance, by

the company, to pay the agreed royalty. There was also concern from the Chiefs regarding the

high level of post-harvest fish mortality. Interviews with fishers, conducted in November

1999, indicated that fishers were eager for the moratorium to be lifted, but were keenly aware

of the need to manage the fishery and to secure an equitable outcome for fishers and for the

community as a whole.

The desire to participate in live fishing activities is strongest in the northern community of

Pelau. Income and expenditure results arising from this study revealed that for income earners

in the 25-75 percentile, there was little separating average income from average expenditure.

At the time of the survey, alternating closures of trochus and bêche-de-mer were in operation.

In 1999, bêche-de-mer divers from Luaniua averaged more than double that which was earned

by divers from Pelau in each percentile division (see Table 8.6). The paucity of income

earning opportunities and the lack of any commercial exploitation of finfish resources

attracted a high proportion of fishers to the LRFFT. In Pelau, where 87 percent of respondents

fished in the trade (Table 8.2), the desire for a potentially lucrative income source is clearly

evident. However, the structure of the trade as it operated gave rise to problems of wastage

due to the selectivity of the species to be exported and in holding facilities. Problems that

arose from the reticence of the operator to pay the agreed royalty payment to the village

caused indignation among villagers and their leaders. Figure 8.7 indicates that all the Pelau

respondents were in support of the moratorium on the issue of new licenses to export live fish

until a plan of management could be implemented. Around 70 percent of Pelau respondents

165

now believe that it is important to lift the moratorium. The perception in Ontong Java is that

the LRFFT is an opportunity to make money from hitherto unexploited resources but that the

trade should be managed efficiently and under the terms of the traditional decision making

hierarchy.

8.3.2 Impact of the LRFFT on Village Households in Ontong Java

Under the former structure of the LRFFT, villagers in Ontong Java, as in Marovo and Roviana

Lagoons, dedicated their time to the trade because of the limited time frame that the buyer

would be in the vicinity. Figure 8.2 indicates that the extent to which men dedicated time to

fishing in the trade had a significant impact on the day-to-day conduct of village and

household activities. Again, it was the eager participation of Pelau fishers that created the

biggest impact on normal household life. Table 8.2 indicates that nearly half of the

respondents from Luaniua consumed LRFFT bycatch at remote camps, established by fishers

in close proximity to spawning aggregation sites. For the period of the peak spawning

activity, men would be absent from the village, returning on the weekends to attend Church

services before returning to the camps.

For Pelau fishers, however, nearly 80 percent of respondents indicated that this was the

pattern during the operation of the trade. When at the camps the Pelau fishers vigorously

exerted fishing effort. Table 8.3 indicates that an average of 55.6 hours per week were spent

fishing for the trade by Pelau fishers. This is more than 20 hours per week more than the

average effort exerted by fishers from Luaniua and an indication of the desire to make as

much money as possible in the short time frame afforded to them. Aside from the conduct of

normal household activities alluded to in Figure 8.2, the provision of fresh fish for family

members in the village suffered as a result of this mode and extent of participation in the live

fishery. In Luaniua, 43 percent of LRFFT bycatch was taken back to the village for household

consumption. However, in Pelau, little more than five percent of this bycatch was consumed

in the village. This places greater emphasis on gleaning of nearby reefs by women, exploiting

the limited potential for the provision of fresh garden produce and the increased reliance on

packaged foods. This in turn creates a further suite of problems. Greater need to purchase

food requires more money. Also, there is little provision for the disposal of packaging from

imported foodstuffs. The disposal of inorganic waste is a growing problem even in the

absence of the LRFFT. Exacerbating this problem, however, intensifies a potential hazard in

that tin cans with jagged and rusting edges sometimes litter the nearshore environment, an

area that is frequented by all members of the village.

166

Participation in the trade, to the extent that respondents from Pelau undertook in particular in

the short window of opportunity, places strain on village women to perform tasks that would

otherwise be undertaken by men. The three-month period during which the operator bought

live fish created an upheaval to normal village life in both Ontong Java communities. Year

round live fish operations with spawning season closures should be considered. As with

Marovo and Roviana Lagoons, the development viability of a chilled fishery exporting to

Honiara should also be examined. Table 8.2 indicates that the LRFFT operator bought just

half of the catch during the LRFFT. An alternative market for the incidental catch would add

value to the live fishery and eradicate much of the wastage. During informal discussions in

October 1999, a Pelau fisher stated that many fishers did not know what to do with a fish that

was bloated when they had brought it to the surface from deeper water. These fish usually

died in storage.

8.3.3 Significance of the LRFFT Target Species in Ontong Java

Disparity exists between the two communities with regard to the significance of the LRFFT

target species. Respondents from Luaniua reported that the LRFFT species feature

prominently in their diet, especially during the spawning season when the frequency of

consumption of these species increases markedly. Pelau respondents, however, indicated that

the species do not constitute a significant component of their diet, regardless of season. In

informal discussions during the conduct of the pilot survey, a fisher in Pelau mentioned that

people do not like the taste of these species. The overwhelming majority of respondents from

Luaniua reported that, during the spawning season, they would eat the nominated species at

least once per week (see Figure 8.3). Table 8.7 indicates that respondents from Luaniua spent

considerably more on fuel on average than those from Pelau. This could indicate that more

outboard motors are owned in Luaniua whereby access to passages is more easily achieved.

The village of Luaniua is in closer proximity to a deepwater passage than is Pelau. Pelau

fishers that own outboard motors are conscious of the availability and cost of fuel and are

conservative with the use of the motors.

The disparity is highlighted by results presented in Table 8.3, which indicates daily

consumption of the nominated LRFFT target species. Even when the species are not

aggregating to spawn, between five and 10 percent of Luaniua respondents reported eating the

species every day. This proportion grew significantly during the spawning season. Pelau

respondents, on the other hand, did not report consuming any of the nominated species on a

daily basis, regardless of season, with the exception of three percent who regularly consume

167

V. louti. The implications of these results are that there is scant willingness on behalf of

fishers from Pelau to preserve the resource as a food source. There is, however, a strong

disposition within the leadership at Pelau to protect the resources within their marine estate,

whether the resource is for food or trade, or whether it is because they are the custodians and

thereby charged with the wise use of the resource.

Given the paucity of income earning opportunities on the atoll and the absence of a market for

the finfish resources, it is understandable that fishers seized the opportunity to dedicate a

vigorous effort to the LRFFT prior to the confiscation of the company property by the Pelau

chiefs. It is a testimony, however, to the resolve of the community leaders that such

opportunity was seen in its proper perspective and the trade was discontinued in favour of

waiting until a plan emphasising sustainable resource exploitation could be formulated.

Exploitation of the spawning aggregations requires conservation measures to avert collapse of

the resource base, whether for subsistence fishing or for income. Almost all respondents from

both communities indicated that they believed spawning aggregations were important to

having these species in the future. A similar proportion believed it was important to avoid

fishing in deepwater passages during the spawning season, although a slightly smaller

proportion of Pelau respondents believe so. More than 90 percent of all respondents indicated

that it was important to establish protected areas where no fishing was permitted (Figure 8.6).

This suggests that fishers are well aware of the importance of the aggregations and equally

aware of the need to limit the intensity with which such aggregations are targeted.

8.3.4 Income Opportunities and the Cost of Living in Ontong Java

Ontong Java, as a whole, is characterised by a dearth of income earning opportunities.

Whereas Marovo and Roviana Lagoons have a market for finfish in eskies to Honiara, tourists

to buy artwork and volcanic soils to produce garden vegetables, Ontong Java relies on the

alternating exploitation of bêche-de-mer and trochus and the poor returns from the production

of copra. As Figure 8.4 illustrates, the very few respondents who have wage employment or

have business interests on the atoll earn the highest income.

The survey related to earnings in 1999 when the bêche-de-mer fishery was operating.

Consequently, there is no indication as to the typical earnings from trochus. Figure 8.4

indicates that all respondents from Pelau dived for bêche-de-mer, compared to about 90

percent from Luaniua. The fact that that management of bêche-de-mer and trochus stocks has

attracted the attention of village leaders from both communities is testimony to the concern

168

over the resource base in the light of the extent of exploitation. Careful development of

sustainable fin fisheries in Ontong Java would relieve pressure on stocks of bêche-de-mer and

trochus while providing an income for people who would otherwise be very limited in

opportunity.

The cost of living experienced by survey respondents in both communities was concentrated

in costs associated with the purchase of food, fuel for transport and lighting, school fees and

tobacco. Almost 80 percent of Luaniua respondents spent money on tobacco. Average

expenditure on tobacco in the middle range was greater than that spent on school fees. More

than half of Pelau respondents were smokers but their average expenditure in the middle

range was akin to that spent on fuel for food and lighting. The narrow margin that exists

between average income and average expenditure does not afford villagers security in the

event of any sudden financial need.

The LRFFT offered fishers the opportunity to make money in a short time frame. However,

average earnings from participation by those in the 25-75 percentile were not significant. For

those in the upper 25 percent of earners, however, the return was worthwhile. This should be

measured against the extent of fishing effort and the opportunity costs associated with such

effort, including neglect of household and village duties, one of which is the regular provision

of fresh food for the family. In Luaniua, the average earnings in the upper 25 percent of

earners was more than $2,000 but this was about two thirds of the average earning of the

upper 25 percent of copra producers. In Pelau, the upper 25 percent of earners from the

LRFFT were rewarded for their additional effort and averaged more than $3,000. This

equated to about three quarters of the average earnings of the upper 25 percent of bêche-de-

mer divers. The live fishery has the potential to earn fishers an improved income but if the

fishery were to maintain concentration on seasonal spawning aggregations, the life of the

fishery would be limited to the short period prior to the collapse of the aggregations (see

Johannes, 1999 and the review in Chapter 2).

8.3.5 The Grouper Resource and its Management in Ontong Java


which it is managed demonstrated little variation between the communities of the atoll. Figure

8.6 indicates that almost all Ontong Java respondents understood that the occurrence of

spawning aggregations was important to having grouper species in the future. This is an

excellent basis for acceptance of the proposed seasonal closures of fishing on grouper

169

spawning aggregation sites. Figure 8.6 also indicates that few respondents saw the importance

of fishing in deep water passages during the spawning season, whether it is for food or for

money. A larger proportion of Luaniua respondents thought that it was important. Given the

dietary component filled by LRFFT target species for Luaniua respondents (see Figure 8.3), it

might have been expected that the proportion that saw the importance of fishing in the

passages during the spawning season would be higher.

More than 90 percent of respondents from both villages recognised the importance of not

fishing in the passages during the spawning season. This implies a willingness to accept the

wisdom behind temporary closures of deepwater passages that are known to host grouper

spawning aggregations. Establishment of protected areas where no fishing is permitted was

also widely seen as important, indicating in-principle support for closures. In Pelau, this

support has already been put in to action in that the chiefs of the village have already declared

a wildlife sanctuary within their marine estate with enthusiastic support from Pelau fishers.

Figure 8.7 indicates overwhelming support for the importance of customary rights regarding

fishing areas and the respect for such rights. Moreover, in communities with a dearth of

income earning opportunities and ever-increasing integration into the cash economy, support

for the importance of the moratorium was almost unanimous. There is, however, a difference

between the views of the two communities with regard to the lifting of the moratorium.

Nearly 70 percent of Pelau respondents believe it is important to lift the moratorium whilst

this was the view of just 40 percent of respondents from Luaniua. Income and expenditure

results in this study indicate that people in Luaniua are generally better off than their

neighbours in Pelau. The paucity of income opportunities and the great willingness to fish in

the LRFFT as indicated in Table 8.3 indicates that as much as the trade was not conducted in

the manner that was acceptable to village chiefs, it is a potentially lucrative source of income

and village fishers are eager to fish in it again. A small percentage of Luaniua respondents

saw the importance of adopting modern fisheries management techniques. However, in Pelau

this was supported by more than 60 percent of respondents. The basis for successful

implementation of a co-management approach to the LRFFT in Ontong Java is clearly

apparent. Strong leadership and adherence to traditional customary laws and values are

pivotal to the establishment of the LRFFT on a sustainable basis.

170

Chapter 9: Conclusions and Recommendations

9.1 Conclusions

This study formed the major research component of the ACIAR funded project. The findings

have been used to help determine initiatives to be included in the plan of management that

arose from the final consultative workshop in Honiara in November 2001. In general, there is

a desire to participate in the LRFFT throughout the regions studied. Determination to rejoin

the fishery, however, varied among the regions that previously hosted the trade. Determining

factors were found to include the extent of integration into the cash economy and the ability to

make the money needed in this growing economic environment. As such, the range of income

earning opportunities was a major factor in the decision to participate in the fishery.

In Marovo Lagoon, fishers wanted the moratorium to be lifted so they can restart selling their

fish to the live reef fish operators, but at a price substantially higher than was previously

received. The target species do not feature prominently in the diet of villagers and the cash

needs of the villagers, particularly those from the SDA villages, were significant. Costs

associated with attendance at Church schools and a desire to fulfil Church targets required a

significant and ongoing income stream. Many villagers saw the wisdom in the moratorium but

were eager to resume fishing in the LRFFT.

The communities in Roviana Lagoon were largely unconcerned about the moratorium since

they saw the LRFFT as just another income generating activity in an area where many such

opportunities exist, given the proximity to Munda and its markets. There is also a belief that

the intention of the Fisheries Division in imposing the moratorium is to help them find ways

to improve their fish resources and therefore is a positive step. The lagoon is smaller than

Marovo and villagers often fish in deep water passages for food, primarily for trevally

species, but it was found that LRFFT target species also feature prominently the their diet.

In Ontong Java, fishers did not like the market arrangements demanded by the live reef food

fish operators, so they chose not to participate in the trade. However, due to the remoteness of

the atoll and high population growth they are seeking income streams, as presently there is a

dearth of income earning opportunities. There is strong community affiliation in Ontong Java

and equally strong leadership. There is currently no market for finfish resources and a

171

properly managed LRFFT will benefit the community whilst relieving pressure on stocks of

trochus and bêche-de-mer.

Fishers exerted extraordinary fishing effort during the LRFFT in all regions. This impacted

significantly on the conduct of normal household and village duties. Many fishers established

remote camps on islands in close proximity to spawning aggregation sites and would return to

the village on weekends. This was particularly prevalent in Ontong Java and more

specifically, in Pelau. Men dedicated all of their time to targeting spawning aggregations.

Village and household duties, including the daily provision of fresh food, suffered as a result.

The LRFFT, in the manner that it was conducted prior to the moratorium, was a shock event

in the lives of villagers throughout the study areas. Ontong Java was most affected and this

reflects the strong desire to participate in the trade and this in turn reflects the desire to fulfil

growing cash needs in this remote atoll. Generally, there was little separating average income

from average expenditure for those earning in the 25-75 percentile in Ontong Java. The lower

25 percent of income earners often spent more than they earned, creating greater cash needs

for their families.

There is a large amount of community cohesion in the three areas studied. Custom tenure

boundaries are well known and respected. Fishers have an extraordinary knowledge of the

undersea environment in their home reefs and the dynamics of life contained therein. The

basis for community managed commercial fishing activities is sound. A seasonal closure of

spawning aggregation sites is strongly recommended as a prerequisite to conducting live reef

fishing activities. Banning the targeting of spawning aggregations does not fully guarantee

protection of grouper stocks from overfishing. Too many fish might still be caught outside the

spawning season. However, it is generally agreed by biologists, that protecting spawning

aggregations is both the simplest and the most effective means of reducing the likelihood of

overfishing (e.g. Sadovy, 1994; Johannes et al. l999). Integration of live fishing activities with

the export of chilled fish, most likely to the Honiara market, is also recommended as a means

of adding value to the live fishery as there is often substantial bycatch that could be marketed.

The viability of airfreighting must be considered to reduce the substantial post harvest losses.

So long as there is biological sustainability for a LRFFT in the three regions studied, the

fishery is one that is potentially beneficial to villagers and as an important source of income.

172

9.2 Formulation of a Plan of Management

The FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries (1997) defines a fisheries

management plan as:

“…a formal or informal arrangement between a fisheries management authority

and interested parties, which identifies the partners in the fishery and their

respective roles, details the agreed objectives for the fishery, and specifies the

management rules and regulations which apply to it and provides other details

about the fishery which are relevant to the task of the management authority.”

Components for a draft management plan for the LRFFT in Solomon Islands were discussed

at a management workshop in Honiara in November 2001. The management prescriptions that

follow were agreed upon by representatives from the Solomon Islands government, customary

resource owners from the three regions that hosted the LRFFT, companies that run LRFFT

operations, non-governmental organisations, the Forum Fisheries Agency and researchers

representing the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, who funded the

research that led to the management plan.

A landmark, unanimous agreement arising from the management workshop was that the

spawning aggregations of Plectropomus areolatus, Epinephelus fuscoguttatus and E.

polyphekadion, which overlap in time and space, would be totally protected. Considering the

LRFFT fishery focuses heavily on targeting spawning aggregations, the decision was

remarkable. Protection would be ensured through a total ban on all fishing at those sites

identified by traditional resource owners as spawning aggregation sites for the three target

species. It was agreed that the fishing ban would be for a 10 day period over the new moon,

for three consecutive new moons each year, to coincide with the likely spawning aggregation

times of the three species. Sites and spawning aggregation times would be determined by

resource owners and fishers in conjunction with Fisheries Division officers.

9.3 Management Strategies

In light of the results of the socioeconomic survey carried out in the three regions of Solomon

Islands, management prescriptions were devised to reflect the opportunities and threats

identified. Whilst some variation in responses arose from the study, both between regions and

within each region, the strategies are aimed to encompass all three regions and to manage the

fishery as opposed to shutting it down.

173

Threats identified from the operation of the fishery include:

• Pulse fishing that drew men away from families and village duties in a series of shock

events.

• Intensive targeting of aggregations of spawning fish has serious consequences for

recruitment to the fishery and ecosystem

• LRFFT operators would not purchase by-product species

• Prices paid to fishers did not reflect the value of the catch

• Financial return to villagers and village communities did not warrant the harmful social

and biological affects of the fishery

• The government Fisheries Division was unaware that the fishery was in operation and

could not play a constructive role in its management and enforcement.

Opportunities identified through the study for incorporation in the management prescriptions

included:

• Endorse the customary resource owner the key decision maker in the manner that has

historically been the case.

• Engender support for spatial and temporal closures during the period and location of

fish spawning aggregations

• Ensure that LRFFT operators purchased by-product species for the chilled fishery

• Enable fishers to earn a steady income from fishing throughout the year that

supplemented existing means, including marketing garden produce and arts and crafts

• Ensure that legal documentation exists between LRFFT operators and customary

resource owners that includes the government Fisheries Division

• Ensure Fisheries Officers have the capacity to monitor the status of fish spawning

aggregations

The two main conservation management strategies used to regulate participation in the live

reef food-fish trade under this Plan are license limitations and area restrictions. The license

issue procedure places the customary resource owner as the pivotal decision-maker in the

issue of licenses to export live fish from Solomon Islands. There are general license

conditions imposed on all licensees. Additional conditions imposed on prospective licensees

are subject to negotiations with traditional resource owners during conclusion of a Reef

Owner Agreement.

174

One overriding condition is that of mandatory closure of spawning aggregation sites for the

key target species. All recognized grouper spawning aggregation sites will be closed to all

fishing for specified periods based on spawning times/seasons. Based on knowledge acquired

from local fishers, the spawning aggregation sites should be declared off-limits to all fishing

for a specified period. Those periods coincide with the occurrence of the new moon during the

months in which spawning aggregations occur, for a period of five days prior to and five days

immediately following the day of the new moon (ie. ten days closure). These closures should

occur for three successive months of each year, those months corresponding to the periods of

peak spawning activity in each area of custom ownership subject to a Reef Owner Agreement

where the fishery is in operation.

The total number of licenses issued nationally should be limited to two (2) as a precautionary

measure, for a period of three years. However, the Director of Fisheries should determine the

number of licenses that may be issued. The Director of Fisheries may review the resulting

whole number of licenses, if necessary, taking into account factors such as changed catch

levels, environmental variations, scientific advice, and changes in the efficiency of fishing

vessels.

9.4 Incorporating International Standards for the LRFFT

Successful management programs are generally based on agreed-upon standards developed

through collaborative processes involving every interest concerned. This includes

participation and representation by as many stakeholder groups as possible. Special attention

is also devoted to groups which are often excluded from decision-making processes (Civic

Exchange, 2001).

US based Non Governmental Organisation, The Nature Conservancy in collaboration with the

Marine Aquarium Council developed a model for best practice standards for the international

LRFFT (Muldoon & Scott, 2004). Such standards were developed inclusive of stakeholders

along the marketing chain from fishers to restaurateurs and included the following key

components.

• assessment and monitoring of fish stocks;

• management, monitoring and enforcement priorities to regulate effort and catch;

• capture/culture, handling, husbandry and transport of wild-caught or mariculture stocks

175

Upon completion of the international standards, TNC & MAC (2007) included the following

as key inclusions in management arrangements.

9.4.1 Destructive fishing

Destructive methods of fishing shall not be used within the fishery.

9.4.2 Target stock

Fishing operations shall:

• not target spawning aggregations or fish on known aggregation sites;

• not target or retain immature fish;

• not take threatened or endangered species; and

• minimize by-catch.

9.4.3 Food safety

Fishing operations shall take steps to minimize the risk of supplying ciguatoxic fish by

avoiding:

• Known ciguatoxic areas, and

• Species during known seasonal high levels of susceptibility.

9.4.4 Transshipment

Transshipment of live reef food fish shall take place at a designated hub unless a state

authorised agent monitors the activity in accordance with relevant regulations.

9.5 Process of License Issue

The Solomon Islands government must initiate a call for expressions of interest for

prospective LRFFT operations. All foreign LRFFT operators wishing to establish in Solomon

Islands must first undergo a screening process by the Foreign Investment Board (FIB). Once

the FIB analyses and approves the proposal, the operator must then enter negotiations with the

customary rights holders in the area in which they wish to commence operations in order to

establish a Reef Owner Agreement. Negotiation must include presentation of an operational

plan outlining the prices offered for live fish, village royalty arrangements, net cage

placement, duration of the operation, and any employment and training arrangements. Once

176

the resources owners are happy with the operational plan, the two parties must sign the

agreement in the presence of a representative from the Fisheries Division.

This agreement is then presented to the Provincial Government who will assess an application

for a Provincial Business License, which will allow the operator to conduct business in the

Province. In order to export the live product, however, the operator must obtain a Fish

Processing Establishment License from the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. This

will enable them to export the live product, either by sea or air.

9.6 Precautionary Approaches to Fisheries Management

Consistent with regional and international management principles, precautionary approaches of

management shall apply to this management plan in accordance with the following provisions:

(a) In the absence of adequate scientific data, the Fisheries Division shall take into account

any uncertainties with respect to the size and productivity of the stock, to other

management reference points such as maximum sustainable yield, the level and

distribution of fishing mortality, and the impact of fishing activities on associated and

dependent species, and including environmental and socio-economic conditions.

(b) In managing the live reef fishery, the Fisheries Division shall consider the associated

ecosystems on reefs within Solomon Islands. The Fisheries Division shall develop data

collection and conduct research to assess the impact of fishing on target and non-target

species and their environment, adopt plans as necessary to ensure the conservation of

target and non-target species and consider the protection of habitats of special concern.

(c) The absence of adequate scientific information shall not be used as a reason for postponing

or failing to take measures to protect the target and non-target species in Solomon Islands.

(d) The precautionary approach shall be based on the best scientific information available,

include all appropriate techniques and be aimed at setting stock specific minimum

standards for conservation and management.

9.7 Management and Development Strategies

The following management strategies are adopted for the fishery in pursuit of the objectives;

177

9.7.1 Control of Fishing Effort

(a) Implement limits on fishing effort for each area of operation at a sustainable level. This

would be achieved by conducting seasonal closures during the spawning period of the

three main species in each area delineated by a Reef Owner Agreement.

9.7.2 Reef Owner Agreements

(a) Develop and implement Reef Owner Agreements that will enable villagers to participate

in the formulation and implementation of a plan for the fishery within traditional clan

estates and ensure that resource owners maximise return from the fishery without

jeopardising their livelihood.

(b) The Reef Owner Agreements should be consistent and in harmony with the plan,

fisheries policies on sustainable development and resources management, and

development aspirations of the provincial and local level governments.

9.7.3 Monitoring and Compliance

(a) Obtain and validate scientific data using logbooks and scientific observers on live reef

fish operations.

(b) Monitor the impact of the LRFFT on non-target, dependent or associated species and,

where necessary, adopt measures to maximise returns from these species;

(c) Monitor the impact of live reef fishing on the ecosystem and implement measures to

address any adverse impacts;

(d) Monitor the economic performance of the live reef fishery, including information on

catches, sales, processing and other relevant information from both the catching and

processing sectors.

9.8 Management Measures

9.8.1 Reef Owner Agreements

(i) There shall be area-specific Reef Owner Agreements on all the areas open to

commercial fishing for the Live Reef Food Fish Trade.

(ii) The maximum area to which a Reef Owner Agreement shall apply shall be the

boundaries to customary estates.

(iii) Licenses to fish and undertake buying and export operations in the Live Reef Food

Fish Trade shall only be issued for areas with approved Reef Owner Agreements.

178

Conditions Applied to Reef Owner Agreements:

1. Prospective LRFFT operators must give thirty days notice to traditional resource

owners that they wish to enter into negotiations for a Reef Owner Agreement;

2. Applicant must present a detailed operational plan to the resource owners (see below);

3. Agreement must meet comprehensive criteria, consistent with such agreements

throughout Solomon Islands. This includes the purchase and purchase price of non-

target species. Additional terms may be met subject to negotiation;

4. Any terms of the agreement must not conflict with national or provincial laws or

policies and must be endorsed in the presence of an authorised Fisheries Licensing

Officer(s);

5. A security bond must be paid by the prospective licensee to ensure payment of

royalties and other commitments negotiated as part of the Reef Owner Agreement;

6. All fishing activity is to be carried out by village fishers. No fishing at all is to be

carried out by the crew of the operator’s vessel;

7. Identification and documentation of spawning aggregation sites within the area subject

to the Reef Owner Agreement must be completed. These areas will then be subject to

mandatory closure for five days prior to the new moon and for five days after the new

moon during the three months of peak spawning activity in that area. This closure

applies to all fishing and all species for three monthly periods of ten days; and

8. Will be enforced by the village communities, Provincial Government and Fisheries

Officers empowered under the Fisheries Act 1998.

Applicants Operational Plan

Applicants are obliged to present a plan outlining all the details of the proposed LRFFT

operation to resource owners when negotiating a Reef Owner Agreement. The plan should

include:

1. A detailed description of the proposed operation;

2. Ownership, control and management of the operation/company;

3. Target species;

4. Method by which fishers would be hired, used and paid;

5. Fishing methods, equipment and treatments to be used;

6. Infrastructure (existing and proposed);

179

7. Human resource requirements, noting clearly where foreigners or non-citizens would

be required, what they would be doing and for how long;

8. A detailed plan of the training components, stating clearly where locals would be

trained, what training they would get, and reasons;

9. Fish storage, processing and transportation mechanisms;

10. The proposed market; and

11. An operational budget.

9.8.2 Licensing

(i) Licenses shall be endorsed to operate within the area defined by the Reef Owner

Agreement.

(ii) Licenses shall be issued for a maximum period of one year and shall be renewed only

after it has been reviewed.

(iii) The licensee and the resource owners in the licensed area shall resolve customary

tenure, use rights and compensation issues in the licensed area before the license is

issued.

(iv) Where foreign vessels are used in joint venture operations, the foreign crew numbers

shall be limited to the minimum required to operate the vessel and maintain the fish.

(v) Vessels shall be limited to transporting fish only and shall not be conducting direct

fishing operations. All live fish shall be purchased from artisanal fishers.

(vi) Vessels licensed to carry live fish shall have facilities for storing iced/chilled fish and

to purchase any commercially acceptable by-catch for sale in urban centres.

(vii) Fish shall not be delivered or transhipped to another vessel without prior written

permission and inspection of the products by a Fisheries Officer.

(viii) The licensee shall permit a Fisheries Officer to board the vessel and shall provide

accommodation free of charge at any time while the vessel is operating under the

license.

(ix) Licensee must not purchase live fish during the period of mandatory closure of

spawning aggregation sites;

(x) Live fish exports shall only be permitted from designated ports.

9.8.3 Species Restrictions

(i) If there is evidence that certain targeted live reef fish species are being over-exploited,

Reef Owner Agreements may restrict such species from being taken from the wild and

180

exported.

(ii) Purchase of Maori or Humphead Wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) shall be prohibited.

9.8.4 Closed Season

(i) Closure of all grouper spawning aggregation sites to all fishing for specified periods

based on spawning times/seasons. Based on knowledge acquired from local fishers,

the spawning aggregation sites should be declared off-limits to all fishing for a

specified period. Those periods coincide with the occurrence of the new moon during

the months in which spawning aggregations occur, for a period of five days prior to

and five days immediately following the day of the new moon (i.e. ten days closure).

These closures should occur for three successive months of each year, those months

corresponding to the periods of peak spawning activity in each area of custom

ownership subject to a Reef Owner Agreement where the fishery is in operation.

9.8.5 Closed Area

(i) Closed areas shall be enforced where areas are identified with significant biological or

traditional importance. An area may be closed permanently or for a specified period.

(ii) Areas in which any of the targeted species of fish aggregate to spawn shall be closed

during the duration of the spawning period in accordance with (d)(i).

9.8.6 Gear Restrictions

(i) The method of fishing should be restricted to hook-and-line.

(ii) Hookah gear shall not be used in any live reef fishing operations.

(iii) The use, storage and transportation of scuba or hookah equipment shall not be

permitted on any licensed fish carrier and related fishing vessels.

(iv) The use, storage and transportation of any explosives, noxious substances (including

sodium cyanide) for the purpose of killing, stunning, disabling or taking fish or in any

way rendering fish to be more easily taken, shall not be permitted on any licensed

vessel.

9.8.7 Foreign Vessel Requirements

(i) All foreign vessels must be on “good standing” on the Regional Register of Foreign

Fishing Vessels in accordance with the Fisheries (Foreign Fishing Vessels)

(Amendment) Regulations 1983;

181

(ii) Valid safety certificate required (issued under s64 of the Shipping Act 1998);

(iii) Appropriate vessel marking;

(iv) License to be carried on board the vessel;

(v) Vessel operator (and crew) must comply with all the relevant legislation of Solomon

Islands, including the Plan, any special conditions of the license subject to a Reef

Owner Agreement, including payment of any relevant fees and charges in accordance

with customary rights when fishing in those areas;

(vi) Gear stowage while navigating through waters not covered by the license; and

(vii) No transportation, landing or receiving illegally caught fish;

9.8.8 Responsible Fishing Practises

(i) The vessel, its owners, operators and crew shall ensure the protection of coral reefs

from damage or degradation at all times during the vessel's fishing operations.

Destroying or damaging coral reefs, either directly or indirectly, deliberately or

through negligence shall result in prosecution or suspension of the license.

9.8.9 By-catch

(i) Precautionary measures shall be taken by the licensed operators to minimise the by-catch

in the course of fishing. Where the by-catch is of commercial value every effort will be

made to sell the catch at the local markets.

9.8.10 Training

(i) Licensee must collaborate with Fisheries Division to conduct training and awareness

in local communities, subject to Reef Owner Agreement, regarding best-practice in

live fish handling, storage and transportation to minimise post harvest losses. Licensee

to fund the training;

9.8.11 Restrictions of Fishers

(i) Foreigners or non-citizens shall not be involved in the actual capturing of live reef

fish.

9.9 Monitoring

(a) Licensees shall ensure that detailed daily records, pertaining to catches and purchases,

182

are maintained in a compulsory logbook. These records shall be submitted to the

Fisheries Division on a monthly basis and should include:

Individual entry

(i) Date;

(ii) Fisher’s village;

(iii) Species of each specimen caught;

(iv) Location of each specimen caught;

(v) Time that each specimen was caught;

(vi) Weight of each specimen caught;

(vii) Price paid to the fisher;

Summary data

(viii) Number of each species caught;

(ix) Number of deaths of each species caught i.e. mortality rate;

(x) When fish are kept in cages i.e. time in;

(xi) When fish are exported i.e. time out;

(xii) Sale price received;

(xiii) Export records, including copies of the shipment manifests and invoices; and

(xiv) Any other data or information required by Fisheries Division for management

purposes.

(b) Information derived from logbooks will be utilised by Fisheries Officers for the

purpose of monitoring stock abundance and the impact on spawning stock as part of

an ongoing program that will monitor spawning aggregations (see part (c)).

(c) Licensees must carry observers, on request by the government, for scientific,

compliance, monitoring or other functions, and cover specified costs associated with

observer coverage;

(d) Officers from the Fisheries Division will monitor spawning aggregations using

Underwater Visual Census. Data collected in this way will form the basis of technical

advice that Fisheries Division is able to offer traditional resource owners with regard

to the status of spawning stock. It will also contribute to a comprehensive database

that will aid future research.

183

9.10 Amendments

(a) The Fisheries Division shall keep this plan under review as new information is

obtained to meet the objectives of this plan.

(b) Any amendments to this plan shall be endorsed by the Director, submitted to the

Minister for approval and notified in the National Gazette.

184

References

ACIAR, 1999. Sustainable management of the Live Reef Fish Trade-Based Fishery in

Solomon Islands. Summary of project no. ANRE1/1998/094. Australian Centre for

International Agricultural Research, Canberra.

Adams, T., 1996. Modern institutional framework for reef fisheries management. In N.

Polunin and C. Roberts (eds) Reef Fisheries Management. Chapman and Hall,

London.

Adams, T., 1997. Pacific Islands Marine Resources – the next 50 years. Script of a short

presentation to the South Pacific Conference on the 50th Aniverary of the South

Pacific Commission, October 1997.

Adams, T., 1998. The interface between traditional & modern methods of fishery

management in the Pacific Islands. Ocean & Coastal Management 40: 127-142.

Adams, T. & Ledua, E., 1997. Inshore resources management and conservation: current

trends and alternative strategies. Marine Resources Symposium, Suva, Fiji, July 1997.

Adams, T., Dalzell, P. & Farman, R., 1996. Status of Pacific Island coral reef fisheries. 8th

International Coral Reef Symposium, Panama, 1996.

ADB, 1994. Solomon Islands: Economic Situation, Policies and Prospects. Asian

Development Bank: South Pacific Regional Office, March 1994.

ADB, 1998. Solomon Islands 1997 Economic Report. Asian Development Bank: Pacific

Study Series. ADB, Manilla.

Alvarez, A.A., 1996. Dead corals in exchange for live fish. SPC Live Reef Fish Trade

Information Bulletin 1: 21-22.

Aqorau, T., 2001. The legal framework for the management of the live reef food-fish trade in

Solomon Islands. Discussion Paper No.3. Report to Australian Centre for International

Agricultural Research. ACIAR, Canberra.

185

Aquilar-Perera, A. & Aguila-Davila, W., 1996. A spawning aggregation of Nassau grouper

Epinephelus striatus (Pisces, Serranidae) in the Mexican Caribbean. Environmental

Biology of Fishes 45(4): 351-361.

Aswani, S., 1997. Troubled water in southwestern New Georgia, Solomon Islands. Is

codification of the commons a viable avenue for resource use regularisation? SPC

Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 8: 2-

16.

AusAid, 2000. Pacific Islands Report – Solomon Islands. Australian Agency for International

Development, Canberra.

Barber, C.V. & Pratt, V.R., 1997. Policy reform & community-based programs to combat

cyanide fishing in Philippines. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 3: 26-35.

Beets, J. & Friedlander, A., 1999. Evaluation of a conservation strategy: a spawning

aggregation closure for Red Hind, Epinephelus guttatus, in the US Virgin Islands.

Environmental Biology of Fishes 55(1-2): 91-98.

Bell, J., Doherty, P. & Hair, C., 1999. The capture & culture of postlarval coral reef fish:

potential for new artisanal fisheries. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 6: 31-34.

Bentley, N. & Aumeeruddy, R., 1999. The live reef fishery in the Seychelles. SPC Live Reef

Fish Information Bulletin 6: 5-7.

Bentley, N., 1999. Fishing for solutions: can the live trade in wild groupers & wrasses from

South-East Asia be managed? TRAFFIC Southeast Asia. 142pp.

Boape, G., 1999. Rural Fishing Enterprises in Solomon Islands. European Union Bulletin

12(4): 25-27.

Bohnsack, J.A., 1989a. Protection of grouper spawning aggregations. National Marine

Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Coastal Resources Division Rept. No. CRD-

88/89-06.

Bohnsack, J.A., 1989b. The impact of overfishing on tropical fisheries. In: Proceedings of the

Conference on Fisheries in Crisis, pp. 35-49, de Graaf, Moore, eds. Government of

the Virgin Islands, Department of Planning and Natural Resources.

186

Bomber J.W., 1991. Toxigenisis in dinoflagellates - genetics & physical factors. In: D.Millar

(ed.) Ciguatera Seafood Toxins. CRC Press, pp 135-170.

Borgese, E.M, 1995. Ocean Governance and the United Nations. Dalhousie: Centre for

Foreign Policy Studies.

Boulert, G.W., 1996. Larval dispersal & survival in tropical reef fishes. In: N.V.C. Polunin &

C.M. Roberts (eds) Reef Fisheries. Chapman & Hall, London.

Bromley, D.W., 1992. The commons, common property and environmental policy.

Environmental & Resource Economics 2: 1-17.

Brown, L.R., Lenssen, N. & Kane, H., 1995. Vital Signs 1995: the Trends that are shaping

our future. W.W. Norton & Co. for the Worldwatch Institute, New York.

Brundtland, G., 1989. Global change and our common future. Environment 31: 98-99.

Bunce, L., Townsley, P., Pomeroy, R. & Pollnac, R., 2000. Socio-economic manual for coral

reef management. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.

Caberoy, N.B. & Quinitio, G.F., 1998a. Osmotic regulation & Na+, K+-ATPase activity in

grouper Epinephelus coioides larvae & juveniles. Fifth Asian Fisheries Forum –

International Conference on Fisheries & Food Security Beyond the Year 2000, Chiang

Mai, Thailand, 11-14 November 1998.

Caberoy, N.B. & Quinitio, G.F., 1998b. Sensitivity of grouper Epinephelus coioides eggs to

handling stress at different levels of embryonic development. Israeli Journal of

Aquaculture-Bamidgeh 50(4): 167-173.

Cesar, H., Lundin, C.G., Bettencourt, S. & Dixon, J., 1997. Indonesian coral reefs: an

economic analysis of a precious but threatened resource. Ambio 26(6): 345-350.

Chi, S.C., Lin, S.C., Su, H.M. & Hu, W.W., 1999. Temperature effect on nervous necrosis

virus infection in grouper cell line & in grouper larvae. Virus Research 63(1-2): 107-

114.

Civic Exchange, 2001. Collaborative Resource Management: Models for the Live Reef Food

Fish Trade. Paper prepared for use by for use by The Nature Conservancy and the

“Developing Industry Standards for the Live Reef Food Fish Trade” project.

187

Coleman, F.C., Koenig, C.C., & Collins, L.A., 1996. Reproductive styles of shallow-water

grouper (Pisces: Serranidae) in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the consequences of

fishing spawning aggregations. Environmental Biology of Fishes 47: 129-141.

Colin, P.L., 1992. Reproduction of the Nassau grouper, Epinephelus striatus (Pisces:

Serranidae) & its relationship to environmental conditions. Environmental Biology of

Fishes 34: 357-377.

Colin, P.L., Shapiro, D.Y., & Weiler, D., 1987. Aspects of the reproduction of two groupers,

Epinephelus guttatus and E. striatus in the West Indies. Bulletin of Marine Science 40:

220-230.

Commonwealth of Australia, 1992. National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable

Development. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Cooke, J. & Earle, M., 1993. The Precautionary Approach to Fisheries and Reference Points

for Fishery Management. Review of European and International Environmental Law

2: 252-259.

Cushing, D.H., 1996. Towards a science of recruitment in fish populations. Ecology Institute,

Oldendorf.

Dalzell, P.J. & Adams, T.J.H., 1996. Sustainability and management of reef fisheries in the

Pacific Islands 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, Panama City, Panama, 24-

29 June 1996.

Dalzell, P.J., Adams, T.J.H. and Polunin, N.V.C., 1996. Coastal Fisheries in the Pacific

Islands. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 34: 395-531.

Davis, D.C. & Gartside, D., 2000. Challenges for economic policy in sustainable management

of marine natural resources. Ecological Economics 36: 223-236.

Doherty, P.J., Williams, D.M. & Sale, P.F., 1985. The adaptive significance of larval dispersal

in coral reef fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 12: 81-90.

Domeier, M.L. & Colin, P.L., 1997. Tropical reef spawning aggregations – defined &

reviewed. Bulletin of Marine Science 60(3): 698-726.

188

Donnelly, R.J., Davis, D.C. & Lam, M., 2000. Socio-economic and biological aspects of the

live reef food fish trade and its development in Solomon Islands. Discussion Paper

No.1. Report to Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. ACIAR,

Canberra.

Doulman, D.J., 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. March 1992.

Dufour, V., 1997. Pacific island countries & the aquarium fish market. SPC Live Reef Fish


Edinger, E.N., Jompa, J., Limmon, G.V., Widjatmoko, W. & Risk, M.J., 1998. Reef

degradation & coral biodiversity in Indonesia - effects of land-based pollution,

destructive fishing practices & changes over time. Marine Pollution Bulletin 36(8):

617-630.

Elmer, M., 1998. The live reef fish debate: what are the facts? Queensland Fisheries News 2

June.

Erdmann, M.V. & Pet-Soede, L., 1996. How fresh is too fresh? The live reef food fish trade in

Eastern Indonesia. NAGA: The ICLARM Quarterly, January.

FAO & UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, 1998. Agreement for the

Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the

Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling

Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. In International Fisheries Instruments

with Index. United Nations, New York, pp. 7-40.

FAO and Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, 1998. International Fisheries

Instruments with Index. United Nations, New York.

FAO, 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing, Food and Agriculture. Food and

Agriculture Organisation, Rome.

FAO, 1995. Kyoto Declaration and Plan of Action on the Sustainable Contribution of

Fisheries to Food Security. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.

189

FAO, 1997. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, No. 4, Fisheries

Management. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome.

Fono, F., 1999. Statement to the Hague Forum 8-12 February 1999. Solomon Islands

Minister for National Planing and Development.

Fox, C., 1997. Asian gourmets taste fish to help save coral reefs. SPC Live Reef Fish


Garcia, S., The Precautionary Principle: Its Implications in Capture Fisheries Management.

Ocean and Coastal Management 22: 99-106.

George Boape pers. comm., 2001. Chief Fisheries Officer (Licensing), Ministry of Fisheries

and Marine Resources (Fisheries Division), PO Box G13 Honiara SOLOMON

ISLANDS.

Hamilton, R. & Walter, R., 1999. Indigenous ecological knowledge and its role in fisheries

research design: a case study from Roviana Lagoon, Western Province, Solomon

Islands. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge 11: 13-25.

Hardin, G., 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1,243-1,248.

Haribon Foundation, 1998. The Haribon Netsman Program. SPC Live Reef Fish Information

Bulletin 4: 7-12.

Hviding, E. & Baines, G.B.K., 1994. Community based fisheries management, tradition and

the challenges of development in Marovo, Solomon Islands. Development & Change

25: 13-39.

Hviding, E., 1989. ‘All Things in Our Sea’: The dynamics of customary marine tenure,

Marovo Lagoon, Solomon Islands. Boroko, Papua New Guinea: National Research

Institute, Special Publication No. 13.

Hviding, E., 1996. Guardians of Marovo Lagoon: Practice, place, and politics in maritime

Melanesia 14. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Indrawan, M., 1999. Live reef food fish trade in the Banggai Islands (Sulawesi, Indonesia): a

case study. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 6: 7-14.

190

IUCN, 2001. IUCN Red List Categories: Version 3.1. Prepared by the IUCN Species Survival

Commission. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Jacques, M., 1997. Doomed fishermen. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 3: 37-39.

Jennings, S. & Lock, J.M., 1996. Population and ecosystem effects of reef fishing. In N.

Polunin and C. Roberts (eds) Reef Fisheries Management. Chapman and Hall,

London.

Johannes, R.E. & Djohani, R., 1997. Reducing the incidence of the bends in Indonesian

fishing villages: education may not be enough. SPC Live Reef Fish Information

Bulletin 3: 40.

Johannes, R.E. & Lam, M., 1999. The live reef food fish trade in the Solomon Islands. SPC

Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 5: 8-15.

Johannes, R.E. & Ogburn, N.J., 1999. Collecting grouper seed for aquaculture in the

Philippines. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 6: 35-48.

Johannes, R.E. & Riepen, M., 1995. Environmental, economic & social implications of the

live reef food fish trade in Asia & the Western Pacific. Report to The Nature

Conservancy & the Forum Fisheries Agency. 83pp.

Johannes, R.E., 1978. Reproductive strategies of coastal marine fishes in the tropics.

Environmental Biology of Fishes 3: 65-84.

Johannes, R.E., 1980. Using knowledge of the reproductive behaviour of reef and lagoon

fishes to improve fishing yields. In: J.E. Bardach, J.J. Magnuson & R.C. May (eds)

Fish behaviour and its use in the capture and culture of fishes. ICLARM Conference

Proceedings 5th ed. International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management,

Manila p.247-270.

Johannes, R.E., 1981. Words of the lagoon: fishing and marine lore in the Palau district of

Micronesia. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Johannes, R.E., 1982. Traditional conservation methods and Marine Protected Areas in

Oceania. Ambio 11(5): 258-261.

191

Johannes, R.E., 1989. A spawning aggregation of the grouper, Plectropomus areolatus

(Rüppel) in the Solomon Islands. 6th International Coral Reef Symposium, Townsville,

Australia, pp 751-755.

Johannes, R.E., 1997. Coral reef fish aquaculture workshop in Sabah. SPC Live Reef Fish


Johannes, R.E., 1998a. Government-supported, village-based management of marine

resources in Vanuatu. Ocean & Coastal Management 40: 165-186.

Johannes, R.E., 1998b. The case for data-less marine resource management: examples from

tropical nearshore finfisheries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13: 243-247.

Johannes, R.E., 1999. The live reef food fish trade in the Solomon Islands and the

relevance of spawning aggregations. A report to The Nature Conservancy and the Solomon

Islands Fisheries Division. 16pp.

Johannes, R.E., Squire, L., Graham, T., Sadovy, Y. & Renguul, H., 1999. Spawning

aggregations of groupers (Serranidae) in Palau. Marine Conservation Research Series

Publ.#1, The Nature Conservancy. 144pp.

Johannes, R.E., Squire, L.C. & Graham, T., 1994. Developing a protocol for monitoring

spawning aggregations of Palauan serranids to facilitate the formulation and

evaluation of strategies for their management. First progress report, August 1994. FFA

Report #94/28.

Jones, R.J. & Steven, A. L., 1997. Effects of cyanide on corals in relation to cyanide fishing

on reefs. Marine and Freshwater Research 48: 517-522.

Jones, R.J. & Hoegh-Guldberg, O., 1999. Effects of cyanide on coral photosynthesis:

implications for identifying the cause of coral bleaching and for assessing the

environmental effects of cyanide fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series 177: 83-91.

Kilé, N., Lam, M., Davis, D.C. & Donnelly, R.J., 2000. Managing the live reef food fish trade

in Solomon Islands: the role of village decision-making systems in Ontong Java,

Roviana and Marovo Lagoons. Discussion Paper No.2. Report to Australian Centre for

International Agricultural Research. ACIAR, Canberra.

192

Kirkpatrick, H. & Cook, C., 1997. The Nature Conservancy program. SPC Live Reef Fish


Kudu, D., 2001. Population Trends and their Impact on Human Resource Development and

Planning. A Paper Prepared for the Leaders Seminar on Population, Development and

Reproductive Health Issues – Honiara 10th July 2001.

Lau, P. & Parry-Jones, R., 1999. The Hong Kong trade in live fish for food. TRAFFIC East

Asia & World Wide Fund for Nature, Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 65pp.

Lee, K.K., Yang, T.I., Liu, P.C., Wu, J.L. & Hsu, Y.L., 1999. Dual challenges of infectious

pancreatic necrosis virus & Vibrio carchariae in the grouper, Epinephelus sp. Virus

Research 63(1-2): 131-134.

Lee, Y.D., Rho, S., Takemura, A. & Takano, K., 1998. 11-Ketotestosterone affects sex

reversal in Honeycomb Grouper, Epinephelus merra. Fifth Asian Fisheries Forum –



Lyle Squire, pers comm., 2000. Tropical Fisheries Consultant, Cairns Marine Aquarium Fish,

PO Box 5N Cairns Qld, AUSTRALIA.

M. Herriman, M., Tsamenyi, M., Ramli, J. & Bateman, S., 1997. Australia’s Oceans Policy:

International Agreements: Review of International Agreements, Conventions,

Obligations and Other Instruments Influencing Use and Management of Australia’s

Marine Environment. Wollongong: Centre for Maritime Policy, pp. 71-77.

Mantjoro, E., 1996. Management of traditional common fishing grounds - the experience of

the Para community, Indonesia. Coastal Management 24(3): 229-250.

McAllister, D.E., Labbish Caho, L. & Shih, C.T., 1999. Cyanide fisheries: where did they

start? SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 5: 18-21.

McGilvray, F., 2001. Ideas for an Industry Code of Conduct for the Live Reef Food Fish

Trade. Information Paper 15. Second SPC Heads of Fisheries Meeting (Noumea, New

Caledonia, 23–27 July 2001.

193

Millamena, O.M. & Golez, N., 1998. Essential fatty acid requirement of juvenile grouper

Epinephelus coioides. Fifth Asian Fisheries Forum – International Conference on

Fisheries & Food Security Beyond the Year 2000, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 11-14

November 1998.

Ministry of Finance, 1997. Report 2: Village Resources Survey 1995/96. Statistical Bulletin

no. 10/97. Statistics Office, Honiara.

Muldoon, G.J. & Scott, P.G., 2004. Creating the International Standard for the Trade in Live

Reef Food Fish. APEC FWG 02/2002, 89p.

Munro, J.L. & Bell, J.D., 1997. Enhancement of marine fisheries resources. Reviews in

Fisheries Science 5(2): 185-222.

Munro, J.L. & Fakahau, S.T., 1993. Management of Coastal Fishery Resources, In A. Wright

& L. Hill (eds.) Nearshore Marine Resources of the South Pacific. Forum Fisheries

Agency and Institute of Pacific Studies, Honiara.

Oomen, J., 1998. Cultural links to the live reef food fish trade: call for workshop participants.

SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 4: 58-59.

Ordonio-Aguilar, R.S. & Ohno, A., 1998. Feeding ecology of selected marine fish larvae.

Fifth Asian Fisheries Forum – International Conference on Fisheries & Food Security

Beyond the Year 2000, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 11-14 November 1998.

Pacifik Nuis. 2000. Solomon Is: Armed men hijack Sol Taiyo boat: Friday, 28 July 2000,

9:59am. USP Pacific Journalism Online: http: //www.usp.ac.fj/journ/

Pajak, P., 2000. Sustainability, ecosystem management, and indicators: thinking globally and

acting locally in the 21st century. Fisheries 25(12): 16-30.

Parrish, J.K., 1999. Using behaviour & ecology to exploit schooling fishes. Environmental

Biology of Fishes 55(1-2): 157-181.

Pearce, D. (ed), 1992. MacMillan Dictionary of Modern Economics. MacMillan Press,

London & Basingstoke, UK.

Pet, J. & Pet-Soede, L., 1999. A note on cyanide fishing in Indonesia. SPC Live Reef Fish


194

Pet-Soede, C., Cesar, H.S.J. & Pet, J.S., 1999. An economic analysis of blast fishing on

Indonesian coral reefs. Environmental Conservation 26(2): 83-93.

Pet-Soede, L. & Erdmann, M., 1998. An overview & comparison of destructive fishing

practices in Indonesia. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 4: 28-36.

QFMA, 1999. Draft Management Plan and Regulatory Statement. Queensland coral reef finfish

fishery. Prepared by the Queensland Fisheries Management Authority with the Reef

Fishery Management Advisory Committee.

Radio Australia, 2000. http: //www.abc.net.au/ra/asiapac/

Rimmer, M., O’Sullivan, M., Gillespie, J., Young, C., Hinton, A. & Rhodes, J., 1997.

Grouper aquaculture in Australia. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 3: 15-23.

Rimmer, M.A., Williams, K.C., Phillips, M.J. & Kongkeo, H., 1998. Development of regional

cooperative network for grouper aquaculture research. Fifth Asian Fisheries Forum –



Roff, D.A., 1992. The evolution of life histories. Chapman & Hall, New York.

Rory Stewart, pers comm., 2001. Project Manager, Rural Fisheries Enterprise Project, PO Box

1573 Honiara SOLOMON ISLANDS.

Russ, G.R., 1991. Coral reef fisheries: effects and yields. In: Sale, P.F. (ed) The ecology of

fishes on coral reefs. Academic Press, San Diego.

Sadovy, Y.J. & Pet, J., 1998. Wild collection of juveniles for grouper mariculture: just another

capture fishery? SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 4: 36-39.

Sadovy, Y.J., 1994. Grouper stocks of the western central Atlantic: the need for management

and management needs. Proceedings of the Gulf of Caribbean Fisheries Institute 43:

43-64.

Sadovy, Y.J., 1996. Reproduction of reef fishery species. In: N.V.C. Polunin & C.M Roberts

(eds.) Management of Reef Fisheries. Chapman & Hall, London.

195

Sadovy, Y.J., 1997. Live reef fishery species feature prominently in first marine fish IUCN

Red List. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 2: 13-14.

Sadovy, Y.J., 1998a. The live reef fish trade: a role for importers in combating destructive

fishing practices – the Hong Kong perspective. Proceedings of the workshop on the

Impacts of Destructive Fishing Practices on the Marine Environment, 16th-18th

December, 1999. Agriculture & Fisheries Dept, Hong Kong, China. pp 200-207.

Sadovy, Y.J., 1998b. Ciguatera hits Hong Kong live food fish trade. SPC Live Reef Fish


Sadovy, Y.J., 1999. Ciguatera – a continuing problem for Hong Kong consumers, live fish

traders & high value target species. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 6: 3-4.

Sadovy, Y.J., Colin, P. & Domeier, M.L., 1994a. Aggregation and spawning in the tiger

grouper, Mycteroperca tigris (Pisces: Serranidae). Copeia 1994(2): 511-516

Sadovy, Y.J., Rosario, A. & Roman, A., 1994b. Reproduction in an aggregating grouper, the

red hind, Epinephelus guttatus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 41: 269-286.

Samoilys, M. & Donnelly, R., 2001. Effects of fishing spawning aggregations of tropical

marine fishes: implications for management of the Live Reef Food Fish Trade in

Solomon Islands. Discussion Paper No. 6. Report to Australian Centre for

International Agricultural Research. ACIAR, Canberra.

Samoilys, M.A. & Squire, L.C., 1994. Preliminary observations on the spawning behaviour of

coral trout, Plectropomus leopardus (Pisces, Serranidae), on the Great Barrier Reef.

Bulletin of Marine Science 54(1): 332-342.

Samoilys, M.A., 1997. Periodicity of spawning aggregations of coral trout, Plectropomus

leopardus (Pisces, Serranidae) on the northern Great Barrier Reef. Marine Ecology

Progress Series 160: 149-159.

Scott, A. & Johnson, J., 1985. Property rights: developing the characteristics of interests in

natural resources. In: A. Scott (ed), Progress in Natural Resource Economics.

Clarendon Press, Oxford.

196

Shakeel, H. & Ahmed, H., 1997. Exploitation of reef resources, grouper & other food fishes.

SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 2: 14-20.

Shapiro, D.Y., 1987. Reproduction in groupers. In: J.J. Polovina & S. Ralston (eds) Tropical

snappers and groupers: biology and fisheries management, pp. 295-327, Westview

Press, Boulder & London.

Shapiro, D.Y., Sadovy, Y.J. & McGehee, M.A., 1993. Periodicity of sex change &

reproduction in the red hind, Epinephelus guttatus, a protogynous grouper. Bulletin of

Marine Science 53(3): 1,151-1,162.

SIBC News, 2001. Daily news bulletin from the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Commission.

Accessed at http: //www.peoplefirst.net.sb/news/news_summary.asp

Smith, A., unpublished 1999. The Live Reef Fish Food Trade in Solomon Islands:

Development Issues and Proposed Management Strategy. Draft Discussion Paper

prepared for the Live Reef Fish Food Trade Workshop, Honiara, 5 May 1999.

Smith, A.J., 1997. Live reef fisheries activities in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. SPC

Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 3: 14-15.

Soares, M., 1998. The Ocean Our Future: The Report of the Independent World Commission

on the Oceans. University of Cambridge Press.

Solomon Islands Government, 1997. Statement of Policies by Solomon Islands Alliance for

Change 1997-2001. Government Printery, Honiara.

Solomon Islands Government, 1998. Fisheries Act (No. 6 of 1998). Government Printery,

Honiara.

Solomon Islands Government, 1998. Environment Act 1998. Government Printery, Honiara.

Sommerville, W. & Pendle, D., 1999. Live reef fish operations in Kiribati. SPC Live Reef

Fish Information Bulletin 5: 16-18.

Stewart, A., 1999. Ban on reef fish as 30 fall ill. South China Morning Post, 9th March 1999.

Sugama, K., Tridjoko, Wardoyo, Hutapea, J.H., Matsuda, H. & Kumagai, S., 1998. Natural

spawning & larval rearing of barramundi cod, Cromileptes altivelis in tank. Fifth

197

Asian Fisheries Forum – International Conference on Fisheries & Food Security


Tegner, M.J. & Dayton, P.K., 1997. The live fish fishery of California. SPC Live Reef Fish


The World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future.

Oxford University Press, London.

Thistlwethwaite, R. & Davis, D., 1998. A Sustainable Future for Melanesia? Natural

Resources, Population and Development. Canberra: National Centre for Development

Studies.

Tisdell, C.A. & Roy, K., 1997. Good governance, property rights and sustainable resource

use: Indian Ocean rim examples. South African Journal of Economics 65: 28-43.

TNC & MAC, 2007. The International Standard for the Trade in Live Reef Food Fish. The

Nature Conservancy and the Marine Aquarium Council.

Toledo, J.D., Golez, M.S., Doi, M. & Ohno, A., 1999. Use of copepod nauplii during early

feeding stage of grouper Epinephelus coioides. Fisheries Science 65(3): 390-397.

Turner, R.K., Pearce, D. & Bateman, I., 1994. Environmental Economics: An Elementary

Introduction. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hampstead, Hertfordshire, UK.

U.S. Department of State, 1999. Background Notes: Solomon Islands. Bureau of East Asian

Affairs, March 1999.

U.S. Department of State, 2000. Annual Report on International Religious Freedom: Solomon

Islands. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour. U.S. Department of State,

September 5, 2000.

U.S. Department of State, 2001. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Solomon

Islands. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour, U.S. Department of State,

February 2001. http: //www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/eap/index.cfm?docid=772

UNDP, 1996. The State of Human Settlements and Urbanisation in the Pacific Islands:

Regional Report on Pacific Island Countries Served by the United Nations

198

Development Programme, Suva, Fiji for the United Nations Conference on Human

Settlements (Habitat II), Istanbul, Turkey, 3–14 June 1996. UNDP, Suva.

United Nations, 1983. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. United

Nations, New York.

United Nations, 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity 1992. United Nations, New York.

United Nations, 1995. Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity 1995,

UN. Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/2/5 at 34-43.

United Nations, UNGA Resolution 47/190, 1992. Report of the United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development, United Nations, New York.

Vincent, A.C.J. & Sadovy, Y.J., 1998. Reproductive ecology in the conservation and

management of fishes. In: T.M. Caro (ed.) Behavioural ecology and conservation

biology, pp. 209-245. Oxford University Press, New York.

Williams, M.J., 1996. Transition in the contribution of living aquatic resources to sustainable

food security. In S.S. de Silva (ed.) Perspectives in Asian Fisheries – a volume to

commemorate the 10th Anniversary of the Asian Fisheries Society. Asian Fisheries

Society, Makati City, Philippines. pp 1-58.

World Bank, 1998. Voices from the Village: A comparative study of coastal resource

management in the Pacific Islands. Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series. No.9.

World Bank, Washington DC.

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1990. Our Common Future. Oxford

University Press.

Yashiro, R., Vattanakul, V., Kongkumnerd, J., Tangpraprutku, P. & Sirisuay, S., 1998.

Variation in plasma sex steroid levels in the Giant Grouper, Epinephelus lanceolatus.

Fifth Asian Fisheries Forum – International Conference on Fisheries & Food Security


Yeeting, B.M., 1999. Live reef fish developments in Fiji. SPC Live Reef Fish Information

Bulletin 6: 19-24.

199

Zabala, M., Louisy, P., Garciarubies, A. & Garcia, V., 1997. Socio-behavioural context of

reproduction in the Mediterranean Dusky Grouper, Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe,

1834) (Pisces, Serranidae) in the Medes Islands Marine Reserve (NW Mediterranean,

Spain). Scientia Marina 61(1): 79-98.

Zeller, D.C., 1998. Spawning aggregation – patterns of movement of the coral trout

Plectropomus leopardus (Serranidae) as determined by ultrasonic telemetry. Marine

Ecology Progress Series 162: 253-263.

200

Appendix 1: Village Household Questionnaire

/ /2000 Village � ML 1 RL 2 OJ 3

Male 1 Female 2 Age � Fished in LRFFT? � YES 1 NO 2 Religion � SDA 1 UC 2 CFC 3 Ang 4 COC 5

Pajara Spawning Season in Marovo Lagoon Huhua Spawning Season in Ontong Java Pajara Spawning Season in Roviana Lagoon

February, March, April June, July, August October, November, December

Section 1: Activities of Your Household in 1999 Would you estimate how much time you spend on various tasks?

Activities of a MAN in your household in 1999 Activities of a WOMAN in your household in 1999

Activity Hours/Day Days/Week Codes Hours/Day Days/Week Codes

LRFFT 1999 LRFFT 1999 LRFFT 1999 LRFFT 1999 LRFFT 1999 LRFFT 1999

Gardening and Farming m_gard1 m_gard2 f_gard1 f_gard2

Collecting Firewood m_fire1 m_fire2 f_fire1 f_fire2

House repairs/ maintenance m_rep1 m_rep2 f_rep1 f_rep2

Mat Weaving/Rope Making m_weav1 m_weav2 f_weav1 f_weav2

Art and craft m_art1 m_art2 f_art1 f_art2

Cooking m_cook1 m_cook2 f_cook1 f_cook2

Copra making m_copra1 m_copra2 f_copra1 f_copra2

Household chores in general m_chore1 m_chore2 f_chore1 f_chore2

Teaching children m_teach1 m_teach2 f_teach1 f_teach2

Church involvement m_churc1 m_churc2 f_churc1 f_churc2

Section 2: Fishing Effort in 1999 How many members of your household went fishing for....

Fishery During the Pajara/Huhua Season in 1999 Out of the Pajara/Huhua Season in 1999 Live Reef Food Fish Trade

Household mfish_h1 mfish_h2 mfish_lf

No. trips per week in 1999? No. hours per trip in 1999? LRFFT Fishery

Household In Season Out of Season In Season Out of Season No. trips per week? No. hours per trip?

tfish_h1 tfish_h2 htrip_h1 htrip_h2 tfish_lf htrip_lf

Section 3: Pajara/Huhua Catch for 1999 What is the average number of fish that you catch per fishing trip, at the following times?

During the Pajara/Huhua Season in 1999 Out of the Pajara/Huhua Season in 1999 Live Reef Food Fish Trade

201

Fishery Total No. of Fish No. Pajara/Huhua Total No. of Fish No. Pajara/Huhua Total No. of Fish No. Pajara/Huhua

Household ctrip_h1 ptrip_h1 ctrip_h2 ptrip_h2 ctrip_lf ptrip_lf

How much should you get paid for live fish? → $/kg copayfis How much should the village get paid for live fish? → $/kg copayvil

Section 4. Patterns of Fish Consumption How often do you eat these fish?

0 Never 1 Everyday 2 4 or 5 times a week 3 2 or 3 times per week 4 Once per week

During the Pajara/Huhua Season in 1999 Out of the Pajara/Huhua Season in 1999

Plectropomus areolatus p.areol1 p.areol2

Epinephelus fuscoguttatus e.fusco1 e.fusco2

Epinephelus polyphekadion e.polyp1 e.polyp2

Plectropomus leopardus p.leopa1 p.leopa2

Plectropomus oligacanthus p.oligo1 p.oligo2

Variola louti v.louti1 v.louti2

Cheilinus undulatus c.undul1 c.undul2

Cromileptes altivelis c.altiv1 c.altiv2

Section 5: Income and Expenditure in 1999

INCOME in 1999 EXPENDITURE in 1999

Income Source How much How often Code Expense How much How often Code

Sale of Fish in Eskies to Honiara y_fish_e School fees x_schfee

Sale of Beche-de-mer y_bdm School contributions x_schcon

Sale of Trochus y_troch Other school expenses e.g. pocket money x_schoth

Sale of Copra y_copra Church offerings x_church

Farming (e.g. vegetables, animals etc) y_farm Marriage contributions x_marria

Art and Craft y_art Petrol x_petrol

Wage Employment y_wages Kerosene x_kero

202

Own Business (profit only) y_busine Rice x_rice

Relative working elsewhere y_relati All other food e.g. flour, sugar, Taiyo x_food

Other y_other1 Clothing x_clothe

Other y_other2 Medical needs x_medica

Other y_other3 Fishing gear x_f.gear

Other y_other4 Tobacco x_tobacc

Other y_other5 Carving expenses x_carvin

Other y_other6 Other household needs e.g. lantern, etc x_house

Other y_other7 Gardening inputs e.g. tools, seed etc x_garden

Live Reef Food Fish Trade y_lrfft Live Reef Food Fish Trade x_lrfft

Section 6: Perceptions of Importance

1 2 3 4 5

Not important at all Not very important I don’t know Reasonably important Important

How important are the spawning aggregations to having pajara/huhua in the future? i_spagg

How important is fishing in the passages during pajara/huhua spawning season in order to feed your family? i_pasfoo

How important is fishing in the passages during pajara/huhua spawning season in order to make money? i_pasmon

How important is not fishing in the passages during pajara/huhua spawning season so there are plenty of pajara/huhua throughout the year? i_pasnof

How important is having protected areas where no fishing is allowed? i_protec

How important is customary rights regarding ownership of the nearshore area and the reefs? i_custom

How important is respecting these customary rights? i_rescus

How important is the law that temporarily bans the export of live pajara/huhua? i_morato

How important is reopening the export of live pajara/huhua? i_liftmo

How important is adopting modern fisheries management at the expense of traditional fisheries management? i_modman

203

Appendix 2: Pilot Survey Notes

Interview 1 at Luaniua, OJ: George

About Your Household

Number permanently living in household – Problem with children at boarding school. They

are only home on holidays so the number of members of the household was taken as being

exclusive of children at boarding school.

Composition of Household – Family may live in numerous households. Provision is for

family and not necessarily for the household.

Household Sources of Income – It is only recently in Ontong Java that there has been

management controls applied by the village Chiefs regarding diving for Trochus and beche-

de-mer. The seasons now run alternately rather than concurrently. Diving for beche-de-mer is

permissible from 15th November to 15th December in order for folk to pay annual school fees.

Household Members Role in the Community – Most of the services and the provision of

goods and food is conducted on a family by family basis with the inclusion of friends and

neighbours. Building of huts, gardening, fishing etc is conducted on this basis.

Number of Meals per Week – Fresh fish is often shared among family and friends of different

households.

Fishing Effort

Number of Trips per Week – There is very little collecting of marine invertebrates. Cannot be

counted in whole numbers on a weekly basis.

Household and Community Benefits

Difficult to discern or to quantify in Ontong Java as the fishery has only operated for one

season and that was a couple of years ago.

204

Management

All fishing areas are open to everyone with the exception of beche-de-mer and Trochus.

Fishing for Trochus is requires permission of the Chiefs. Beche-de-mer is open to all except

during closed seasons.

Customary Marine Tenure could be seen to be eroding in isolated pockets but there is still a

lot of respect for the Chief’s directives regarding CMT. The Polynesian system is different in

that the Chiefs have control over all marine resources and access is open to all people of e.g.

Luaniua, as opposed to the Melanesian way of small areas of tenure where the land extends to

the sea and there are many lines of demarcation which carries the potential for conflict

between neighbouring resource owners.

Chief Peter wants court orders given to people who do not respect the CMT system in Ontong

Java.

Knowledge of the Market Chain

George catches fish and sells them to the buyer. After that, he doesn’t know what happens.

Interview 2 at Luaniua, OJ: Walter


Household Sources of Income – Walter worked as an employer for the fish buyers for six

months. He recruited fishers into the fishery. He was encouraged to fish but any fish he

caught, he was not paid additional to his salary.

Number of Meals per Week – The household might eat chicken once per month.

Fishing Assets – He has nets of varying sizes. Small nets are used for catching baitfish.

Walter owned the first fibreglass canoe in the village in 1976. He still uses it with no

problems.

Types of Fish You Catch – Walter catches completely different species for the household than

he does for the LRFFT. Only sometimes does he catch LRFFT species.

205

Live Reef Food-Fish Trade

Changes to Roles of Household Members – When Walter is fishing in the LRFFT, he is

making money but returns to the household with no food because it is he who should be

providing for them.

Motivation

Why did you join the LRFFT – Walter joined the company to act as a spy for the Chiefs of the

village.

Management

Important Characteristics of the Target Species – Walter can’t tell the males from the females.

When the fish aggregate, he knows that it is to lay eggs, but fish without eggs were assumed

to be females that are either unable to lay eggs or have already laid them. He is unaware of

males being present. He thought that they were all females.

Customary Marine Tenure – Open access to everyone including fishers from outside such as

Pelau as long as a relative accompanies them from Luaniua. A fisher from Pelau wouldn’t fish

in Luaniua waters because he would feel bad about it. It goes for Luaniua fishers in waters of

Pelau or elsewhere too.

Interview 1 at Pelau, OJ: Chris


Number of meals per Week – Question mark over the relevance of knowing anything else but

the consumption of fish. Perhaps differentiate fresh fish from canned fish. Include food

gathered from the reef. Fresh fish is always caught and tinned fish is, obviously, always

bought.

Fishing Effort

Problem here is that fishermen concentrate on one fishery at a time. In Ontong Java, the

Trochus and beche-de-mer fisheries alternate year by year (open/closed). The Live Reef

Fishery may run all year with fish being penned until the official season begins when the

buyer arrives. The LRFFT hasn’t operated since 1997 so it is difficult to know the period for

which we are surveying. The LRFFT in Ontong Java has only operated for one season.

206

Types of Fish You Catch – In Pelau, the species targeted are still plentiful so some of the

same will be caught for the household. However, when they fish for the household, they fish

in the nearshore lagoon so the species caught are often different. Give some consideration to

changing this question with regard to simplifying.

Income

Average Monthly Income – Sale of live fish is problematic as a cross check because the fish

sold to the company have been caught throughout the year but the peak period is between mid

June and mid July when the target species aggregate to spawn.

Motivation

Community Benefits – Difficult to discern and quantify after only one season. Also, there is

animosity against the company since the company didn’t pay royalties to the village so the

Chief confiscated all their gear. It is worth considering, however that more money in the

fishers pockets means more improvement to things like the village church, outboard motors

on boats and generally a better quality of life for people in the village.

Interview 1 at Pelau, OJ: Edmond

Household Sources of Income

Edmond goes hard for the LRFFT all year round. He sells the fish when the company arrives

but fishes all year round for live fish because Trochus and beche-de-mer have been closed.

How many fish do you catch – Edmond catches around thirty fish weighing about 15kg and

shares the catch with family and friends. I expect that the size of the subsistence catch for the

household, or even the village, could be difficult to quantify because whilst a fisher may share

his subsistence catch, he could also be the benefactor of other fisher’s subsistence catch.

LRFFT

Edmond stays away on another island during the week to go fishing and returns on weekends

to see his family.

He doesn’t fish in deep water because the swim bladder expands at the surface and the fish

dies.

207

There is a lot of bycatch. White fish fetch $1.20 from the company who uses it to feed the fish

in the holding pens. A very large amount of bycatch is, however, thrown away dead.

Fishing Effort

Hand line, drop line and towline are all pretty well the same thing. Better to ask the breaking

strain or “test” of the line.

Interview 3 at Vacambo, ML: Virginia

The first woman to be interviewed, as there are no women fishing in Ontong Java but it is

common in Marovo Lagoon.

In Marovo Lagoon, the influence of the Seventh day Adventist church is very pronounced.

More than half of the population belongs to this faith. Some fishers sell their fish to local

buyers from the SDA who sell the fish on to people living elsewhere.

Fish on ice to Honiara depends on the availability of eskies and these are delivered from

Honiara buyers only sporadically through the year at very unpredictable times. Unable to get

weekly fishing effort as the eskies are available for only short periods of time.

Fishing for the LRFFT involves two trips per day, 6 days per week, while the company is

around. She fishes from 5am to 10am and from 3pm to 6pm.

Catch

A difficult and complicated question that is fraught with the potential for inaccuracy. Species

identification appears to be OK with aid of the book but number and weight can be sketchy

given the LRFFT hasn’t operated for a while, fish on ice to Honiara fishery is very sporadic,

and the relative unimportance of this information to the people in general.

Think about combining the catch for the Fishery Centre with that of fish on ice to Honiara, as

the fishery is essentially the same. The only difference appears to be the buyer. It may take the

tedium, which the respondent clearly finds tiring as there is often a lot of memory wracking

involved.

In Marovo Lagoon, fishing for the household may involve a variety of species overall, but

mostly one or two species only i.e. marogo and karupata and often the whole catch will be

marogo only. There is geographical variation within the lagoon and as fishing is done from a

208

paddle canoe, the range of habitats in proximity to the village is very important in regard to

the species that is caught for all fisheries except the LRFFT.

Consider using the information on species caught to make a list (Latin binomial and page

number from the book) and seeking to quantify each with average number and average weight

of the catch. This will speed the process up, eliminate translation of local names and the

photos will jog people’s memories. Include scope for “Others” that will, inevitably, be built

whilst panning through the pages. Also, include a time dimension. For example, av. no. and

av. wt (kg) per fishing day.

Virginia noted that during the spawning period, the fish are larger than the period before and

after, indicating that the bigger fish (possibly males) move into the area for the spawning then

move on.

Virginia’s catch hasn’t changed over the four years of her involvement in the LRFFT. During

the spawning aggregations, the full moon brings many fish, but no moon has the opposite

effect.

Habitats question – Consider dropping the months of the year as the answers appear to

indicate that the fish are available all year round. The pulse fish is during spawning but this

question is asked later in the questionnaire. Also, experiment with nominating the species

(and page number) and getting them to name the habitat. That will draw out local knowledge

of where to find each species. In this case the time factor may prove useful.

Why fish gather – Virginia noted that during spawning aggregation, the fish are exceptionally

hungry by the voracious way they attack the bait. She also noted that all the fish they catch at

this time are females as they all have eggs. Based on this, she believes that all the fish are

females bearing young.

Gathering Behaviour table – The spawning period could begin as early as December with

numbers building up in November. Spawning sites are not restricted to passages in Marovo

Lagoon.

209

General Survey Structure Observations

• Number of trips per week – Need to break this box into two boxes. One to ascertain

the times of year that each fishery is fished and another that records the trips per week

and average duration.

• Restructure the first part to link catch with effort i.e. the type of gear used and craft for

each fishery and when, for one section; and number of trips per week and duration of

each trip in another.

• Diet – What do you eat during times of stormy weather when you don’t go fishing?

Would you describe the roles of the males in providing for the household?

(Prompt: Ask whether men are involved in gardening, cooking and collecting off the reef for

subsistence)

• Carving, fishing, building and repairing the house, gardening, firewood cutting. Joint

decision making between husband and wife. Teaches children on the trade of making

carvings and fishing.

• Gardening, firewood cutting, fishing, art and craft, and repair and building of the

house. Discusses with his wife for decision making and teaches the children traditional

knowledge.

• Gardening, fishing, carving, house repair and building. He makes decisions for the

household and the wife shares this. He teaches traditional knowledge to the children.

• Fishing, bread winner, gardening, house building, and carving. Decisions are made

together with the wife and other adults. Teaches children on traditional knowledge and

church beliefs.

• Fishing, gardening, house repairing, collecting of firewood, diving for beche-de-mer

and Trochus. He makes the decisions for the household. The man makes decisions for

the boys (sons) and educates them on traditional knowledge.

• Fishing, gardening, poultry, cooking, house building. He dives for beche-de-mer and

Trochus and shares the decision making with his wife.

• Fishing, house building, diving for beche-de-mer and Trochus, gardening and cutting

firewood. He makes the decisions on the whole. However, he shares with his wife on

plans for the upcoming activities e.g. building houses or planning a long diving trip.

He teaches his children all the tricks of their traditions.

210

• Fishing, diving, collecting firewood, house making and repairing. Man and wife make

collective decisions together in the household.

• Fishing, cut firewood, gardening, house building, diving for beche-de-mer and

Trochus. The father makes the decisions in the house.

• Fishing, building, gardening, cutting firewood, diving for beche-de-mer and fish. He

makes decisions together with his wife. He teaches the children on traditional

knowledge and safety.

How would you describe the roles of the females in providing for the household?

(Prompt: Ask whether women and children are involved in fishing, copra plantation work and

household decision making)

• Household chores, weaves baskets for sale, gardening and fishing. Teaches children

traditional knowledge.

• Gardening, weaving, and preparing food for the family. She also helps in decision

making and teaching children.

• Sewing of leaves for building houses, cooking, gardening and teaches the children on

mat weaving and other household chores.

• Cooking, gardening, household chores, mat weaving and tending to the children. They

teach children on traditional knowledge. Decision making is shared with the

household.

• The mother teaches her daughter on traditional knowledge and women’s chores.

Sometimes the wife makes decisions for the family when the need arises but consults

the husband when she needs support. Women and children support each other in copra

making but mostly the men do the fishing.

• The wife does decision making with the husband but the whole household shares

work.

• Food preparation, making mats, gardening and teaching the children on cleanliness

and household chores. The wife helps at times with the decision making.

• Gardening, mat making, collecting of firewood, general household chores and helps

the husband to make decisions. She teaches children on household activities and

traditional knowledge.

• Gardening, making mats, making ropes, preparing food, collecting water. Mothers

teach traditional knowledge to daughters.

211

• Help through family chores, gardening, poultry keeping, cooking and feeding the

animals such as pigs etc. Has a roster for the family to follow. Wife teachers daughters

to make ropes for building, gardening and mat making. She also shares with the

husband on decision making.

Would you explain the roles that members of your household play within the village

community?

(e.g. involvement in any official capacity such as village council or the church, even sport and

interest groups)

• Do not really play major roles in the village community

• Kindergarten teacher in the village

• He is village spokesman for the chief. He gives out the Chief’s news to the Chea

community. He acts as a security officer for the Chief in times of conflict.

• The husband is a church leader who helps the church pastor.

• Wife is a member of the Chiefs family and can make decisions with the Chief on land

or island matters.

• Walter is a member of the Council of Chiefs, a church layman and a member of the

church parish committee. His daughter is a leader of the mothers union of the village.

Another daughter, who is single, is a member of the health committee.

• Formerly a member of the Council of chiefs but resigned due to some personal

disagreements. Wife is a member of the Anglican mothers union.

• Member of the Pelau Council of Chiefs, and John is a choir master of the Anglican

church. John’s wife is a member of the Anglican church sisters association.

• Member of the school committee.

• Chairman of the Anglican church of Luaniua. Wife is a member of the Anglican

Companion and the two daughters are members of the St Francis Companion. He is

also a member of the Luaniua Council of Chiefs.

If the fish are getting smaller and harder to catch (i.e. If this is the answer), how do you

feel about that with regard to the future of earning a living from catching live fish?

• She says that the catch is the same in the four years she fished.

• He does not know the difference.

• There will be no more LRFFT stocks left to catch.

212

• The fish are still easy to catch but the size has decreased. He thinks that it looks like,

in the near future, the fish stocks will disappear and there is already an indication of

low catches.

Could you describe the changes to the roles of members of your household since the

LRFFT began in your village?

(Prompt: Is there less time spent tending to the garden, cooking, collecting food from the reef

or doing household chores?)

• It didn’t disturb activities but had an advantage in that she was able to buy food and

meet the needs of her family.

• It did not disturb household activities.

• LRFFT did disturb household activities, fishermen especially ignored gardening.

• People became hungry as a result of spending more time fishing. The gardens were

especially not supplying the usual needs of the household. A three month stop to

gardening is too long.

• The household is not affected much when only the father is the fisherman, but is does

have a bearing when the fishing season prolongs.

• The household was concerned about the father not providing the fish for their meals.

They were going hungry because he was out fishing for the live fish trade.

• Everything seemed OK when I was away fishing. The family was visited during

weekends.

• The household was not affected by the LRFFT.

• No changes to the family activities.

• He thinks that his absence has caused some disturbance to his normal routine. It was

for this reason that he did not continue fishing after a weeks trial.

What would be your reaction to an increase in the price paid to the fishers in the

LRFFT by the buyer? For example, what if you were paid double the current price?

(Prompt: Would you fish for live fish more often or would you be satisfied that your cash

requirements had been met

• She will fish more if the price is doubled.

• He will fish more if the price of fish doubles.

213

• He will also double up his catch.

• He thinks that he will fish less time and he is very worried that the fish stocks will be

overfished.

• He will double his fishing time if the price is doubled.

• He has to ask the consent of the family and if they say yes, he will fish eight hours per

day.

• He is going to increase fishing pressure because it will give him more income.

• He will fish more if the price doubled.

• If the price is doubled, he will fish more for more money.

• He would go out and fish more than usual.

Would you list the things in your daily life that require cash?

• (Prompt: what are the household outgoings for food, accommodation, the church,

livestock, community, fishing etc.)

• Food, clothes, church contributions, school fees, school contributions, and household

needs.

• Soap, kerosene, clothes, school fees, church contributions, and household needs.

• Rice, clothes, soup, kerosene, watches, church contributions, school fees, medical

needs, and other household expenses.

• Food, clothes, household needs, school fees, church contributions, youth, men and

women fellowship contributions, church targets in the Uniting Church.

• School fees, rice, four, sugar, kerosene, petrol, smokes, household items, clothing,

church contributions, school contributions, marriage contributions, fishing gear and

other foodstuffs.

• School fees, clothes, kerosene, petrol, smokes, church contributions, rice, flour, sugar,

marriage contributions, fishing gear and household needs.

• School fees, clothes, church contributions and other household needs.

• School fees, food, smokes, kerosene, clothes, church contributions, marriage

contributions and other household necessities.

• Food and clothing, church and school contributions. School fees are also paid. Some

money is also used to purchase fishing gear.

• Food, clothes, church contributions, marriage contributions, kerosene and other

household needs.

214

Could you list the costs associated with fishing for live fish?

(Prompt: value of capital and ongoing costs e.g. the cost of the boat, motor, fuel, fishing gear

etc. What items are provided by the companies e.g. lines, hooks, bait etc?

• She bought smaller lines to catch bait for fishing. The company provides hooks, lines

and cage nets.

• No costs. The company provided hooks, lines, gloves and cages to keep the fish alive.

• No costs – The company provided fishing lines, hooks and cages.

• He bought his own fishing gear. The company provides hooks and lines and fish

cages.

• No costs. The company provides hooks, lines and storage nets.

• No costs. The company provides hooks, lines and storage nets.

• No costs. Company provides line and hooks.

• No costs. Company provides fishing hooks and lines, with a small fish cage.

• No costs. The company provides hooks, lines and cages.

• No costs. The company provides hooks, lines and cages

Can you explain why you joined the LRFFT?

(Prompt: Are you interested in accruing wealth and a collection of assets or are you

interested only in providing a living for your household?)

• She joined in order to make money so that she could meet family needs. She is

reluctant to tell us her plans.

• He fished just to get extra income.

• To get money.

• He needs the money to help meet the cost of living the lifestyle that he is accustomed

to.

• Money to earn a better living to help educate my children and meet domestic costs. In

addition, to purchase better fishing gear such as an outboard motor.

• He was asked to join by the two Chiefs to work with the APL company to act as a spy

for the Chiefs.

• He joined in order to have some income to help his family meet the cost of their needs.

• He joined to make money and enjoy other necessities such as buying food and clothes.

215

• Wish to make money and the money will be used to meet family needs such as food,

clothes and other domestic needs. There is not enough money to meet all our needs.

• He just wanted to take part and see how it will be when involved and he wanted to

catch other by-catch for his pigs and chickens.

In what way has your household benefited from the LRFFT?

(Prompt: 1. What is the tangible benefits e.g. new roof, out board motor etc; 2. What are the

intangible benefits e.g. better quality of life, financial security, and peace of mind?)

• It has made things easier for the family to purchase things for themselves and the

children.

• He managed to pay two years of his daughter’s school fees.

• No benefits except that his family is able to buy the basic things that they need.

• Food, targets, contributions and transport to medical centres and needy.

• Industry is too new to experience any of these benefits.

• No benefits.

• There was no outstanding benefits recorded but my family was able to pay for basic

needs from the little money we had from the LRFFT.

• He bought a 15hp engine to go with his canoe.

• Too short to experience any benefits. Those that fished longer periods did benefit in

buying outboard motors.

• No benefits at all.

Can you describe the benefits to the community that have occurred as a result of the

LRFFT?

(Prompt: Is there any visible advantage from the LRFFT, such as a new school, church or

other buildings in the village?)

• Helped in building the church and in providing funds to meet church targets.

• No benefits, except all fishermen had personal gains. The royalties and community

benefits were not seen at all.

• No benefits at all. Royalties and rents to the community went not felt at all.

• Met the church village target of SBD$4,000 per year. Two days fishing in a week was

used to meet this target.

216

• Fishermen managed to buy assets such as outboard motors after the live fish trade

operations.

• No benefits.

• No benefits were felt in the community. There was some money paid by the company,

in terms of rent and royalties but the Pelau community has not seen this.

• There were no benefits because the company refused to pay a half tonne royalty

(SBD$250) to the village. The Pelau Council of Chiefs have confiscated all assets of

the LRFFT and stored most of it in the village. Six months rental was not paid either.

• No benefits. The company has failed to pay rents and royalties to the community.

• The company did pay the royalties but the community do not know where the money

went and what it was used for.

Can you explain why you fish for live fish at certain places and at certain times of the

year?

(Prompt: Try to get an explanation as to why the fish are ‘gathering’ at these times and

places)

• She thinks most of them are females and they are very hungry.

• They aggregate to lay eggs.

• Spawning fish is known to be producing young at this time.

• It was believed that they came together to eat the eggs of the giant trigger fish. It is

only recently that they know that it is for spawning.

• The fish gather to spawn but we do not know where the eggs are put or laid.

• They know that they gather to spawn but they think that only females gather and they

recognise the females by their eggs.

• He does not know why fish aggregate at certain places and at certain times.

• Firstly, we do not know why the fish are gathering. We only know that it is going to

gather and feed at a certain time of the year i.e. mid June to mid July each year.

• He does not know the LRFFT species have this behaviour.

• He heard from ancestors that these fish gather to spawn. You can see them clearly on

shallow reefs in the passages.

217

What is your understanding of the important characteristics of the LRFFT target

species?

(Prompt: 1. Can you tell the males from the females? 2. How often do they reproduce? 3.

How do you identify reproductive behaviour? 4. Do you understand the larval migration

patterns?)

• She does not know the biology and movement of the fish.

• He only knows they are here to spawn but any other biological knowledge is

unknown.

• They bite and chase each other during mating behaviour but he does not know other

biological behaviour.

• He does not really know the biology of the fish although he believes that traditionally,

older people do know grouper’s sex.

• They cannot differentiate males from females, but they recognise the eggs on the

female. They know they come to spawn in May, June and July but they do not know

larval stages or migratory patterns.

• They know that they reproduce three months of the year but they do not know neither

reproductive behaviour, larval stages nor migratory patterns.

• He does not know any of the biological characteristics.

• No biological knowledge but we know the fish from history.

• He does not understand about the LRFFT species but goes along with other fishermen

to fish when it is spawning season.

• He has no idea about the biology and does not know it’s migratory patterns. Octopus

fish usually comes ashore near the reefs during the spawning season because it is

afraid of the spawning fish.

Can you explain what happens to the fish that you catch that are not wanted for selling?

(Prompt: How much bycatch is there and can they think of a better use for it than just

throwing it away?)

• There is no problem with bycatch. It is eaten and sold locally.

• The bycatch is eaten and it did not create any problems.

• By-catch is not a problem. They eat it at home.

218

• Sometimes there is too much of the by-catch and we usually give it to neighbours as a

gift.

How are the areas that you fish subjected to customary systems that manage fishing?

(Prompt: Is the management aimed at fishers catching live fish from spawning aggregations?)

• It is open access and all the people fish together happily. Companies must first

negotiate with the Chief before it can operate.

• It is open access to all Marovo people.

• Reef owners or tribes have full ownership.

• Fishing is open access but there is a problem when some are using fishing lines and

others are diving with spear guns.

• Open access to everyone.

• Open access.


• Open access, no management.



Can you explain how you gain access to somebody else’s customary fishing area?

(Prompt: 1. Do you have to negotiate access to somebody else’s marine tenure? 2. When you

fish for your household, are you able to fish for live fish? 3. Who makes the decisions about

where you can fish? 4. Are these decisions strictly adhered to?)

• She can actually fish in another passage e.g. Vocambo to Charapoana. Chief’s

decisions on fishing controls or management are adhered to by the people.

• In the case of another passage, a person who usually fishes on Charapoana has to have

the permission of the Chief of Lumalihe or Moggo passages to fish there. He can catch

LRF when fishing for his household. The Chiefs directives are usually adhered to.

• Reef owners have the final say in the resources they own and the Chief of that tribe

will give the final say. It is usually adhered to when the management rules are made.

• Permission must be gained from the Chief of that fishing area. Live fish fishing and

fishing for the household are often concurrent as the bycatch from the live fish fishing

is taken back to the village for subsistence.

219

• The Chiefs make decisions on marine resources and they either close or open them for

use. The customary marine tenure, however, is starting to erode e.g. Johnson Kengalu

and his brothers acquiring their own reef and sea resources.

• All reefs in Luaniua are under the Chief’s discretion.

• Fishing is open access at anytime, anywhere in Pelau except for beche-de-mer and

Trochus that are regulated by the Council of Chiefs.

• Chief and his councilors control everything in the sea.

• There are no restrictions to the fishing grounds. Chiefs control the use of sea

resources.

• Originally, Chiefs had rights on all reefs but there is a tendency that the island owners

are claiming their own reefs. A good example is will be Johnson Kengalu’s islands at

Lopaha. Fishing is still open access.

Could you describe how you would like to see the LRFFT managed?

(Prompt: 1. Who would you like to manage the fishery? 2. How do you feel about: i) seasonal

closures? ii) minimum sizes? iii) maximum sizes? iv) protected areas i.e. no fishing or

harvesting?)

• She thinks that the spawning fish should be managed for future generations to

continue to use.

• He thinks technical people should advise the resource owners on how to manage the

resource. The reef owners themselves should take the initiative in managing and

controlling the resource.

• He would like the management rules to be taught by technical people and then be run

by the reef owners themselves.

• He thinks that we should close fishing for two years, or fishing just two days of the

five that they currently fish. He thinks that resource owners themselves should choose

which or what management strategy to use. We should look to other avenues where

we can make money i.e. diversification.

• He feels that the Ontong Java people do not have enough knowledge to manage the

LRFFT fishery and wants the government or overseas advisors to formulate and

manage the resource for them. He also wants the technical people to teach them how

to manage the resource.

• He supports the idea of management and wants closures at certain times in certain

areas e.g. spawning seasons.

220

• Conservation and management should be carried out and technical help should come

to the people. The people should be taught to manage their resources.

• We should manage the LRFFT. We should fish only outside the spawning season to

give the fish a chance to reproduce.

• He feels that the Ontong Java people should manage their own resources and get

technical help from outside organisations and the Fisheries Department to help them.

• He believes that we should establish ‘no take’ areas and wishes that we should stop

night diving in Ontong Java. He believes in managing the fish resources properly.

What do you think about the people of the village having involvement in other aspects of

the fishery?

(Prompt: Would you be interested in participating in fish keeping, exporting, quality control,

monitoring, data management etc.?

• She thinks it is easier just to sell the fish to a LRFFT company, but on the other hand,

it is best that resource owners should be involved in managing the resource.

• It is very important that the people be taught how to manage their own resources and

later be responsible in making decisions on what benefits there are for the resource

owners in the future.

• He fully supports the notion that villagers and resource owners should participate

fully.

• Participation by the resource owners is very important. We would like the Fisheries

and others to train us how to manage our own LRFFT project. We would like to run

our own trade and throw out the foreign exploiters.

• He wants the resource owners to be taught on how to manage their own fisheries

resources. Marketing, controlling and regulating of the sea resources should be home

bred.

• He wants the villagers to be involved in all the management activities of the LRFFT so

that they become managers of their own resource.

• He thinks that the community should be involved in managing their own resources.

• He believes that the community should be involved in managing, controlling and

marketing of resources. He strongly believes that all resource owners should be

involved.

Documents

Managing for sustainability : the live reef food-fish trade in