Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SOCIOECONOMIC COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THREE
CONSERVATION INITIATIVES ON RURAL AREAS OF
THE SOLOMON ISLANDS
By
Michael Otoara Ha’apio
A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science (Climate Change)
Copyright © 2014 by Michael Otoara Ha’apio
Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development
The University of the South Pacific
July 2014
ii
DECLARATION
Statement by Author
I, Michael Otoara Ha’apio, declare that this thesis is my own work and that,
to the best of my knowledge, it contains no material previously
published, or substantially overlapping with material submitted for the
award of any other degree at any institution, except where due
acknowledgment is made in the text.
Statement by Supervisor
The research in this thesis was performed under my supervision and to
my knowledge is the sole work of Mr Michael Otoara Ha’apio.
iii
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Pacific Centre of Environment and Sustainable
Development (PaCE-SD), University of the South Pacific (USP), Laucala Campus,
Suva, Fiji.
I would like to thank Dr Ricardo Gonzalez for accepting the opportunity of becoming
my principal supervisor and his limitless support with which he ensures that I complete
my thesis on time as required under my scholarship contract. Dr Ricardo Gonzalez with
his vast knowledge and experience both in his home country Chile and now as an
Environment and Resource Economics Lecturer at USP has provided great base for my
advancement in academia and research particularly in this area, “Socioeconomic costs
and benefits of three conservation initiatives (mainly coral reefs and mangrove) on rural
areas of the Solomon Islands”.
I would also extend my appreciation to Professor Elizabeth Holland and Dr
Morgan Wairiu for serving as my co-supervisor and external supervisor accordingly.
Your guidance has moulded me to complete my thesis. Many thanks also to John
Walenenea Jnr of Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) Solomon Islands for his
support and assistance during my field trip to the Solomon Islands. Furthermore, great
appreciation to Chief Benjamin Wale of Oibola, Elder Cornelius Vulu of Naro, Chief
Stanley Hebala and Mr Tony Karahanimae of Sairaghi for your invaluable assistance
and supports rendered to me during my research trips to the respective sites.
A special thanks also to Mrs Agnether Karamui, Ministry of Environment
Climate Change Disaster Management and Meteorology (MECDM) and Dr Anne-Maree
Schwarz of World Fish (Solomon Islands). You all have given me very useful
information from the insightful perspective of the Coral Triangle Initiative and
mangrove rehabilitation project towards my thesis. I also want to thank the Director, Mr
Douglas Yee, and his staff of the Climate Change Unit within the MECDM for their
support and sharing of the views on the climate change project implementations in the
country and everyone whom I have interviewed and who responded to my
questionnaires.
iv
Above all I thank the Almighty God for the wisdom and knowledge to enable me
to write this thesis throughout the many sleepless nights and long hours in the FSTE
Postgraduate Lab, Laucala Campus, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji. AMEN.
Dedication
To my dear wife, Mrs Lillian Ha’apio and our three children, Errol Ha’apio, Jessica
Ha’apio and Chelsea Ha’apio.
Also to my late Mom and Dad: though you had no formal education, I cannot ask for
more than this, having attained two Master’s Degree qualifications (Master in Business
Administration and now Master of Science in Climate Change).
v
Background
This master’s research consists of 7 sections that constitute the thesis required for
fulfilment of the Master of Science in Climate Change: 1) Introduction, 2) literature
review, 3) methodology, 4) study area and data, 5) results chapter one, 6) results chapter
two, 7) discussion and 8) conclusions and recommendations for further research. The
methodology chapter presents the rationale how the site areas where chosen,
representativeness and sampling design. Methodology also covers survey design and the
way in which descriptive /exploratory analysis is done. The study area section describes
the sites chosen and the respective projects in context of study sites. The description of
collected data per study site is separated in two results chapters, the first one focusing on
description of socioeconomic attributes of villagers and characteristics related to their
resilience to climate change impacts. The results chapter two focuses on mapping costs
and benefits of respective conservation initiatives that may affect the socioeconomic
status of villagers. A discussion chapter covers the two result chapters and highlights the
implications of socioeconomic status of households to cope with climate change impacts
and the mapping of costs and benefits that arise from implementing conservation
initiatives on these study sites. Finally, conclusions and recommendations for further
research are stated.
The thesis has been written aiming at achieving a better understanding of the
situation that households, from small rural villages, experience when conservation
initiatives are developed at local level. In order to achieve such a goal an exploratory-
descriptive analysis of primary data collected at household level is performed. The study
includes the socioeconomic description of households from the study sites and the
examination of the economic costs and benefits from the respective conservation
initiatives: that is, two sites under the Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) and one site under
a Mangrove Rehabilitation Project (MRP) in Solomon Islands. The data collected has
been used to report on two results-chapters.
vi
Abbreviations
ADB Asian Development Bank
CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
CCP Climate Change Project
CTI Coral Triangle Initiative
GEF Global Environment Facility
GHG Greenhouse gas
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
MECDM Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Reduction and
Meteorology (Solomon Islands)
MFMR Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (Solomon Islands)
MPA Marine Protected Area
MRP Mangrove Rehabilitation Project
NGO Non-Government organisation
PACE-SD Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development
PICT Pacific Islands Countries and Territories
PIF Pacific Islands Forum
REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
SIDs Small islands developing countries
USAID United States of America International Development Agency
WB World Bank
vii
Abstract
The source of livelihood varies among urban centres and rural areas in Solomon Islands.
Most of the people within the communities rely on subsistence activities, agriculture,
forestry and marine resources for survival. This research aimed to perform an
exploratory/descriptive analysis of the socioeconomic attributes of rural households that
participate in the Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) and Mangrove Rehabilitation Project
(MRP) in selected rural villages of Solomon Islands and mapping of socioeconomic
costs and benefits of households that participated in these conservation initiatives (CTI
and MRP). Household surveys were conducted in order to elicit information on the
socioeconomic attributes of participant households and perceptions on socioeconomic
costs the participants have to incur when implementing these initiatives. The analysis
revealed that households from Sairaghi (project site 1), and Oibola (project site 3), rely
mainly on marine resources for their income; whilst in Naro (project site 2) they rely
mostly on agriculture. Consumable items were the main household expenses, followed
by education.
Villagers incur considerably high levels of socioeconomic costs from the establishment
of the conservation initiatives, slowing down the economic activities at local level;
however, they were motivated to cooperate in implementing these initiatives because of
the forward looking stance that they anticipate long-term benefits from conservation
such as becoming more resilient against the impacts of climate change due to higher
benefits in the near future.
Key words: Climate Change, Climate Change Impact, Livelihood, Coral Triangle
Initiatives, Mangrove rehabilitation project, and Coastal People.
viii
Table of Contents Page
Declaration .................................................................................................................................................... ii
Statement by Supervisor ............................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... iii
Dedication .................................................................................................................................................... iv
Background ................................................................................................................................................... v
Abreviations ................................................................................................................................................. vi
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... vii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ x
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. xi
Appendix 1,2 ........................................................................................................................................... xi,xii
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Vulnerability to climate change .......................................................................................................... 4
2.2 The Coral Triangle Initiative............................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Coral Degradation ............................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Mangrove Rehabilitation Project ........................................................................................................ 7
2.5 Marine Protected Area ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.6 Importance of MPAs at the national level.......................................................................................... 8
2.7 Scope of the Study .............................................................................................................................. 8
Chapter 3 Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.1 Pre-sample design and implementation ............................................................................................ 10
3.2 Household Survey ............................................................................................................................. 11
3.3 Semi- structured questionaires .......................................................................................................... 13
3.4 Special focuses Group ...................................................................................................................... 17
3.5 Government officials, village personnel and expert opinions ........................................................... 18
Chapter 4 Study Area and Data................................................................................................................... 21
4.1 Sairaghi Project ................................................................................................................................. 21
4.2 Naro Project ...................................................................................................................................... 22
4.3 Oibola Project ................................................................................................................................... 23
ix
4.4 Data Description ............................................................................................................................... 25
4.4.1 Who conducted the research ......................................................................................................... 25
4.4.2 Period of field work ....................................................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 5 STUDY 1 RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 28
5.1 Sairaghi Project ................................................................................................................................. 30
5.2 Naro Project ...................................................................................................................................... 31
5.3 Oibola community ............................................................................................................................ 31
CHAPTER 6 STUDY 2 RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 43
6.2.1 Benefits .......................................................................................................................................... 44
6.2.2 Extractive Users ............................................................................................................................. 45
6.2.3 Non extractive users ....................................................................................................................... 47
6.2.4 Management ................................................................................................................................... 48
6.2.5 Costs ............................................................................................................................................... 49
6.2.6 Extractive users .............................................................................................................................. 49
6.2.7 Non-extractive users ...................................................................................................................... 51
6.2.8 Management cost .......................................................................................................................... 51
CHAPTER 7 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 60
7.1 General Discussion for two results ................................................................................................... 60
7.2 Discussion on Result of study one .................................................................................................... 63
7.3 Discussion on Result of study two .................................................................................................... 64
CHAPTER 8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... 65
8.1 Recommendation and further research ............................................................................................. 66
References ................................................................................................................................................... 68
Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 74
Appendix 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 84
Appendix 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 93
x
List of tables
Study 1 Page
Table 5.1 The social characteristics of villagers in the study area (three sites) 29 Table 5.2 Average monthly incomes and spending for the three project sites 32 Table 5.3 Sources of income for the project sites 33 Table 5.4 Rating of household income by three project sites (combined) 33 Table 5.5 Profitability of farms in 2012 34 Table 5.6 Time spent in the farm, 2012 35 Table 5.7 Reasons for the decline in agricultural production at the three sites (combined) 37 Table 5.8 Duration of time members stayed away from home, 2008 – 2012 38 Table 5.9 Reasons to stay away from home 39 Table 5.10 Types of businesses participated in around the project sites 40
Table 5.11 Types of businesses owned by family members, three project sites 40 Table 5.12 Investment options at the three sites (combined) 41
Table 5.13 The communities’ perspective on the benefits of the projects
42 Study 2 Table 6.1 Identifying Costs and Benefits related to the Coral Triangle Initiative 44 Table 6.2 Time spent on farms by respondents 46 Table 6.3 Which organisation the communities prefer to work with in the future 47 Table 6.4 Reasons for dispute over the Coral Triangle Initiative implemented areas 50 Table 6.5 Reported benefits of the CTI and MRP at the three sites 51
Table 6.6 Decision Making in favour of establishment of the CTI and MRP 53
Table 6.7 Main sources of income for the three project sites 55
Table 6.8 Reasons to think negatively about the CTI and MRP (combined) 58
Table 6.9 Issues that may cause failure to the CTI and MRP (combined) 59
xi
List of figures Page
Figure 1.1 Location map of Sairaghi Project 22
Figure 1.2 Location map of Naro project 23
Figure 1.3 Location map of Oibola project 24
Appendix 1 Figure A.1 Household status of respondents, Sairaghi 74 Figure A.2 Income generation type, Sairaghi 74 Figure A.3 Primary place of employment, Sairaghi 75 Figure A.4 Average household spending (monthly 2012), Sairaghi site 75 Figure A.5 Household status, Naro community respondents 76 Figure A.6 Respondents’ rating of income by project site 76 Figure A.7 Education status of Naro community 77 Figure A.8 Level of education , Naro community 77 Figure A.9 Household status of respondents, Oibola site 78 Figure A.10 Level of education, Oibola community 78 Figure A.11 Profitability of farm operation in three project sites, 2012 (combined) 79 Figure A.12 Profitability of farm operation by individual site, comparing 2012 and 2007. 79 Figure A.13 Time generally spent on project farms by project sites (combined) 80 Figure A.14 Time spent on farms by individual project sites, respondents. 80 Figure A.15 Reasons why villagers are abandoning farm land (combined) 81 Figure A.16 Family members stayed away from home during the study period (combined for the three project sites) 82 Figure A.17 The number of years family members stayed away from home (combined) 82 Figure A.18 Purpose for staying away from home: three project sites (combined) 83 Figure A.19 Reasons to stay away from home: project site analysis. 83
Appendix 2
Figure B.1 Composition of focus group interviews. 84
Figure B.2 Education background of Climate Change Expert respondents 84
Figure B.3 Who do you think decide on which project to make? 85
Figure B.4 Who do you think owns the projects? 85
Figure B.5 Occupation of respondents 86
xii
Figure B.6 Importance of the climate change projects to the communities, respondents’
perceptions. 86
Figure B.7 For which sector do you think government should allocate and spend more
funds? 87
Figure B.8 Reasons that make you think positively about the climate change projects. 87
Figure B.9 Reasons for thinking negatively of the climate change projects 88
Figure B.10 If the project could not finish on time, what would be the main
contributing factors? 88
Figure B.11 Who do you prefer to work in future climate change projects? 89
Figure B.12 How do you rate the impact of the climate change project on the
communities? 89
Figure B.13 What are the issues associated with impacts of climate change on these
three project sites? 90
Figure B.14 Do you agree that financial management is an important component of
climate change project management? 90
Figure B.15 What would you think is the most challenging factor to effective climate
change project implementation? 91
Figure B.16 What do you think of the current level of government’s support to climate
change projects in the country? 91
Figure B.17 What do you think of the current development of climate change
programs in the country? 92
Figure B.18 What do you think are the reasons for land dispute? 92
1
CHAPTER 1:
INTRODUCTION
Climate change is one of the major challenges for Pacific Islands Countries and
Territories (PICTs), including Solomon Islands (Kelman et al., 2009). It threatens not
only the people’s livelihood and living standards, but also the viability of isolated
communities and rural households. Like any other PICTs, Solomon Islands has been
identified as one of the countries of the world most vulnerable to the adverse impacts of
climate change (Barnett, 2001 & Barnett, 2011). The high vulnerability stems from
many factors like excessive dependence on foreign aid, remoteness, the fact that the
majority of the population lives within 1.5 km from the coastline and also the higher rate
of poverty, which according to Dyoulgerov et al.2011 reached 22.4 per cent in 2008.
Costs to address climate change impacts for Small Island developing Countries (SIDs)
like Solomon Islands are a burden and increasing annually (Huhtala et al. 2010).This is a
critical time for SIDs, which must contend with on-going developmental pressure in
addition to growing pressures from risks associated with global environmental change
and economic liberalisation that threaten their physical and economic security (Pelling &
Uitto, 2001).
The country has a population of half a million, of which some 85 per cent live in
rural households that rely on subsistence activities from agriculture, forestry and marine
resources (Albert et al. 2010 ; Albert et al, 2013 ; Gagahe 2011). The dependency of the
villagers on marine resources has strained the productivity of the coral reefs and
destroyed most of the reef habitats because of over-harvesting through the practice of
illegal fishing techniques and methods over the years (Albert et al. 2010 ; Burke et al.
2002). Local and international remittances at small, but increasing rates also contribute
as major sources of income (CBSI, 2012). Coral reefs have important ecosystem
functions that provide crucial goods and services to hundreds of millions of people
around the globe (McMichael et al. 2005; Grimsditch & Salm 2006; Alonso et al. 2001;
Ahmed et al., 2004). In addition, villagers depend hugely on the richness of coral reefs
for their survival (Cesar & Chong, 2004; Dulvy et al. 2011).
2
The high vulnerability of Solomon Islands to climate change impacts creates the
opportunity to explore the situation of rural households and how government strategies
may help to mitigate and adapt to climate change impacts. The Solomon Islands (SI)
government, international donor partners and agencies have spent more than US$4.8
million (MECDM1, 2010; Rini, 2011) in the last five years, in initiatives aiming to
integrate Climate Change2 (CC) in developing plans and budgets, capacity building and
implementation of adaptation practices to increase the resilience to climate change.
International donor agencies such as the US Agency for International Development
(USAID), the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Asian Development Bank
(ADB) have had a major role in assisting Solomon Islands in addressing climate change
risks (MECDM, 2010).
From the literature we know that the level of vulnerability to climate change
risks depends heavily on the level of income of households (Schmidhuber & Tubiello,
2007). That assumption was tested during a research that was carried out in Bangladesh
at a flood prone area to determine the effectiveness of adaptive coping strategies to
reduce flood damage costs. In their findings it shows that, households with lower income
and less access to productive natural assets face higher exposure to risk of flooding thus
increasing their vulnerability to impacts of climate change (Brouwer, et al., 2007). These
conservation initiatives usually involve expenditures that may affect positively the level
of income at local and country level. From this fact, we expect that local villagers may
have a positive attitude toward conservation initiatives and expectations of positive
economic returns from such conservation projects. These expectations may facilitate the
willingness of local households to participate in such projects.
In order know about the level of vulnerability of rural households to cope with
climate change risks and impacts we aim at building a baseline of the socioeconomic
situation of local households. There is a negative relationship between the level of
vulnerability and resilience to climate change impacts (Adger, 2000; Cannon & Müller-
Mahn, 2010; Adger & Kelly, 1999; Cutter et al. 2006); therefore, from describing the 1 Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology.
2 Climate Change – The change in weather pattern over longer period of time
3
socioeconomic status of households we can inform on their level of vulnerability to
climate change impacts.
We focus our study in three rural coastal areas of Solomon Islands. The study
sites of these villages include extensive fishing grounds, which host mangrove forests
and coral reefs. Two villages have participated in the Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) and
one village in a mangrove rehabilitation project (MRP). The CTI aims at the
conservation of coral reefs by implementing marine protected areas (MPAs), including
traditional fishing grounds, with the intention to control over-fishing. In consequence,
villagers had to use other new allocated fishing sites. The MRP included constraints to
the clearing of mangroves and avoidance of their over-use.
The conservation initiatives have affected the ability of households to obtain
food (Aswani & Furusawa). However, villagers expect an increased capacity to produce
food from the coral reefs and mangrove forests if sustainable management is achieved.
The main objective of this thesis is to elicit cross-sectional socioeconomic
information at household level in three rural areas of Solomon Islands that may serve as
base level information for exploring and describing the socioeconomic situation and
attitude of households in regard to conservation projects, such as the Coral Triangle
Initiative and mangrove rehabilitation projects. A second objective is the mapping of the
costs and benefits to the communities from conservation. The study also explores
difficulties and challenges households face in building their own resiliency and how
these challenges are related to their socioeconomic situation.
4
CHAPTER 2 :
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Vulnerability to climate change risks
In light of increasing expected costs from climate change impacts and risks,
PICTs have adopted the “Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change
2006–2015” through the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) in 2005. Such a concern was
confirmed by PIF leaders at the Apia meeting in 2011 (Slade 2011) and a Climate
Change Communiqué at the Majuro meeting in 2012. The PIF is an organisation
comprising sixteen independent and self-governing states in the Pacific Ocean with a
vision to seek a region that is recognised for the quality of its governance, sustainable
development of its resources, full observation of democratic values and defence and
promotion of human rights.
The regional concern translates from deep seated climate challenges at country
level. For example, Sore (2010 ) pointed out that climate change is one of the important
impediments that hinders the SID countries, such as Solomon Islands, from reaching
their development goals. It becomes a cross-cutting issue that has impacts on all
development sectors in the country, making Solomon Islands particularly vulnerable
(Wickham et al. 2012). Thus, Solomon Islands has included climate change into national
development strategies and decision making, signalling that all sectors of the economy
are expected to be negatively affected by climate changes with increasing adaptation
costs (Dyoulgerov et al. 2011).
Sanderson et al., (2007) explain that, in broad terms, the two major policy
options for climate change are mitigation and adaptation. Although Klein et al. (2005)
and Smith et al. (2000) try to develop synergies between the two polices, they all define
mitigation as the act of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with the goal of
slowing or preventing climate change, whereas adaptation is the act of reducing
vulnerability to the effects of climate change. The mitigation actions are evaluated in
terms of cost effectiveness whereas adaptation measures must be evaluated in terms of
benefits (Laukkonen et al. 2009).
5
In Solomon Islands demand for coral reef products has been growing, including
things like coral for international aquariums and curio trade, as well as betel nut lime
(made from live coral) for the local market, which further intensifies stress on the reefs
(Albert et al. 2012). These activities have resulted in unprecedented removal of various
coral types, and localised destruction of reef ecology and habitats, with major ecological
impacts on other reef dependent species like fish and invertebrates (Albert et al. 2012).
One of the reasons for depletion apart from over extraction is the destructive
fishing practices like poison fishing, blast fishing, muro-ami, coral mining, marine
pollution, sedimentation and coral bleaching. The consequent degradation is causing the
reef to lose its value and usefulness to the community and its viability is jeopardised
(Wilkinson et al. 1994; Cesar 2002; Veitayaki et al. 1995).
2.2 The Coral Triangle Initiative
An example of an adaptation practice is the CTI (Coral Triangle Initiative),
which is a regional initiative covering six countries—the Philippines, Malaysia,
Indonesia, Timor-Leste, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands—in Southeast Asia
and the Pacific Triangle (Clifton 2009). The main purpose of CTI is to assist the coastal
communities to rehabilitate and protect their coral reefs for the use of future generations.
The activities include establishment of MPAs in designated areas, replanting of coral
reefs and stopping communities from harvesting their corals for sale in both domestic
and international markets. According to Sore (2010) the CTI initiative has three major
objectives, to ensure food security, build community resilience, and halt the decline in
ecosystem productivity. By the introduction of more effective management of coastal
and marine resources, it was expected to build resilience to the impacts of climate
change and human-induced activities, as well as increasing the ecosystem productivity
(Daily et al. 1997). The CTI is relevant because of the fact that it addresses adaptation to
climate change impacts and risks by targeting economic development goals in rural
communities.
The Solomon Islands component was implemented in the rural communities in
2008, when the MECDM established CTI projects in selected communities on Malaita,
6
Guadalcanal and Western Provinces with the main objective of conserving coral reefs,
particularly by emphasising economic development and building resilience. The CTI has
aimed at rehabilitating and conserving the coral reefs and marine ecologies (Lawrence,
2012). Selected communities in these three provinces have worked with the MECDM
and implementing agencies such as World Fish and WWF in educating and assisting the
communities to protect and conserve their coral reefs. The villagers in this process have
identified parts of their coral reefs where they were not allowed to fish and have
established policies and preventive measures to enable the fish and other marine
resources to replenish. The general connection between conservation and building
resilience to climate change is that when the CTI participants conserve their resources
(coral reefs) they also increase their capacity and potential to build reliance on sources
that will prevent them from over-depending on those resources for their survival (Sulu
et al. 2011).
Prior to the introduction of CTI in the country the government had, according to
The Nature Conservancy, World Fish and WWF, participated in other marine
conservation programs such as the establishment of “no fishing” area zones (van
Beukering et al. 2007). Beside the CTI initiative, people within the country also have
some traditional ways of managing their marine resources. For example according to
(Hviding, & Baines, 1994) there were some roles that tradition management system
played in controlling their land and sea resources. The CTI re-inforce some of these
resource management practices.
2.3 Coastal degradation
The country is in the process of adopting the program on Reducing Emissions
from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). This United Nations funded
initiative started in 2011 though it has yet to be implemented effectively (Corrin 2014).
REDD+ goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation to include the role of
conservation, sustainable management and enhancement of forests, including also the
rehabilitation of mangroves. It is expected that REDD+ will complement the
conservation efforts of CTI.
7
2.4 Mangrove rehabilitation project
The second adaptive measure is the establishment of mangrove rehabilitation
programs (MRP), assisted by government and some agencies. In this study, the MRP
was a private initiative by the villagers. Mangroves protect villages from storms, surges
and winds, and also provide avenues where the many marine inhabitants can replenish
and regenerate. Mangroves provide a buffer against hurricanes and protect inland areas
from tidal surges, and as plants, they help to hold the soil, preventing soil erosion
(Albert & Schwarz 2013).The mangroves also provide the villagers with food as an
important component of their livelihood.
The difference between a MRP and the CTI is that no aid donor has financially
supported the MPR in this community. The community leaders and members have
decided to take the leading role in this initiative to replant, manage, and protect their
mangroves, at their own cost. Replanting mangroves has played a significant role in
conserving habitats and reservoirs of biodiversity, home of many species including (it is
hoped) some as yet undiscovered at this site (Maczulak 2009).
2.5 Marine Protected Area
The communities in their endeavours to implement policies and guidelines in
safeguarding their CTI and MRP have adopted the marine protected area (MPA) model
as the toolkit for achieving these objectives. MPAs are demarcated sea areas in which
villagers are not allowed to fish throughout the year or for a mutually agreed period of
time (Francis et al. 2002; Day et al. 2012). The International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) defines an MPA (Dudley 2008; Jones et al. 2013) as “a clearly defined
geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective
means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem
services and cultural values”. It includes a wider variety of governance types (including
community-based areas) and includes but is not limited to no-take areas. Furthermore
these MPAs are often regarded as the cornerstone of coastal and marine resource
8
management and are considered essential strategies in integrated coastal and fisheries
management (Nichols 1999).
The establishment of MPAs has proven to attract the interest of tourists who
come to dive and do research. For example, in the Western Province, the introduction of
MPAs in the surrounding reefs increased the number of home stays at the site because of
such tourists. Besides, conservation increased the value of fish stock in a particular area
according to (Horwood et al. 1998; Hannesson, 2002) allowing the villagers to fish,
obtain income and in turn assist them to invest in businesses that will diversify their
dependency on marine resources. Furthermore, it ensures that the coral reefs grow and in
the long term provide barriers against high sea waves coming directly into the villages.
In a global context there is a positive growth in the number of established MPAs
worldwide (McCrea-Satrub et al. 2010). It is estimated these MPAs are growing at a rate
of 5 per cent annually (Wood et al. 2008).
2.6 Importance of MPAs at the National level
Over the past decades, the agriculture sector has been the main source of
livelihood to most of the villagers within the country (Reenberg et al. 2008). That
supremacy has now been challenged by marine resources, particularly the coral reefs, as
the main source of income to many coastal villagers (Pauku & Lapo 2008). Because of
this high dependency and deteriorating state of the coral reefs the government has
secured financial assistants from foreign aid donors to ensure that the coral resources are
revived and rehabilitated for the future generations’ use and benefits (Sore, 2010). As
part of that strategy the CTI was then used to source funding from aid donor partners
with the aim of re-enforcing better management of the coral reefs and establishing
policies including MPAs, and how to manage and harvest the resources sustainably. This
is enhancing the objective for communities to be resilient to any food shortage from the
adverse impacts of climate change into the future (Flower et al. 2013).
Historically, most MPAs are focused on potential population- and ecosystem-
scale benefits during establishment (McCrea-Satrub et al. 2010). These benefits include
increased biomass; spill over of fish from the protected area into the allocated areas for
9
fishing; larval export of protected species; and reduced habitat loss. Little consideration
and documentation were generated on the actual (social and financial) costs of most of
the coral rehabilitation, including MPA establishment, around the region (Carneiro,
2011). In Solomon Islands the number of MPAs is increasing (Personal communication,
Senior Fisheries officer Mr Peter Kenilorea3), increasing from 21 MPAs in 2008 to 52 in
2013, that cover 2,802 km2. These have to be better managed at the national level in the
country to be sustained.
2.7 Scope of the thesis
The scope of the thesis covers only three project sites (2 CTI and 1 MRP) at
selected rural communities in Solomon Islands. It focuses mainly on the socioeconomic
status of the participants of CTI and MRP at these sites. Its aim was to determine the
baseline income4 of the villagers prior to and after the implementation of the CTI and
MRP projects at the respective sites. Determining the baseline income at these sites may
make it possible to compare the magnitude of benefits the villagers perceive themselves
as having gained from the implementation of the projects. The thesis also maps the
social costs and benefits of the projects at the three rural communities, based on the
perceptions of the respondents. The time period of study and observation for the thesis
was limited to 2008–2012, the period during which the projects were implemented at
these rural community sites.
3 Peter Kenilorea is the Senior Marine officer responsible for the MPA within the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine resources.
4 Baseline income – the income level of participants prior to project (CTI and MRP) implementation.
10
CHAPTER 3:
METHODOLOGY
In order to build a baseline of socioeconomic information at household level in
selected rural communities (villages) where conservation initiatives have already been
implemented, the study considers the design and implementation of an exploratory pre-
sample. The use of secondary sources of information from government agencies, non-
government organisations (NGOs), the literature, and international cooperation agencies
complements the field data.
After collecting the necessary information we consider the performance of an
exploratory and descriptive analysis of the information. We consider a special focus on
mapping the costs and benefits associated with the implementation of conservation
projects at village level.
3.1 Pre-sample design and implementation
Given the pre-sample nature of our instrument, this was not designed to be a
probabilistic sample. The main purpose of this “pre-”sample was to explore the
relationship that might exist between the socioeconomic attributes of villagers and the
conservation initiatives already implemented. There was also a study conducted in the
Western Province of Solomon Islands which has adopted this similar approach to find
the socio-economic factors influencing the customary marine tenure in the respective
communities (Cinner, 2005). In this study we expect to learn more, from the primary
data collected, about the perceptions and expectations of villagers with respect to the
conservation projects. Although this was not a probabilistic sample, it might be
considered as representative of the specific situation of each study site selected.
According to the MECDM, three provinces had at that time actively started
either CTI or MRP conservation programs in the country, so we chose to investigate one
conservation site from each of the three provinces. The selection of suitable sites inside
each province considered their vulnerability and apparent likelihood of being affected,
11
some quite seriously, by climate change. One of the more evident risks is in regard to
sea-level rise. Another determinant criterion for their selection was their successful
experiences that they have recorded with the current conservation project
implementation.
In addition, all three rural community sites have participated in either coral or
mangrove rehabilitation programs in the past, so these present initiatives should provide
some benchmark for comparison of which project is better managed and brings about
more benefits to the livelihood of the people.
We chose only one initiative per province, i.e., either a CTI or an MRP.
Moreover, because of time and budget constraints we selected the sites with better
access, that is, that are closer to main ports or townships.
For the pre-sample we considered 4 measurement instruments: 1) a survey at
household level, 2) a semi-structured survey at village level, 3) a focus group
questionnaire, and 4) interviews with government officers and village personnel and or
experts.
3.2 Household survey
We used the household survey as the instrument for obtaining the respondents’
perceptions about the benefits and costs they incurred from the projects. We collected
baseline information through the household survey questionnaires that helped us to
gauge the level of benefits they have gained ‘with or without’ the project. Some of the
main variables we asked in our household questionnaires include: the level of their
education, the level of their income, ranking of the participants’ income, level of their
community participation, the number of household members in their families, and the
alternative business activities they participated in beside fishing or farming in the
respective rural community. The relevant variables included in the survey are:
(i) Level of education: The level of education has been demonstrated
elsewhere to be a key social variable explaining household behaviour (van
Liere et al. 1980), therefore we expect we expect this variable to be
12
informative when trying to describe the socioeconomic situation of the
households under study at these selected sites.
(ii) Level of income: This is also seen as an important question in the
household survey. We intended to calculate the level of household income
“prior and after” the implementation of the conservation project. We
assume that villagers would support the project if they gain or expect to
obtain some benefit from participating.
(iii) Number of household members: We measured the number of family
members, number of adults and number of children. We also determined
whether they are relatives and in what degree, i.e., parents, sons and
daughters, nephews, nieces, foster children, (kinship among members).
(iv) Community participation: The level of community participation in the
respective projects is vital to gauge the support of the rural community
dwellers towards each project implementation initiative. Similar projects of
this nature had been introduced at these sites in the past, like the Naro and
Sairaghi study sites. We assume that the higher proportion of community
dwellers’ participation in these current project initiatives will indicate the
long-term sustainability of these projects at these respective rural
community sites. This approach accords with another study that confirms
community participation in development projects as a marker of success
(Paul 1987).
(v) Alternative business activities: This question is designed to identify
what are the likely alternative business activities to farming and fishing as
the main two income sources at these rural community sites .We expect
that villagers dedicate more time to those activities from which they expect
obtaining higher revenues.
13
(vi) Time share spent in the farm: Asking about this also gives us
information on the amount of time left for other activities, like fishing,
community projects and so on.
3.3 Semi-structured questionnaires
Semi-structured questionnaires are usually conversational and informal in tone
(Longhurst 2003). We planned to utilise this instrument to interview various members of
the communities in individual and group-interviews. The intention was to interview key
respondents5 within the communities individually while we grouped6 the youths,
women, men and some villager elders together to get their collective opinions.
We started by explaining the motive of our interview; first we explained the
nature of CTI and MRP projects. The CTI includes the creation of a marine protected
area in the fishing grounds close to the village, the MPA bans fishing activities but the
MPA’s objective is to improve the quality and quantity of fishing resources. We then
asked them whether they are aware of the benefits and costs associated with the CTI and
MRP conservation initiatives at these sites.
We anticipated spending an average of one hour for one group interview in the
communities although we realised the interview may need to be longer or shorter in
some cases. We anticipated encountering some difficulty in asking our main questions,
particularly with the elderly groups. To counter this problem, we engaged a research
assistant from each project site, so that he may be responsible for explaining the theme
and such questions to the elderly villagers at these respective sites. Besides, all the
interviews were conducted in Solomon Islands pidgin and then translated back to
English during the recording process. Interviews were recorded by writing down their
responses to each question. Some of the general questions asked follow:
(i) In your understanding what do you know about climate change? 5 People who hold responsibilities, such as village organisers, chiefs and religious leaders etc.
6 One group of interviewees ranges from 6 to 8 people.
14
By asking this question of the rural community dwellers we hoped to gauge the
villagers’ knowledge about and their general understanding of climate change and
its impact on their resources. Only by establishing the villagers’ knowledge and
awareness about the underlying issues of climate change and how it could affect
them would we be able to understand how serious climate change is for their
livelihood and whether they may be committed towards the sustainability of the
projects. Our expectation was that villagers will support these conservation
initiatives when they understand the impact of climate change on the communities
and realise the importance and urgency of preserving their resources for continuing
use into the future.
(ii) What are the negative impacts of climate change on the community?
We aimed to understand how closely the rural community villagers relate the
negative impact of climate change on their livelihood and how these respective
conservation projects could assist them build resilience against those prevailing
negative impacts such as food insecurity and rising sea level. By understanding the
relation between livelihood and negative impacts of climate change on the rural
community dwellers at these sites, more villagers should support these worthwhile
conservation initiatives.
(iii) Why do you think the government and donor partners should do more
in the cause of responding to climate change threats (environment
conservation) in the country?
This question provides the researchers with the villagers’ perception towards the
current conservation projects implementations. If the villagers perceived that
climate change issues (environmental conservation) are vital to the communities’
livelihood and survival, then they should indicate that government and donor
partners should do more to enable villagers build resilience to the impact of climate
change at the respective sites. We anticipated that the rural villagers at these sites
15
would appreciate the government’s level of assistance in this sector7 and express
support for more project implementation throughout the country.
(iv) Do you think these projects have a positive or negative impact on the
communities?
This question is vital in understanding the perception of the villagers directly from
the implementation of the CTI and MRP at these respective rural communities. We
expected the respondents would express negative description about the conservation
initiative if the communities’ participants have negative perception about the
conservation projects. Likewise, any positive responses from the rural community
respondents in support of the positive impact of the conservation initiative to the
communities would imply of the villagers support to the conservation programs
undertaken.
(v) What could the community do without the project initiative to adapt to the
impact of climate change, e.g. increasing sea-level rise, decline in fish
catches etc.?
This question helps us to understand what each respective community member and
respondent could do without depending on these conservation projects in their own
resilient activities. If the respondents depend on these conservation projects as their
main forms of resilience then, the success of these conservation initiatives must be
critical to their livelihood
(vi) What are the benefits of the CTI and MRP initiatives to your family
unit?
This question was asked of the respondents specifically to inform researchers of
what direct benefits the CTI and MRP initiatives have on the family unit. The
7 Environment conservation initiatives in the rural areas.
16
perception of the respondents on the direct benefits gained to the family unit from
implementation of these conservation projects help us to determine the social costs
and benefits on the communities.
(vii) Why are CTI and MRP important to the communities?
This question is designed as a follow-up question on the respondents with views
already asked and expressed in questions (v), (vi) and (vii). We expected responses
that CTI and MRP are critically important conservation initiatives to the
communities for their livelihood resilience to the impact of climate change.
(viii) Why do you support the CTI and MRP projects?
The question intended to explore the different reasons that motivated villagers to
support these conservation initiatives. Some may have supported these conservation
projects because of the employment opportunities they provide (short-term
benefits), while others felt more impelled by the long-term benefits of ensuring their
future generation may have access to their same resources through the their
conservation efforts. We anticipated mixed answers from the village respondents’ at
all three rural community sites.
(ix) What are some of the costs that establishment of projects has caused to
your livelihood?
It is a fair approach also to ask the project participants about the costs that these
conservation initiatives (projects) have incurred to their livelihood. The project
participants were expected to disclose both the social and economic costs the
establishment of the projects have caused to their livelihood. For example, we
expected feedback mentioning costs such as money required paying for monitoring
of the designated MPAs; or time costs in terms of time spent working at the MPAs
instead of working at the family farm or communal activity in the villages.
17
3.4 Special focus group interviews Aside from the respondents to the semi-structured
questionnaires, we interviewed another category of people during our trips to these sites.
These were mainly fishermen aged from 25 to 60 years old. Examples of questions we
discussed with them are indicative.
(i) Cost of fuel to new fishing ground: This specific question asked for
verification of the cost of fuel (if any) from the villages to the new allocated
fishing grounds at these three rural community sites. We felt it important that
fishermen express to us the cost they incur because of the introduction of an
MPA closer to the villages or traditional fishing grounds. The benefits the
villagers gain over time must outweigh the costs if the projects are to be
sustained.
(ii) Are there any benefits to the villagers?
This question sought fishermen’s perceptions on the ripple effects (benefits) such
conservation initiatives (coral reefs and mangrove forests) would have on the
villagers nearby or adjacent to the fishing grounds (particularly fishermen). The
general interest was whether the number and size of fish increased at the areas
designated as MPAs; if such increases were perceived, the majority of the
fishermen should benefit (in the long term) from the outflow of fish adjacent to
the conservation initiative implemented areas.
(iii) How long do you (fishermen) spend on fishing?
We anticipated mixed responses to this question. For some, the establishment of
MPAs closer to the villages would mean long hours travelling to reach their new
fishing grounds. Although the fish are plentiful, the hours spent travelling to
these sites are costly. Furthermore, some fishermen’s answers may confirm semi-
structured question responses that travel to these new sites for fishing consumes
a share of the time that should be spent on communal programs.
18
(iv) What types of fishing methods did your community (fishermen)
practice?
We asked this question because it has been noted that some of the villagers
(mostly fishermen) in the rural Solomon Islands continue to practise the illegal
use of dynamite as their main fishing technique (Hviding & Baines 1994; Foale,
2001). We hoped to obtain information from these three rural community sites on
whether some of their fishermen are still practising this illegal and destructive
method of fishing, despite the fact that the method is now banned by the Ministry
of Fisheries and Marine resources (MF&MR) around the country. We expected
that the MPA governance policy must persuade villagers to refrain from using
this illegal method if they are genuinely serious about the long-term impact of the
conservation initiatives on their environment.
(v) On the types of transport used for fishing.
This question targeted the fishermen to find out what type of transport these
villagers have used since the introduction of the CTI or MRP, and subsequent
MPAs, at these sites. The new alternative fishing grounds are quite far and it
would be risky for the fishermen to travel long distances by dugout canoes,
particularly during storms and bad weather. We anticipate that the responses to
this question would help us to put together the economic and social costs the
villagers would incur because of the MPAs or implementation of these
conservation initiatives.
3.5 Government officials, village personnel and expert onions.
The fourth instrument engaged government officials, village personnel and
expert opinions of stakeholders from the government and climate change implementing
agencies’ officials on their opinions on how effectively the CTI and MRP projects are
implemented at these sites. The interview with this group was used to verify the
preliminary findings from the household survey and semi-structured questionnaire.
These engagements are critical to ascertain their perception on the level of benefits that
19
households gained from these conservation projects, particularly CTI, given the fact that
CTI is funded by the government and aid-donors.
Besides the main socioeconomic factors, we also planned to investigate the
following questions with the Expert Opinions groups.
(i) What do you think is the main reason why there is a general shift
from farming to fisheries?
In our preliminary findings we noted that more respondents depend on fishery
sources than farming and other sources as their main source of income. This
question is asked generally to gauge the expert opinions on what they generally
perceived to be the main contributing factor for the villagers’ dependency on
fisheries as their primary source of income compared to farming. We expect the
answer to this question will help us to draw some general proposition of the
decline in farming to fishing. In our latter discussion we will outline why
conservation of the marine resources is important for the future.
(ii) Why do you think respondents spent less time on the farms than
other business ventures?
In our preliminary findings it is evident that villagers spent less time at farms
than other business ventures such as fishing or general trading etc. We asked this
question to the expert group to share with us their opinions as to why
respondents are spending more time at the alternative business activities rather
than farms. This only indicates to us that farming is getting unviable while
fishing, including other business activities, is building momentum at these sites.
(iii) In which sector do you think the government and donor partners
should invest more money in these communities?
The question asked the expert and focus groups specifically whether they are
content about the government’s level of assistance towards the climate change
(particularly conservation) initiatives in these communities. The anticipated
response was that these respondents would support government providing more
funds and technical assistance towards the conservation initiatives at these sites
20
because of the importance of the projects to their communities. Furthermore, it
also reflects their support of the long-term success of these projects.
(iv) What are some advantages and disadvantages of establishing the
conservation projects in the area?
This question hoped to draw both negative and positive views and perspectives
about establishment of the CTI and MRP at these respective sites. We anticipated
obtaining such negative responses as that these conservation initiatives will
prevent villagers from fishing at their traditional fishing grounds using traditional
fishing techniques, because some of these areas are now designated MPAs. The
advantage of these conservation projects, though, is that their resources are
protected for the future uses. The resources will replenish and increase the level
of biodiversity to the environment at these respective community sites.
(v) What are the short-term benefits of the conservation project?
This question asked the expert and focus groups specifically to explore their
opinions about the short-term benefits the projects have on the communities.
Their response will help us to map the social and economic costs of investing in
such projects within the country. This question is asked to verify the answers
obtained from the survey.
(vi) Do you think the community benefits from the conservation initiatives? Please tick from 1 to 5 ( from less agree to strongly agree).
Village respondents were asked this question specifically to gauge their
perceptions of the conservation projects. They were instructed to rank alternative
levels of benefits (for example, rank from 1 to 5) or possible scenarios (“satisfied
with the level of your income” or “not satisfied with your income”) according to
how appropriate it was to their experience. These rankings were then grouped
and compiled into tables, as presented in the results and discussions section for
analysis discussions.
21
CHAPTER 4:
STUDY AREA AND DATA
The study covers three rural community sites in the country, two CTIs and one MRP
conservation project. The first CTI project is at Sairaghi, Western Province; the second,
at Naro, Guadalcanal Province; and the MRP conservation project, at Oibola, Malaita
Province. All these conservation project sites are in rural areas generally far from the
main markets and thus transportation of produce (resources) to the markets – at the
capital – would incur hefty expenses on resource owners before they reach Honiara, the
commercial centre of the country. Those who want to transport their resources to
Honiara (the central market) must do it by ferry or boat. This is particularly true of
Sairaghi and Oibola residents, who are located on separate islands and provinces,
whereas Naro site villagers, located on Guadalcanal, could use vehicles as an alternative
means to transport their resources to the urban market.
4.1 Sairaghi Project
The objective of Sairaghi coral reefs conservation project is to restore the coral reefs; as
a consequence, the higher level of villagers’ income is expected to improve their
livelihood, making them more resilient to impacts from climate change. This objective is
in agreement with findings by works of Rose and Olsson (2013) Green et al. (2011) or
Veron et al. (2011). In their research, they all agree that CTI is aimed at improving the
wellbeing of the people within these respective areas.
Sairaghi is located along the western coast of Gizo Island and has a total of 640
people living within the conservation project area in two villages, Sairaghi (Figure 1.1).
The island hosts the administrative headquarter of Western Province. This province has
a population of 76,649 people (Gagahe 2011) and 24,214 households. The main
livelihood sources are fishing and agriculture. Tourism shows an increasing dynamism
in the area. The Sairaghi site villagers have been heavily dependent on marine resources
as the main source of income over the years.
22
Figure 1.1 Location of Sairaghi Project
4.2 Naro Project
The Naro CTI project is located along the western coast of Guadalcanal Province, with a
site population of 514 people (Figure 1.2). One of the objectives of this CTI project is to
lessen the dependency of the villagers on marine resources by establishing MPAs and
promoting farming as an alternative source of income. This action is expected to ensure
the replenishment of marine resources to the benefit of future generations (Lal &
Holland 2010; Govan et al. 2009) . The population of Guadalcanal province is 93,613
people (Gagahe 2011) living in 17,163 households. Naro villagers rely for their
livelihood mainly on fishing and agriculture. From this location, they travel less than
two hours to Honiara Central Market to sell their products. This relatively better access
to markets allows them to obtain better prices than villagers from the other two sites,
Sairaghi and Oibola.
The decision to establish the CTI at this site was a collective decision made by
the villagers, in order to conserve the coral reefs and to raise funds through the
introduction of an MPA to assist with the completion of the community church building.
The villagers explained that their church building had been incomplete for more than 20
years. With the CTI and MPA the fish stocks in the area are expected to recover,
allowing the villagers to earn enough money from the catches to complete the building.
This immediate benefit has caused the villagers to extend this initiative to conserve their
marine resource to benefit both their short-term and long-term livelihood.
23
Figure 1.1 Location map of Naro project
The Naro community leadership also confirmed that there had been several failed
attempts in past years in trying to establish MPAs at this site. Each of these failed
attempts has cost the community members their time and resources in trying to conserve
their marine ecology. Now the idea to rehabilitate and conserve the reefs as part of the
CTI is taken up enthusiastically by the village youth group members (aged from 15 to 30
years) and supported by the community elders and church leadership. This new initiative
is supported by everyone across the community, embedded with the need to rehabilitate
and conserve the coral reefs against the impact of climate change together with the
future benefits of such resources for the population. One of the short-term benefits
during the initial stages of this project is that funds raised from sale of fish catches in the
protected area are used to complete their church building. Because of the success, the
church leadership played an important role in this cooperative endeavour.
4.3 Oibola project
The Oibola MRP project covers 4 small villages with 469 people and 87 households
(Figure 1.3). They are located in Malaita Province, which has a population of 137,596
people (Gagahe 2011) and the site is about 15 minutes’ drive away from Auki, the
provincial headquarters. The objective of implementing the MPR is to ensure the
rehabilitation of mangroves in the area, in order to provide habitat for fish and other
marine resources. All these studies (Smith et al. 1993; Waters et al. 2004; Sathirathai et
24
al. 1998) stress the importance of communities taking the leading role in conserving
their resources, which is a similar approach adopted by this community to conserve their
mangrove resources. The primary sources of income at this site are marine resources,
particularly shell money, necklace production and fishing within the reefs in the
surrounding lagoon. Shell money production, although traditionally regarded as the main
source of income, is under severe pressure due to depletion of the shells in the
surrounding reef and lagoon.
Figure 1.2 Location map of Oibola project
These community rural sites were chosen because they all represent vulnerable
areas, they are all likely to be affected – some quite seriously – by climate change,
especially sea-level rise and they are all involved in conservation and rehabilitation of
their resources as part of their resilient program of adaptation to the impact of climate
change in the country.
In comparison with Sairaghi and Naro respondents the Oibola community
residents are under immense pressure with respect to their resilience not to compromise
food security as they face the impact of climate change in their community. Oibola
community residents simply do not have adequate lands available for family farming
and other agribusiness, unlike the Sairaghi and Naro communities. This high degree of
dependency on the marine resources has become unavoidable and the introduction of the
MRP conservation initiative at the site has had a mixed reception. The site is located in
25
Malaita Province, which has a higher population density compared to the two provinces
hosting the two other project sites. Besides this, the Langa Langa lagoon people
traditionally are not farmers but fishermen and fisherwomen. According to our research,
both men and women of this site spent more than 95 per cent of their time on non-
farming ventures to sustain their livelihood. Traditionally, these people do not settle on
the main island but on small and artificial Islands in the lagoon. They have depended on
the fishing and marine resources for the last hundred years. Thus the “Cost and Benefit”
considerations of this project resonated with the community and are crucial for its
continuance and support from the community.
Over the past decades, villagers at these study sites had adopted some of the most
destructive fishing methods in order to catch enough to support their families (Albert et
al. 2012). The major product of this activity is the destruction of corals. The lack of land
for farming at either commercial or self-consumption scale has put even more pressure
on marine resources as sources of income.
4.4. Data Description
The research team have collected and used a mixture of primary and secondary data in
collating and analysing information for this research. The primary data collected at the
sites were mainly from project participants and implementers. As such, survey
questionnaires were designed and targeted towards household heads, while semi-
structured questionnaires were also targeted towards villagers, special groups (such
fishermen) and some general open-ended questionnaires were designed mainly for
government officials, village experts and other stakeholders. The secondary data were
collected from the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and
Meteorology and the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine resources. In addition some
information was also collected through our literature review in the library and from the
internet.
4.4.1 Who conducted the research?
The principal researcher of this project conducted the research with the assistance of
three assistants, one from each conservation site. The engagement of each research
26
assistant from the respective site was necessary since the assistants knew the community
and could relate well with respondents during the interview process. Also the research
assistants knew the protocols and how to approach the community leaders in the
particular site.
4.4.2 Period of field work
The research was undertaking from the 2 May to 8 June 2013. This represented more
than a week and half at each project site. The research team could have spent more
weeks at each site but because of the time and financial constraints the 5 weeks spent in
the country purposively for this research was considered adequate. Furthermore, for this
purpose, we focus our analysis only from the period of 2008 to 2012, when the CTI and
MPR were implemented at these sites. Since some of the projects started slowly during
the period, some respondents were unable to answer our questions as confidently as we
would have liked.
4.4.3 Data Description
(i) Survey Questionnaires
We issued 110 questionnaires in total at all the three selected project sites, 50
questionnaires in Sairaghi, and 30 each in Naro and Oibola. The number selected from
each site represents about 60 to 80 per cent of the households who have participated in
the CTI and MRP at these three sites. According to the researchers this represented the
majority views and perceptions of the participants at these three sites.
Most of the variables captured from this instrument were relevant at the village level.
These include the source of income at the village level, the schedule of expenses, the
types of business villagers participated in and business opportunities that the villagers
could invest in to build resilience to the impact of climate change in the communities.
(ii) Semi-structured questionnaires
We asked 40 respondents as part of the semi-structured questionnaires. The information
we collected was more qualitative to support or disagree with the preliminary findings of
27
the survey questionnaires. The focuses of these semi-structured questionnaires were
mainly at the village level.
(iii) Key Informants: Expert Opinions and Government officials
The questions raised with this group were more at the national level. We were concerned
with how the people working in government departments and offices have perceived the
impact of climate change in the communities and at the government level. The
perceptions of the government and expert opinion groups helped us to draw a more
complete picture of the socioeconomic costs and benefits of the conservation initiatives
for the communities.
(iv) Special Group – with this group we have selected only the fishermen at these three
conservation sites. This group helped us to put together our costs that fishermen incur
every day during their fishing trips. This helped us to map the costs and benefits of
establishing the conservation initiatives at these sites.
28
CHAPTER 5: STUDY 1-RESULT:
“Building resilience to climate change impacts and
socioeconomic attributes of rural households in Solomon
Islands”
For the study areas, 110 interviewees representing household heads were selected
purposively and interviewed. The survey questionnaires were targeted mainly towards
the participating household heads and individuals both male and female (aged 25–72).
According to our results the majority of the rural Solomon Islands communities
are expecting higher economic benefits from the CTI implementation across the country.
This higher expectation may be a reflection of the government and aid donors’ relatively
huge assistance towards the coral reef conservation initiative (CTI) in the country. On
the other hand, the level of expected benefits from the mangrove rehabilitation project
(MRP) compared to the CTI is considerably lower, no doubt because the MRP was a
private initiative by villagers themselves. However, in both cases, participants showed a
belief that the actions taken now to conserve their resources will be good for future users
and essential for their livelihood sustenance in building resilience to climate change
impacts.
In terms of the differences between the study sites, we did not find significant
differences among sites, presumably because of the small sample size and the very
similar responses. Although no statistical testing was done for the three sample sites,
looking over the responses indicates that almost all the respondents show similar
responses in regard to their perception towards the socioeconomic attributes that are
relevant in building resilience to climate change risks. The level of income and expenses
across the three study sites showed to be quite similar. We did not observe wider ranges
of expenses against income at these sites (See Table 5.1).
29
Table 5.1 The social characteristics of villagers in the study area (three sites)
Gender Sairaghi Naro Oibola
Male 80% 60% 63%
Female 20% 40% 37%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Marital Status Single 8% 7% 7 % Married 82% 83% 77% Widower 2% 10% 3% Divorced 6% 0% 10% Widow 2% 0% 10% Total 100% 100% 100%
Educational Level No formal education 4% 3% 0% Primary School 26% 43% 23% High School without grad 18 % 17% 20% High School general 38% 30% 53% Tertiary 14% 7% 3% Total 100% 100% 100%
Does the family member live with the family? Yes 78% 53% 70% No 22% 47% 30% Total 100% 100% 100%
Years stayed away from home. No stay away from family 76% 53% 70% Between 1 and 12 months 4% 0% 7% More than 12 months but less than 24 months 0% 10% 10% More than 24 months but less than 36 months 18% 13% 3% More than 36 months but less than 48months 2% 20% 3% More than 60 months 0% 3% 7% Total 100% 100% 100%
Average Monthly Income SBD$1,423 SBD$1,936 SBD$1,787. Average Monthly Spending SBD$973 SBD$1,233 SBD$1,103
30
Table 5.1 The social characteristics of villagers in the study area (three sites) (conti nues from previous page) Sairaghi Naro Oibola Main Source of Income Fishing & Marine products 40% 30% 60% Non-farm products & others 36% 13% 13% Own farm 8% 43% 7% Wages 16% 14% 20% Total 100% 100% 100% Time spent on farms in one year (2012) Zero months 22% 47% 47% Three months 48% 0% 50% Six months 24% 6% 0% Nine months 2% 20% 3% More than 11 months 4% 27% 0% Total 100% 100% 100% Types of Businesses owned by family members No formal business 16% 10% 13% Fishing & Marine products 38% 28% 52% Handicraft & shell money 16% 5% 8% Agro-businesses 8% 43% 7% Commerce & Trading 12% 6% 8% Others 10% 8% 12% Total 100% 100% 100%
Source: Household livelihood survey (2013).
5.1 Sairaghi, Western Province
The age of the Sairaghi respondents ranged from 33 to 70 years, with a mean of 43
years. Of these respondents, 8 per cent were chiefs, 62 per cent were household heads,
20 per cent were housewives, 6 per cent were relatives and 4 per cent were non-relatives.
In terms of education, 4 per cent of the respondents from this project site had not
attended formal education. Of those who obtained formal education, 42 per cent reached
primary level and 54 per cent secondary school level, although of this 54 per cent, 36 per
cent did not complete their education. In terms of income generation, 60 per cent of the
31
Sairaghi respondents had casual employment as the main source of income, 32 per cent
had regular jobs, mainly in the nearby township of Gizo, and 8 per cent responded as
having no form of consistent income. It was also confirmed that the majority of these
respondents who confirmed casual employment as their main sources of income depend
on the marine resources for their income and livelihood.
5.2 Naro, Guadalcanal Province
The age of the respondents from Naro spreads from 25 to 72 years with a mean of 38
years. The survey respondents were structured as follows: 3 per cent chiefs, 37 per cent
household heads, 23 per cent housewives, 7 per cent relatives and 10 per cent friends
and non-relatives. Compared with the other two sites, this site has experienced good
support from the community members, especially the youths and the church leaders.
The analysis showed that 67 per cent of respondents from this site have
completed their education while 33 per cent have either abandoned (23 per cent) or
incomplete (10 per cent) studies, both at primary and secondary levels. This was the
highest percentage of respondents with no formal education at all the three project sites.
5.3 Oibola, Malaita Province
The age of Oibola respondents ranged from 25 to 68 years, with a mean of 43 years.
From the age distribution and interviews we know that many young people have left the
village to seek better opportunities at urban centres to find employment and support their
families.
Of the respondents, 7 per cent were chiefs and village elders, 50 per cent
household heads, 27 per cent housewives, 13 per cent relatives and 3 per cent friends.
In terms of education, we noted that 63 per cent of the respondents had
completed their education while 23 per cent did not and 13 per cent had already
abandoned their education endeavours. Although there are schools in the surrounding
villages, the rate of respondents with incomplete education background was relatively
high.
32
In terms of household income to benchmark this study, a previous study
conducted on a similar project at Arnavon, Choiseul Province in 2007 for the economic
impact of MPAs on the surrounding communities had revealed that the average
household income of respondents was SBD795 (USD104) per month ( van Beukering et
al. 2007). By comparison, at these 3 sites, the average monthly household income
ranged from SBD1,450 (USD194.00) to SBD1,787.00 (USD134). This was about
USD90.00 to USD238.00 more than the average income of the residents of the Arnavon
site.
Respondents from Naro community have a higher average income than those
from Oibola and Sairaghi because of their proximity to the capital city and thus the
central market – von Thunen’s rule (Leigh 1946; Fujita & Thisse 1986).This is reflected
in their relatively higher cash flow compared to Oibola and Sairaghi sites (see table 5.2).
On the other hand, they also recorded a relatively higher level of expenses as compared
to the two other sites. This higher level of monthly expenditure also indicates their
access to cash and the weak saving attitude this community has.
Further analysis showed these project sites were dependent on similar sources of
income structures. This was because there was no huge difference in the income base
and sources at these selected sites. Because of this, we identified and narrowed down the
sources of income to 4 main categories. From those categories, it was evident that
Sairaghi and Oibola community sites were dependent on marine resources for their main
source of income compared to Naro site.
Table 5.2 Average monthly incomes and spending for the three project sites
Project site Income average p/m spending (average p/m)
Sairaghi SBD1,423.00 SBD 973.00
Naro Community SBD1,936.00 SBD1,233.00
Oibola Community SBD1,787.00 SBD1,103.00
Source: Household livelihood survey 2013.
Oibola respondents were dependent largely on the marine resources compared to
both Naro and Sairaghi (Table 5.3). This was mainly because of the scarcity of farm land
due to salt water intrusion on the traditional farming areas. The Sairaghi respondents,
33
though dependent on marine resources, also have enough land for farming while Naro
project site has an abundance of farmland for both commercial and domestic farming.
Dependence on wage income sources ranged from 20 per cent (in Oibola) to 13 per cent
(in Naro).
Table 5.3 Sources of Income for the project sites
Source of Income Sairaghi Naro Oibola Fishing & marine products 40% 30% 60% Non-farming products & others 36% 13% 13% Own farm 8% 43% 7% Wages 16% 14% 20% Total 100% 100% 100%
Source: Household livelihood survey 2013.
The analysis shows that a majority of the respondents were not able to afford the
basic family needs with their current level of income, 46 per cent of the respondents
confirming that their income was not enough to meet bare needs in life; these basic
needs include school fees for their children and transport to seek special medical
services for family members. A further 37 per cent of all the respondents rated their
income as sufficient but only to meet necessary expenses such as education and basic
health costs; 14 per cent confirmed that their income was barely sufficient, scarcely
sufficient to buy decent things in life. The remaining 3 per cent confirmed that they
could meet their children’s school fees, private health costs and some expensive goods
with their income without much restriction (Table 5.4).
Table 5.4 Rating of household income by three project sites (combined)
Rating of income by all project sites Percentage
Income not enough to meet basic needs in life 46% Income sufficient but only to meet basic needs 37% Income barely sufficient though not enough to meet decent things 14%
Income for school fees, medical and some other expenses 3% Total 100%
Source: Household livelihood Survey 2013.
34
In terms of commercial activities, overall 37 per cent of the respondents believed
that there was no difference in their operations in 2012 compared to 2008, the year
before the establishments of the CTI and MPR projects at these selected sites. From the
study, 35 per cent confirmed their operations as “worse” in the same period.
Furthermore, 16 per cent of the respondents compared their operation as “worst” while 2
per cent were not able to compare any farm operations with the previous years. The
majority of respondents confirmed that the profitability of their business operations was
deteriorating instead of positively improving. This was reflective of the poor market
production by Sairaghi and no farming operation at the Oibola site. Although Naro site
generally has good farming land, most of its villagers reported finding jobs in non-farm
sectors such as taxi services and suchlike in the main city, Honiara. In terms of
profitability at each project site (table 5.5) more than 58 to 80 per cent have confirmed
that their profitability either was “worse”, “worst” or “no commercial farming” to
compare in the last years. It was important that operations at these project sites should be
profitable in order to attract villagers to continue operating at these provincial sites.
Table 5.5 Profitability of farms in 2012
Ranking of profitability Sairaghi Naro Oibola
Better 16% 7% 7%
Similar 20% 63% 13%
Worse 42% 2% 33%
Worst 8% 18% 14%
No commercial farming 8% 10% 33%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Source: Household livelihood survey 2013.
This is important because in order to retain the villagers with their farming
business, there must be some form of motivations such as improvement or growth in
their profitability to keep them in operation. The cost of transportation, access to
market, deteriorating quality of farm land and adverse impact of the changing
35
climate—for example, such things as cyclones, drought, heavy rain fall, sea-level rise
and coastal erosion—were some of the main factors that have contributed to the decline
in the villagers’ profitability.
Because of the declining farming profitability at these project sites it was evident
that respondents also spent less time in their farms. Looking at the survey results, 22 to
47 per cent of respondents spent a mere “zero to one month” in their farm operations.
Oibola and Naro sites have recorded the highest respondents under this category. The
reason for this was that at Naro, a good number of their respondents have confirmed
finding employment and other opportunities besides farming in the area. For example,
some of these respondents worked as bus and taxi drivers in the transport sector at this
site. Some of the villagers reside in the area but have employment in the city, spending
only weekends on their farms. At Oibola less time was spent in farms because mostly
there were no farms around the site. Overall from the results (table 5.6) it was evident
that 70 per cent of Sairaghi spent less than 6 months during the previous 12 months on
their farms. Oibola project site has recorded 97 per cent for the same period while Naro
project site has recorded the highest percentage of respondents to spend more than 6
months (54 per cent) in their farms.
Table 5.6 Time spent in the farm, 2012
Periods (in months) Sairaghi Naro Oibola
Zero months 22% 47% 47%
Three months 48% 0% 50%
Six Months 24% 7% 0%
Nine months 2% 20% 3%
More than 11 months 4% 26% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Source: Household livelihood survey 2013.
Further analysis showed that there were several reasons why villagers at these
sites were abandoning their farms and spending more time on other livelihood activities.
From the results, it was evidenced that a sizeable majority (59 per cent) of the
36
respondents indicated that farm lands were becoming low in quality because of poor
land use practices (Table 5.7). Because of unpredictable weather patterns, such as
frequent heavy rain, drought and storms villagers decided to diversify their livelihood
income to other sources (Barnett 2011). A study made by Rosenzweig & Binswanger
(1992) also supported this finding that asset portfolios are influenced significantly by
farmers’ aversion to risk, their wealth and the degree of rainfall variability. Furthermore,
percentages citing other reasons were substantially lower, reaching only 43 per cent in
combination: 11 per cent of the respondents confirmed that there was not enough capital
to do commercial farming and a further 11 per cent indicated that the land area allocated
for farming was too far and costly to cultivate. A similar study by Feder et al. (1985)
also identifies similar constraints that the farmers of these sites experience in their
operations. These constraints include such things as the lack of credit, limited access to
information, aversion to risk, inadequate farm size, inadequate incentives associated
with farm tenure arrangements, insufficient human capital, and absence of equipment to
relieve labour shortages (thus preventing timeliness of operations). In addition, 5 per
cent complained that there was no road access to suitable land. A further 5 per cent
reported conflicts over ownership of the land while 5 per cent indicated that their next
farming land is in a protected area. Two per cent confirmed that agriculture was no
longer profitable while 4 per cent still believed that other reasons also contributed
towards general abandonment of the agricultural activity within the area. From this
finding it was highlighted that “poor land quality”, “too far-farm operations” and “lack
of capital and resources” were the main reasons for the mass desertion of agricultural
activities. Long distances between markets and production sites were also another
contributing factor to these obstacles (see Table 5.7).
37
Table 5.7 Reasons for the decline in agricultural production at the three sites
(Combined three project sites)
Descriptions (Reasons) Percentage Agriculture not profitable 2% Not enough capital & other resources to farm 11% Land is low quality 59% There is no road access to farm land 5% Too far-farm operation (distance) 9% Conflict over ownership 5% Land located on protected area 5% Other factors 4% Total 100%
Source: Household livelihood Survey 2013.
It was further evidenced that a considerable number of villagers at these sites
have migrated to other parts of the country, especially to urban centres in search of
better employment and other opportunities. Survey responses showed that generally 69
per cent of the respondents remained with their families throughout the year while 31
per cent left their homes (Appendix 1, Figure A 16). Those who left were mostly the
strong men and youths that should cultivate the farm land and participate in other
livelihood activities in the villages. The analysis also showed that the length of time
these villagers left their respective communities varied. For example, the result (Table
5.8) has showed that between 53 and 78 per cent have remained at their village site
during the period. It was evident that 30 per cent of Oibola respondents stayed away
from home for periods between 12 and more than 48 months. Naro site has reported 47
per cent and Sairaghi 22 per cent for the same absentee lengths. The general finding is
that between 12 and 17 per cent have left these sites for at least two or three years. This
was the longest duration, which has shown the highest percentage of respondents had
left these sites. Nevertheless, despite the increasing number of villagers leaving these
sites, the evidence is that still others are remaining in the villages and have adapted to
the village environment even when faced with the adverse impacts of climate change at
their respective villages.
38
Table 5.8 Duration of time members stayed away from home, 2008–2012
Duration (months) Sairaghi Naro Oibola
Zero 78% 53% 70%
zero–12 2% 3% 0%
12–24 2% 13% 3%
24 –36 12% 17% 13%
36–48 4% 14% 7%
> 48 2% 0% 7%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Source: Household livelihood Survey 2013.
The results have indicated several reasons why the villagers have left the project
sites, mostly for urban centres during the study period. In spite of that, about 53 and 78
per cent of respondents remained at these sites during the study period (Table 5.8).
Furthermore, between 16 and 20 per cent of the respondents left for employment,
between 1 and10 per cent left for business related reasons, while a small percentage of
between 2 and 7 per cent left for combinations of business, work and other reasons. It
was evident that a larger portion of respondents at these sites have left the villages
mainly for work related reasons as a result of the financial hardship they faced at these
sites.
From the individual project site analysis, we noted that Naro site has reported
the highest respondent departure rates, with 37 per cent who left to find employment.
This was possible because of the proximity of the capital city, which is less than 2 hours’
drive away by truck. Oibola respondents, who face serious difficulty in finding
alternative sources of income to their depleting marine resources, recorded the second
highest rate (17 per cent) with Sairaghi at 16 per cent for the same reason. It was also
evident from the results that between 7 and 10 per cent of the respondents from Naro
and Sairaghi have left their respective sites for business purposes. This has reflected the
real situation at Sairaghi site as most of its villagers reside around its locality making no
serious attempt to move to the urban centres. Furthermore, the distance between Sairaghi
39
and Honiara, the capital city, is quite far and it would be costly for one to leave this site
in search of other opportunities.
Table 5.9 Reasons to stay away from home
Purpose in staying away from home Sairaghi Naro Oibola
No stay away from home 78% 53% 70%
Work 16% 37% 17%
Business 1% 7% 10%
Combinations 3% 3% 3%
Others 2% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Source: Household livelihood Survey 2013.
During their absence from villages, respondents have participated in various
occupational activities, mainly at urban centres. They usually send money earned from
these various occupational activities to their families as part of the local remittances to
support them in meeting some of their basic livelihood needs. With those who remained
at the villages, overall results showed that they have also ventured into various
livelihood activities to help them cope with the financial difficulties and assist them in
building resilience to impacts of climate change. The analysis therefore revealed that
overall, the highest percentage of respondents depended on marine resources as their
main source of income at the three sites. The second largest category of the respondents
confirmed depending on agro-business, while the rest of the respondents said that they
depend on tourism, handicrafts, including shell money production, and general trade.
Table 5.10 shows the percentage breakdown of the types of business villagers engaged
in at these sites.
The results for the individual site showed a similar trend as the overall
observation for all the project sites (table 5.10). It showed that Sairaghi and Oibola
respondents depend more on fishing and marine ecology for their main sources of
income, while Naro respondents depend more on agriculture (farming) for the same.
Besides marine resources, Sairaghi respondents had depended on handicrafts, general
40
commerce (trading) and other business ventures including tourism and paid beaches.
The Oibola site on the other hand depended also on handicraft, shell money production
and other sources for their alternative income to marine resources.
Table 5.10 Types of businesses participated in around the project sites
Types of Business Percentage Agro-business 12% Tourism 6% Handicrafts, shell money 6% General commerce & trade 6% Fisheries 15% Other sources 7% Subsistence farmers (no specific business) 48% Total 100%
Source: Household livelihood Survey 2013.
Table 5.11 Types of businesses owned by family members, three project sites
Types of Business Sairaghi Naro Oibola
No business 22% 10% 13%
Fishing & marine products 40% 20% 46%
Handicraft, shell money etc. 16% 8% 20%
Agro-business 6% 42% 0%
Commerce & trading 12% 13% 13%
Others 4% 7% 8%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Source: Household livelihood survey 2013.
The analysis also showed that despite the financial hardship the respondents
experienced, some respondents were able to save some money and invest for their future
household use at their respective project sites. The result has showed (Table 5.12) that
33 per cent of the respondents have invested their money in consumable goods. The next
26 per cent of the respondents have invested in children’s education while 16 per cent
41
invested in new family business ventures, 14 per cent in permanent houses and 11 per
cent in financial institutions for various purposes.
Table 5.12 Investment options at the three sites (combined)
Descriptions (Reasons) Percentage
Banking Savings 11%
Permanent house 14%
Consumable goods 33%
Education 26%
New Business ventures 16%
Total 100%
Source: Household livelihood survey 2013.
Aside from the above, we requested respondents to rate how relevant and
beneficial the MPR and CTI have been to the communities. We noted that although there
were expressions of support of the projects there were still some who thought that the
projects were not relevant to the respective communities. The comforting note, however,
was that the majority of the respondents from all the villages agreed that the projects
were beneficial and relevant to the communities’ conservation of their resources and
building resilience to the impact of climate change in the respective communities. It was
noted that a combination of 70 per cent to 87 per cent of responses from the three sites
have indicated that the communities received “strong benefit” and “very strong benefit”
from the projects (see table 5.13). Some of the benefits include the cooperation of
villagers in working together towards the success of these projects.
42
Table 5.13 The communities’ perspective on the benefits of the project
Types of Business Sairaghi Naro Oibola
Not at all 4% 3% 7%
Not relevant 6% 3% 10%
Not sure 20% 7% 3%
Strong benefit 40% 47% 43%
Very strong benefit 30% 40% 37%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Source: Household livelihood survey 2013.
From field anecdotal observations we confirmed the higher dependency of
villagers on the surrounding coral reefs as a food source.
According to Chief Cornelius Vulu8 of Naro site in Guadalcanal Province, the
coral reef is a sacred place of the village, which stores most of the villages’ marine
resources, for either current or future use. Chief Cornelius Vulu further admitted that
because of the declining yield in the agricultural sector for the villagers in the late 1990s
to the early 2000s, more of them turned to fishing as their main source of income.
8 Mr. Cornelius Vulu is one of the young chiefs of Naro who has helped a lot during the course of the research study. He was one of the key informants at the Naro site, Guadalcanal.
43
CHAPTER 6: STUDY 2 - RESULTS:
“Mapping the economic costs and benefits of Coral Triangle
initiative (CTI) and Mangrove Rehabilitation Projects (MRP)
in Solomon Islands: A study of two MPAs and one MRP”
We have adapted Table 6.1 as a tool for qualitative analysis in the “Costs and
Benefits Analysis” of the 110 survey respondents and 40 semi-structured questionnaires
that we collected, as part of this study. The table summarises qualitative responses
encountered in the process of analysing the “Costs and Benefits” of establishing the
projects at these three sites.
The questions asked for developing Table 6.1 were, for the most part, aimed
towards the special group interviews, particularly the fishermen on how much cost they
incur when going to their new fishing grounds and also the government officials and
experts on their views and experiences in managing such projects. We also obtained
some of the costs and benefits from the semi-structured questionnaires, which formed
part of the household survey issued to the villagers. The variables used to obtain
information included; costs incurred by fishermen in travelling to new fishing areas,
what forms of transport they use to the fishing sites, what were costs of other sources of
income such as tourism sites etc., damage to the eco-system, time spent travelling to the
fishing ground, risk faced in travelling to new fishing ground etc.
44
Table 6.1 Identifying Costs and Benefits related to the Coral Triangle Initiative
Categories Benefits Costs � Extractive Uses � Increase in
number of catches � reduced variation
in catches � improved catch
mix
� Decrease in catch � Congestion on the
fishing grounds � Users’ conflicts � High costs associated
with choice of fishing location
� Increase in safety risk � Non-Extractive Uses (e.g.
divers, ecotourism, and existence value)
� Maintain species diversity
� Greater habitat complexity and diversity
� High density level
� Damage to marine ecosystem
� Loss of traditional fishing community
� Management � Scientific knowledge
� Hedge against uncertain stock
� Assessments, skills and educational opportunities
� Increase in monitoring and enforcement costs
� Opportunity costs (forgone economic opportunities,-e.g. oil, gas, and mineral exploration and non-bio prospecting.
Source: Livelihood Survey 2013.
6.2.1 Benefits
In the real world, benefits were equated to dollar amounts (figures) and weighted
against the estimated costs incurred or costs that have already occurred within the
project. It was challenging for project designers to ascertain the exact amounts in dollars
against the likely costs and the benefits of the project, but an estimated figure would
provide decision makers with a platform to select the best alternative investment option.
In our study we limit our discussion to cover only three main categories of benefits and
costs as identified from the CTI and MRP during the field trip. The first benefit was
received by extractive users, the second by non-extractive users and the third category
by those in charge of management and implementers of the projects. We use the special
group interview instrument to collect this information.
45
6.2.2 Extractive Users
The extractive users refer this context to the project participants (fishermen) who
use more than one technique to catch fish in these designated protected areas. According
to the survey respondents, extractive users, who represent 38 per cent of the respondents
from the three sites, stated that there were increases in the size and number of species of
fish surrounding the project sites. This was expected as the rehabilitation and
replenishment of the coral reefs served to attract various types of fish to the surrounding
coral reefs. Study findings of both Robert et al., 2001 and Halpern & Warner (2002)
support this expectation by the village participants. Thus the villagers had realised that
establishing MPAs as part of the CTI benefited the community when they were allowed
to fish after several years of abstinence from it. About 56 per cent of Naro respondents
also confirmed that the introduction of the CTI project enabled villagers’ catch to be
consistent, compared to the pre-CTI project period, when the villagers had to travel
further before finding the next fishing ground to catch enough for either household
consumption or commercial purposes.
More than 77 per cent of the respondents from the three sites have confirmed
that the fishermen spent less time to catch some varieties of fish compared to the pre-
CTI period. Contrary to Oibola, where fishermen travelled long distances to their next
fishing ground, at Naro they save a lot of time fishing adjacent to the project site. From
households’ perspective, less fishing time implies more time to attend to village
communal activities such as church activities, education, health and other alternative
livelihood activities such as farming, casual employment or tourism. As it was expressed
by the village chief Cornelius of Naro community, prior to the CTI project
implementation more of their farming time was allocated to fishing. About 40 per cent
of the respondents did not practise any farming; however, the remaining 60 per cent
dedicated between 0 and 12 months a year to farm activities (Table 6.2).
46
Table 6.2 Time spent on farms by respondents
Description (months) Percentage 0 40% 0–3 31% 3–6 13% 6–9 7% 9–12 9% Total 100%
Source: Household survey 2013.
Those 77 per cent furthermore, confirmed that the mix of fish catches had also improved
after the implementation of the CTI projects. According to Gell & Roberts (2003) the
establishment of MPA benefits the marine ecology and increases the varieties of fish
within the protected areas. The Naro community spokesman, Chief Cornelius Vulu
expressed the opinion that prior to the implementation of the CTI project, the
community was unable to raise enough finance to complete their church building, a
project that had dragged on for more than 20 years. The community members had tried
all available means to raise funds towards completion of the church project without
success. It was only after the introduction of the CTI project that the community
managed to raise enough funds from fishing, during the permitted times at the MPAs to
make progress on the construction of the church building. During those past 5 years of
the moratorium they were allowed to fish in the protected area fewer than 8 times. The
community church building was 90 per cent completed at the time of this field trip.
The communal achievement that villagers gained from these projects motivated
them to cooperate in their efforts to ensure these CTI and MRP initiatives were
successful. This common achievement has bred unity amongst the villagers to cooperate
in their efforts and ensure this current project is successful. Such communal achievement
strengthened the bonds among the villagers, which is a social benefit to the community.
According to Chief Cornelius Vulu, villagers prefer to continue working with
similar project implementing agents in the future. They showed differentiated preference
for different organisations or institutions in pursuit of climate change projects in the
future (see Table 6.3).
47
Table 6.3 Which organisation the communities prefer to work with in the future
Description Percentage Internationally owned NGOs 12% Church managed NGOs 27% Locally established NGOs 29% National government reps 22% Provincial government reps 10% Total 100%
Source: Household survey 2013.
Locally established NGOs were preferred the most with 29 per cent, followed by Church
managed NGOs with 27 per cent and internationally owned NGOs and provincial
government with 12 and 10 per cent respectively. The direct benefit for villagers was
therefore the higher abundance of fish and living organism in the MPAs. This also
benefited the people living in the surrounding areas.
6.2.3 Non-extractive users
There was also a group among the interviewees that was classified as non-
extractive users at the selected sites. These non-extractive users have adopted some
fishing techniques and methods that are selective and aimed at catching enough fish and
not exploiting them during the processes. One of the benefits that respondents had
experienced with this type of fishing was maintaining of the various species of fish
within the CTI project implemented areas compared to the pre-CTI and MRP
implementation period. The fishermen claimed that the number of fish both in species
and varieties was also increased at these sites. They perceived that there was also an
increase in the habitat organisms living in the CTI and MRP implemented areas. The
fishermen further felt the increase meant that there was complexity in the number of
living organisms, which was seen as advantageous to the biodiversity in the area
surrounding these MPA implemented sites.
In addition, another benefit that the respondents have perceived experiencing was
the increase in small business entrepreneurship such as ecotourism in the surrounding
48
MPA (CTI) designated areas. According to Chief Stanley Hebala9 of Sairaghi over 15
small businesses were established during the past 5 years in the area (2008–2012), this
benefit never having been experienced at this growth rate before at this site. He stated
that the introduction of the CTI project in this site has prompted villagers to invest in
alternative revenue generating businesses. These micro-businesses that were established
surrounding the coral reef protected area acted as positive externalities to the
surrounding communities and greatly relieved the pressure villagers were putting on the
marine resources. This has diversified the sources of income for the community dwellers
at these three selected sites from depending solely on marine and agricultural produce as
their primary source of income.
6.2.4 Management
In terms of management benefits to the villagers and implementing agents, the
CTI and MRP initiatives have provided opportunities for the management (especially
locals) to learn some basic scientific knowledge about the technical nature of these
projects. The project site managers have admitted having very little knowledge in
general about the marine science skills and knowledge prior to working for the projects.
After working for the CTI projects they were quite familiar with the basic skills and
knowledge of rehabilitating the coral reefs and enabling that knowledge to grow and
pass on to the villagers as the project succeeded. For example, Chief Cornelius of Naro
community has confirmed learning the technique on how to hedge the fish stock in the
area against unwanted species coming in and destroying the wanted stock in the
surrounding reefs. According to Mesa et al., (2012) knowledge on spatial–temporal
movement patterns of fish is relevant to a number of marine management and
conservation issues. Chief Cornelius further explained this task required some technical
skills and knowledge if this activity is to be performed effectively. However, as
advantage and benefit of the CTI project implemented sites, it was discovered that the
project coordinators were able to perform effectively this form of skills learned through
the CTI project implementation for the benefit of the communities.
9 Chief Stanley Hebala is the one of the key informants at the Sairaghi site.
49
The project site managers also learned the skills on how to assess their own fish
stocks in the area. They also had access to various educational training opportunities
during the course of the project, to foster better management of their respective project
sites. This knowledge opportunity was important as it acted as the basis for educating the
villagers and managing the project sites sustainably into the future. Some of the villagers
were unable to support the projects because of their limited knowledge about the CTI
and MRP objectives within the country.
6.2.5 Costs The CTI and MRP designers have also taken into account the factors that will
have negative impacts on the communities. The general rule of thumb is the expected
benefits from the projects must outweigh associated costs and expenses that might be
incurred during the establishment and implementation of the project. Costs of CTI
projects were explored under the same three categories as benefits: extractive and non-
extractive users and management (see Table 6.1).
6.2.6 Extractive users According to some respondents there was a huge decrease in the number of
catches in the selected fishing areas. This was a direct cost incurred from limiting the
fishing ground available to villagers closer to the project site. Besides this, the MPAs
were governed by policies and regulations preventing fishermen or villagers from
fishing at any time during the year. In one of the project sites this has caused the
extractive users to resort to illegal fishing techniques. According to chief Benjamin of
Oibola community, the extractive users often resorted to illegal fishing techniques and
engaged in fishing methods and techniques that would destroy the corals and the marine
ecosystems. The Oibola community MRP site villagers have confirmed that this was a
common practice at this area.
Congestion and over-fishing in the allocated fishing ground was another
consequence of MPAs. Sairaghi project site experienced a similar situation in the late
2000s. A disagreement between two clans on fishing rights in an allocated fishing
ground triggered an argument on who rightfully owned the surrounding coral reefs. The
disagreement on these rights had later negatively affected the support and management
of the coral reef rehabilitation and replanting in the area during that period and led to the
50
failure of the effort at coral management and MPA establishment. Similar incidents of
disagreement were also found among the villagers at the Naro and Oibola communities
(Table 6.4).
Table 6.4Reasons for dispute over the Coral Triangle Initiative implemented areas
Description Percentage Employment issues 13% Land ownership 6% Leadership issues 10% No incident of land dispute 71% Total 100%
Source: Household survey 2013.
The majority of respondents have agreed with the establishment and general
management of the CTI and MRP projects at these selected sites (71 per cent). However,
13 per cent declared that there was disagreement because of employment issues and 10
per cent believed that their main cause of disagreement was due to a leadership issue. A
further 6 per cent stated that land disputes were the most significant factor that was
responsible for most of the disagreement and disunity amongst the villagers about the
establishment of these projects.
Those who have decided to go further distances to fish in undisputed fishing
grounds spent long hours travelling and incurred additional costs in making such trips.
This made it difficult for the villagers to meet such expenses to find their next fishing
ground. Often when the fishermen decided to go so far, they would transfer the cost of
such fishing expeditions on to the people when selling their catch. The prices fishermen
charged on their fish sales from such a fishing trip usually were expensive to cover their
costs and expenses.
Furthermore, one of the costs evident amongst the villagers was the safety risk of
fishermen travelling to these fishing grounds, especially under bad weather. In some
earlier incidents, fishermen from these locations got lost out in the high seas after
travelling long hours to some of these fishing grounds. For example, the Oibola
community fishermen had to travel on every fishing trip in the open seas exposed to a
51
higher risk of losing their lives. The Naro community fishermen had to travel across to
Gela in the Central Island province for their next fishing ground. The other option for
the Naro community villagers was to buy their fish from the central market which was
an expensive option to the villagers.
6.2 .7 Non-extractive users
Non-extractive users used part of the coral reefs to establish ecotourism
development, paid beaches and other tourism related activities along the beaches and the
surrounding reefs, diversifying the alternative sources of income. However, such
ventures destroyed the ecosystem and the marine ecology of the marine resources in the
long term, particularly the coral reefs in the surrounding area. This was evidenced along
the beaches on the west side of Sairaghi. Chief Stanley Hebala stated that since the
establishment of these facilities; users of the beaches have been destroying and
disturbing the coherent existence of the marine ecology at these allocated tourism sites.
As the number of tourists increases, so does the villagers’ revenue (short-term benefit)
but at the same it increases the chances of tourists and other users damaging the ecology,
which will be felt over a considerable length of time into the future.
Furthermore, the growth of tourism in the area has also contributed to the loss of
traditional fishing grounds and practices amongst the new generation of villagers in the
respective communities. The traditional fishing grounds were always associated with
cultural fishing practices and traditions. The establishment of development options and
initiatives has taken away the norms and some fishing techniques that were attached to
those practices were usually handed down through the generations. In the longer term,
according to one of the village chiefs, such breaks with traditions took away the
community bonds that existed amongst the villagers and thus contributed towards the
disunity and breakdown of cultural values in the village.
6.2. 8 Management costs
The establishment of the CTI project within the country has brought higher direct
and indirect costs to the management teams of all the project sites throughout the
provinces. The Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Reduction
52
Management and Meteorology, the supervising ministry, incurred additional costs by
employing two additional staff to oversee the management and administration of the CTI
project nationwide. On the operational level, after the establishment of the CTI project
along the western side of Gizo, the coral reef management team has brought in
additional expenses such as training and enforcement and time and monetary costs for
Sairaghi project sites communities. Chief Hebala from Sairaghi confirmed that some
villagers and potential investors displayed huge interest in exploration of the coral reef
areas for sea mining and other mineral potential but they have now decided against this,
with the intention of conserving the coral reefs for present and future generations.
Most of the respondents believed that the Coral Triangle Initiative projects and
mangrove rehabilitation have been good and beneficial to the communities. The
respondents believe that effective and sustainable management of the projects is
important to the long-term viability and beneficial to the people of these selected sites
(Table 6.5).
Table 6.5 Reported benefits of the CTI and MRP at the three sites
Description Percentage The community respondents dislike the projects 17% Future generations benefit from the resources 20% Community survival (ecologically) 27% Community survival (economically) 31% The project may benefit if effectively implemented 5% Total 100%
Source: Household survey 2013.
According to Ahmed et al. 2004 as human society has increased, so too has the
importance of coral reefs, with the diverse social and economic values of coral reefs
being provided to distant as well as adjacent communities. These values include but are
not limited to marketable values (associated with products, functions and services) and
non-marketable values (associated with opportunities, cultural significance, and bequest
and simple existence). Ahmed further comments that these values should be considered
in economic terms and used to guide the managers of coral reefs effectively in their
53
decision making. So marine resources have become a vital part of the Solomon Islands
communities both for consumption as food and trading or as a medium of exchange for
goods and services (in former generations).
The CTI has also brought in multiple opportunities for the community members
to gain employment and assume leadership roles within the community over the
management of the projects (van Beukering et al. 2007). This was evidenced with the
Naro and Oibola communities’ coral reef and mangrove rehabilitation project sites.
These started out as community based coral reef conservation and demonstration sites,
and the villagers have organised themselves and allocated certain individuals
responsibility as full-time caretakers over the project sites for the projects’ duration. The
communities also set up coral triangle initiative village based committees, with the
objective of better managing the coral triangle initiatives and mangrove rehabilitation
programs at the selected sites. As was learned during the field trip, women and youths
are now active members of these committees.
According to Chief Benjamin Wale10 of Oibola community, the community has
established the most transparent way of appointing the members of their mangrove
rehabilitation committee. Any member of the community, regardless of their gender,
who has commented positively or constructively on any issue in relation to the
mangrove rehabilitation program, will be asked to join as a member of the committee.
This approach has seen two ladies become members of the village mangrove
rehabilitation project in the past 5 years. This has also reinforced the idea of ownership
of the project by the respective communities.
In terms of decision making, with the introduction of CTI, external institutions
were often the decision-makers for the community to apply and negotiate for the project.
This was never the idea of the community leaders, and such projects as this often were
unsuccessful and failed to live up to expectations. Thus, we have noted from the
research that the community participation by different classes of villagers in the
community project is important for its long-term success. The communities’ latest
10 Chief Benjamin Wale is our main Key Informant at Oibola conservation site. He it was who convinced his community members to start the mangrove rehabilitation initiative at this site.
54
inclusion of females, youths, church leaders, community leaders and project
coordinators into the decision making and general governance of the projects is vital for
their long-term success (Table 6.6).
Table 6.6 Decision Making in favour of establishment of the CTI and MRP
Description Percentage Youth representatives 29% Mothers’ group representatives 17% Senior NGO officers 39% Senior government officers 15% Total 100%
Source: Household survey 2013.
Furthermore, a short-term benefit from this project has been that the community
members were also given financial assistance and cash benefit while working during the
establishment of these MPAs and the coral reefs rehabilitation at the initial stages. These
economic activities have broadened the cash inflow into the communities and thus
assisted in improving the livelihood of the people living in the surrounding areas of
these three project sites. According to a similar study undertaken previously on the
Arnavon community in the Choiseul Province, the introduction of a similar project has
economically impacted their livelihood (van Beukering et al. 2007). The employment
opportunities that the members of these three communities received became their
sources of income for the duration of the projects. Although some communities’
members did not engage in longer-term employment contracts for the duration of the
project, the CTI indirectly contributed significantly, contributing as part of their sources
of income and cash flow within these respective sites through the sale of fish and other
marine based products.
It was also evidenced from the research project that the general income from
agricultural sources has been on a downward trend over the last five years, the period of
study. On the other hand, there was a positive surge in the marine resources as the
primary source of income to the respondents of Sairaghi and Oibola communities. As it
can be seen in Table 6.7, 41 per cent of the respondents also supported this perception,
55
which was shared by the interviewees, that villagers in general are now heavily
dependent on marine products as their livelihood.
Table 6.7 Main sources of income for the three project sites
Description Percentage Money from non-agricultural shops 22% Income from fishing and marine resources 41% Income from wages 16% Income from own farm 21% Total 100%
Source: Household survey 2013.
It was further evidenced that as time passed, the selected communities where CTI
projects had been implemented experienced increases in the volume and species of fish
found within these protected areas (coral triangle initiatives). This has increased the
volume of fish that the community members have access to at those project sites. The
increase in the volume of fish in the surrounding coral reefs has increased the level of
catches by the fishermen within these communities. Furthermore, the increase in catches
within these communities was essential, as it contributed positively toward the economic
impact on their livelihood.
Previous studies have shown that one of the benefits of marine protected areas
and coral reef rehabilitation in general is the increase in the number of fish and living
organisms in those designated areas. This is because when firms, communities or
individuals stop their fishing activities in the area, the protected area resumes the role of
breeding ground for fish and other marine organisms to replenish. The research notes
from the Naro community reef conservation project that it has experienced an increase in
the species and volume of fish in the area compared to the fish stock before the
implementation of the CTI project more than five years ago. Furthermore, as was
expressed by the village elders, the size and the volume of fish available for fishing has
increased tremendously after they have stopped the community and individual fishermen
from using the fishing ground for individual household consumption.
56
Lal and Holland (2010) are among those who urge that users of the present
resources must not think only of their own present income and satisfaction but also
consider the future generations’ uses and benefits. The rehabilitation of the mangroves
and the coral conservation in the marine protected areas will benefit not only today’s end
users of the resources but also future generations. As was evidenced from the Naro and
Oibola communities’ projects, the initial ideas to preserve their respective environments
were not forced on them by external institutions or agencies but rather were taken on as
their own initiatives of conservation of resources. Their respective project leaders and
coordinators have realised the common need to rehabilitate and preserve their resources
for the future generations’ use and benefit. Having said this, it was also noted during the
field visit that preservation of these resources is crucial as these communities are
exposed to the worsening adverse impacts of climate change on their resources.
As it was noted, more than 85 per cent of the villages are located along the
coastlines throughout the country (Dyoulgerov et al. 2010). The increasing level of
natural disasters and extreme weather events such as tsunamis, strong winds, flooding
and surging sea-level rise has exposed these communities to the devastating impacts of
these natural calamities. The rehabilitation of mangroves in Langa Langa lagoon has
seen an immediate impact on these communities because it presents the communities
with some protection against such events.
The mangrove rehabilitation project benefits the marine ecology, in essence
because it has increased and provided habitat for the marine organisms to reproduce in
the surrounding vicinity for the past years. It also provides security and protection to the
communities against these extreme events. The same benefit was also expressed by the
Naro community coral triangle initiative and MPA coordinator. He has pointed out that
the coral reefs have also protected the community from strong marine currents and
waves, stressing that coral reefs act as barriers against the strong force of the waves
before they reach the shores.
The Sairaghi area in the Western Province has also shared the same view
towards the establishment of CTI and the importance it has for their communities. The
preservation of coral reefs has protected the surrounding villages from the severe
impacts of climate change and extreme events in the recent past. This is important due to
57
the continuous sea-level rise in these coastal areas and adverse impacts of extreme
weather events. A special mention was made in reference to the recent tsunami of 2010
that claimed more than 100 lives and displaced thousands of others in the same province.
The villagers (respondents) claimed that if it were not for the coral reefs they would
have reported many casualties from the gigantic waves of the tsunami on these two
communities.
Overall the risk that climate change has on coral reefs in relation to the impact
that it is exposed to the people was devastating and rigorous. This is because coral reefs
attract a lot of fish and other living organisms in the marine ecology and any depletion
or destruction of the reef entails destroying the breeding ground and feeding
environment of these marine resources. Thus the destruction of these protected coral
reefs had resulted in shortage in the sea foods such as fish, shellfish, and clam shells
prior to the conservation period (2008–2012), on which the local communities depended
for their livelihood for many years.
Furthermore, the destruction of these coral reefs would see the communities
having to travel long distances in order to find protein and a balanced diet for their
families’ consumption. This was evidenced at the Oibola mangrove rehabilitation project
area, where most of their coral reefs were destroyed by the destructive fishing methods
they have adopted over past decades. The villagers of this site have been using dynamite
as their main method of fishing over the years and today they have reaped what they
have sowed by having to go long distances and for hours before finding the next fishing
ground for fishing and gathering of other marine resources for either domestic or
commercial consumption.
In addition, villagers feel they have lost more of the individual time they would
have devoted to household projects; as a result of these two projects, they find
themselves having to channel it instead into community projects. The dilemma for
villagers is evident when individual members spend long hours at the community project
rather than on their own farming and fishing for the benefit of the individual households.
The project is vital to the unity and development of the community, yet it is also critical
that individual households gain maximum benefit from these projects, to guarantee their
support of the long-term sustainability in the respective sites. Under this circumstance it
58
is imperative that each individual household maximise its time for the community
project without jeopardising its individual livelihood objectives.
We found that 34 per cent of the respondents believed that the community
support to the project was important. The next 28 per cent believed that any disunity or
dispute over project management would impact negatively on the success of the project
(see Table 6.8).
Table 6.8 Reasons to think negatively about the CTI and MRP (combined)
Description Percentage Commercial viability of the project 15% Dispute in the village over the project 28% Weak community support 34% Project poorly designed 13% Weak financial management 10% Total 100%
Source: Household survey 2013.
In addition, commercial viability of projects was a vital feature of project
implementation. As we found during the research trip, 15 per cent of the experts and
focus groups confirmed that commercial viability of the project was critical to its future
progress and endeavour. Some 13 per cent of the group believed that poor project
management and design would also have negative impacts on the project if they were
not properly developed at the initial stage. A further 10 per cent of the respondents
believed that weak financial management would certainly force projects to fail if not
properly addressed. It was evident to the research team members during their one-on-one
interviews with the villagers that several other similar projects had been unsuccessful in
the past because of mistrust about matters of poor financial management of similar
projects with the communities.
In regard to climate change related issues among these selected project sites we
found a little over one-third of the respondents considered shortage at these project
sites of marine resources needed for economic purposes to be one of the main issues of
climate change within these communities (see Table 6.9).
59
Table 6.9 Issues that may cause failure to the CTI and MRP (combined)
Description Percentage Land dispute over limited fishing grounds 9% Overpopulation on small areas, linked to health issues 8% Less marine protein available for household consumption 18%
Shortage of marine resources for household consumption 27%
Washing away of the coral reefs 38% Total 100%
Source: Household survey 2013.
Besides the washing away and bleaching of the coral reefs in this studied area, it
was evident that there was less marine protein available for household consumption in
the study areas. As we can see from Table 6.9, 38 per cent of the respondents perceived
that washing away of coral reefs was the main contributing factor to the scarcity of
protein consumption among the villagers. Besides that, 9 per cent the respondents
believed that such shortage of resources was due to villagers’ disagreements over the
limited fishing grounds while 8 per cent of the respondents believed that the
overpopulation of settlers among these sites was the main reason for not only food
scarcity but also health issues that were detrimental to the settlers’ livelihood at these
sites.
60
CHAPTER 7:
DISCUSSION
7.1 General Discussion for the two result chapters
From the analysis, we noted that sources of income at these project sites are
similar and based mainly on marine resources. No huge differences are apparent
between the levels of income and the sources at the three study sites. Generally across
all the three projects respondents were not satisfied with the level of their incomes and
this dissatisfaction forces them to migrate to urban centres or other parts of the country
to find employment of some kind and support their families (see Appendix 1, Figure
A.16). Despite the difficult situation at these villages, the majority of the community
members remain and learn alternative ways to earn income for family support.
The project sites’ respondents have shifted from depending on agriculture
produce (farming) to fishing and marine resources as their main income source. This
shift is reflective in the general decline of farming and agricultural cultivation across the
three project sites. The villagers attribute the general decline in agricultural farming
mainly to deteriorating quality of land for farming and the cost involved in cultivating
the land at these sites (see Appendix 1, Figure A.15). This was reflected by the
respondents when fewer times were spent on farms compared to fishing or other
activities that generate money to the families of the communities (see Appendix 1,
Figure A.13). Furthermore, fewer people spending time on farm means loss of farming
techniques and skills transfer from the older to younger generations at the sites.
Most of the community members who have remained in the communities have
engaged in several commercial activities to sustain their livelihood, participating in such
activities from subsistence farming, fishing, tourism, general commerce and handicrafts
including shell money. Most of these produce are sold and consumed at these rural
communities, with proceeds assisting the community members to meet children’s
education and related expenses. Despite their participation in these commercial activities
most of the respondents confirm that operations remain unprofitable compared to the
last 5 years, adding that their operations are getting “worse to worst,” with the exception
61
of Naro site, which confirms the operation has been the same for last few years (see
Appendix 1, Figure A.12).
Aside from these villagers who stay, some, especially among the youth and the
strong men, decided during the years before the introduction of the CTI and MPR to
leave the communities and move to urban centres, in search of employment and better
opportunities. Many of these youths have gone to the capital city, Honiara, to find casual
or informal employment such as taxi drivers or shop keepers for sustenance of their
livelihoods. Some of the villagers left the communities for business related purposes at
various centres around the country. Most of these villagers then sent the money earned
back to the villagers as internal remittances to supplement their families’ livelihoods.
Some villagers, aware of the greater impact of climate change in the
communities, have participated in saving (investing) portion of their earnings for future
use and spending. Although in the study we noted some villagers still spent money on
consumable goods, it was heartening to learn that some respondents invest the greater
portion of their earnings in their children’s school fees and permanent homes for their
families in the villages, which was helping the respective families to build resilient
attributes against climate change in communities. Further, some villagers confirmed that
they saved money in the bank for matters of urgency should they arise in the villages.
Lastly, the villagers generally agreed that introduction of the CTI and MRP had
been beneficial to the respective communities. Although benefits are still to be
substantiated because of the timing (projects are still in their infancy) villagers are
optimistic that projects will benefit the communities in the near future. In addition, we
noted in our responses that the majority of the villagers perceive that the projects have
“strong and very strong” benefits to the communities across all study sites. Thus, they
have supported the implementation of these conservation projects and with this support
the projects stand to benefit the communities as they take ownership of them in their
endeavours in building resilience to the impact of climate change within these respective
communities.
We outlined the benefits and costs related to Coral Triangle Initiative and
mangrove rehabilitation projects that were implemented in the country and how the
community perceptions on the costs and benefits were critical for the success of these
62
conservation projects in these communities for the short and long run. These two
projects have objectives that are aimed at conserving the surrounding marine
biodiversity for the use and benefits of both the present and future generations. With the
CTI, it is vital that villagers bear the costs, which relate to congestion with fishing and
higher transport costs associated with choice of fishing ground (usually removed at
considerable distances), increase in monitoring and enforcement expenses, loss to
traditional fishing grounds and other administrative costs. These are significant in
ensuring that the established MPA (at these CTI) are to be successful.
As with the MRP, villagers at Oibola will ensure that there is no disturbance to
the mangrove areas (no cutting of the trees for firewood etc.). The villagers must ensure
that they could sustain the cost of not harvesting the resources in the designated MPA as
this could cost them time and monetary resources. They must manage any potential
dispute that may destroy the communal bonding and the objectives of the MPAs.
The communities expect to gain higher benefits from these projects. Within the
MPA the numbers of fish and other marine resources have already increased. The MRP
also promises the villagers protection against events such as cyclones, marine currents
and suchlike.
The benefits that these communities may gain through income from sustainable
management and harvesting of the resources would enable them to sustain their
livelihood amidst increasing impacts of climate change. For example, the project sites’
villagers were able to have access to a variety of fish in their designated CTI and MPR
areas, which they could catch and sell for reasonable prices that may assist them to meet
their basic livelihood needs and wants. Some of the villagers use this income to meet
expenses such as children’s school fees a vital means in assisting them with their
adaptation process in the longer term.
The study confirms that the Coral Triangle Initiative and Mangrove
Rehabilitation Projects are vital for the community food security, marine biodiversity
conservation and economic benefit to the livelihood of the people living in the
surrounding project sites (see Appendix 2, Figure B. 13). The study undertaken can be
used as lessons learned with applicability to other sites that have participated or will
participate in similar conservation projects in the future.
63
7.2 Discussion on Results of study one
The research has concluded that Naro site has relatively higher income compared
to Sairaghi and Oibola sites. Both Sairaghi and Oibola have similar ranges of income
and spending as portrayed in Table 5.2. We noted, however, that the levels of income
were significantly different among Naro and Oibola and Sairaghi. One of the factors
contributing to this difference is identified as the higher level of cash flow from
agricultural and fishing activities at this site. Furthermore, the Naro site is advantaged
over the other two sites because of its proximity to the central market, where producers
can sell their products at far better prices than at the other two centres. In terms of
sources of income, these three project sites depend largely on two main sources: marine
resources (mainly fishing) and agricultural products (mainly farming). Oibola, however,
relies on non-farming activity such as general trading and commerce as its alternative
source of income to fishing and marine resources.
The study finds that in comparison with the other two sites, the Oibola site has
depended heavily on marine resources for their livelihood. This relatively high
dependency is mainly because there is no agricultural land available for farming, due to
intrusion of salt water into the limited land areas allocated for farming at this site. We
note from the research that over the past decade there has been a general shift across all
project sites from agriculture-based income to fishing, because, among other things, of
the unprofitability of agriculture (see Appendix 1, Figure A.15). Nevertheless, at Naro
site, because of the CTI and the introduction of MPA, respondents’ dependency on
agriculture, compared to the other sites, has tended to persist. The general decline in
participation in agricultural activities has resulted from such factors as the poor quality
of available farming land, insufficient capital, and farm land being too far away.
Because of this shift farmers spend less of their time on the farms and more in
activities such as fishing and general trading in goods to support their livelihood (see
Appendix 1, Figure A.14). Responses make it quite clear that people in these rural areas
spend more time in the sectors that reward them financially, as means of increasing their
resilience to the impact of climate change. According to this study only 67 per cent of
the respondents spend between zero (0) and 6 months on the farm, whereas 31 percent of
64
household members, mainly the young and the strong, leave home to go to urban centres
in search of employment and other opportunities.
7.3 Discussion of results of Study 2 This chapter concludes that conservation of coral reefs and rehabilitation of
mangrove areas are important for the food security and livelihood sustenance of the
people at these project sites (see Appendix 2, Figure B.6). Although the conservation
project benefits may not be realised immediately (and at the same time), over the years
respondents or their younger generation will benefit in the future from these projects if
they are effectively managed. The research also concludes that community participation
in decision making in these conservation projects is of great benefit and should be
encouraged and maintained in other project sites to rally community participation and
support toward these conservation projects.
The research recommends policy development with future project establishment
in the area. To gain maximum benefits, a “whole of community approach” is vital for
long-term success and sustainability of these and similar projects in the country.
Furthermore, it is worth noting as part of the concluding summary that in terms of
governance, community members also benefit from the establishment of these
conservation projects because it enables them to take a decision making role over
management of their resources and conserve them for their future generations. This will
build in them the sense of “ownership” of the projects, ensuring a greater degree of
success than has been the fate of similar projects in the past.
Lastly, both chapters agree that the impacts of climate change on these
communities will continue, as they will be difficult to avoid and confine, but the revenue
and income earned from the projects will assist the villagers in their resilient programs
against the adverse impact of climate change. As was discussed in the findings, villagers
started to invest in livelihood projects, such as small family fishing firms, handcrafts and
shell money production, agro-businesses, commerce and general goods trading. Besides,
although some of the community members did not participate in the decision making
process that enabled implementation of these projects at these sites, it is important that
they should all support these projects for the future generations’ benefit and the
sustenance of their livelihood at these sites.
65
CHAPTER 8:
CONCLUSION We have explored the base line of socioeconomic information that future
researchers could use in exploring the socioeconomic status of the participants of these
two environmental (coral reef and mangrove rehabilitation) conservation initiatives. We
have found that the level of income at these three different conservation initiative sites,
though varied, were almost the same in their income sources and against their ranges of
expenditures and adaptive measures against climate change risks in the communities. A
commonality found amongst the project site respondents was that most participants of
the conservation initiatives are not satisfied with their current level of income although
their perceptions about the intentions and objectives of the respective conservation
objectives are positive.
Despite this general dissatisfaction about the level of income and their current
income status, the majority of the responding conservation initiative participants still
have positive perceptions about the project. Mapping the costs against the benefits of
establishing the coral triangle initiative and mangrove rehabilitation projects at these
sites led us to this conclusion. The participants’ positive perceptions about these three
projects suggest that for these three conservation initiatives the level of expected
benefits out weigh’s the perceived costs of establishing the projects.
Lastly, although participants have encountered some difficulties and challenges
during the early stages of their implementation at the three project sites, these shortfalls
were overcome because of the need for the villagers in these conservation sites to protect
and conserve their project into the future. This urgency to cooperate together amongst
the villagers in supporting these conservation initiatives has forced the communities to
participate in this good cause, as clearly demonstrated by the Naro and Oibola sites.
66
8.2 Recommendations and further research
The findings of this study provide a basis and opportunity to make several policy
recommendations.
- Firstly, the government, non-government organisations and communities should
be encouraged to build on their current cooperative initiatives to improve ways
of conserving the coral reef initiatives and mangrove forest rehabilitation
programs through establishment of MPAs at the selected sites. People need to be
made strongly aware of the link between conservation initiatives’ objectives and
long-term benefit to the communities, so that people do not demand short-term
benefit as the prerequisite for their support of implementation of environment
conservation initiatives, which usually have a long-term benefits orientation.
- Secondly, in terms of decision making, it is important that the villagers also
participate in the decision making processes at the community level about which
and what type of conservation project is suitable for their area and could
effectively improve their livelihood. Aid donors should work alongside the
village people in identifying, designing and funding of conservation projects that
are suitable and acceptable to the communities. For example, the Oibola villagers
have decided to establish the village based mangrove rehabilitation project at
their area. Regardless of receiving no government assistance, they continue to
support the project, knowing its value and long-term benefit to the community.
Thirdly, further research on the economic benefits of these conservation projects
for the local communities in the areas is needed. It is recommended that a
thorough Cost Benefit Analysis of any proposed project be made so that aid
donors and stakeholders have some basis for deciding whether the projects are
beneficial to the community. The project implementers may then improve areas
of deficiencies in the management of the project.
- Finally, from the research it was evident that the likely benefits outweighed the
costs of establishing the projects. It is, however, strongly recommended that the
community approach in support of the projects is vital, to ensure long-term
success of the projects. In the case of Naro site, the village elders, church leaders,
67
women’s group, youth and ordinary villagers supported the establishment of the
project. This has ensured that Naro site has been one of the successes of these
projects in the country.
68
REFERENCES Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in
human geography, 24(3), 347-364
Adger, W. N., & Kelly, P. M. (1999). Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of entitlements. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 4(3-4), 253-266. Ahmed, M., Chong, C. K., Cesar, H., & Cesar, H. S. (Eds.). (2004). Economic valuation and policy priorities for sustainable management of coral reefs, WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. Albert, J.A., Schwarz, A.J. (2013). Mangrove management in Solomon Islands : Case studies from Malaita Province. CGIAR, Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems, Penang, Malaysia. Albert, J.A. , Trinidad, A.Cabral, R., Boso, D. (2012). Economic value of coral reefs in the Solomon Islands. Case study findings from coral trade and non-coral trade communities. World Fish, Honiara, Solomon Islands. www.coraltriangleinititaivenet/knowledge-hub/document. Albert, S., Grinham A., Bythell, J., Olds, A., Schwarz, A., Abernethy, K., Aranani K., Sirikolo, M., Watoto, C., Duke, N., Mckenzie, J., Roelfsema, C., Liggins, L., Brokovich, E., Pantos O., Oeta, J., Gibbes, B. (2010). Building social and ecological resilience to climate change in Roviana, Solomon Islands. Brisbane, Queensland, University of Queensland, Australia.
Albert, S., Tibbertts, I., Uday, J. ( 2010). Solomon Islands marine life: information on biology and management of marine resources. The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queens Land, Australia. Alonso, A, Dallmeier, F, Graneck.E & Raven., P. (2001). Biodiversity: connecting with the tapestry of life. Smith Institution /Monitoring and Assessment of Biodiversity Program and President’s committee of Advisors on Science & Technology, Washington, DC, United States of America. Aswani, S., & Furusawa, T. (2007). Do marine protected areas affect human nutrition and health? A comparison between villages in Roviana, Solomon Islands. Coastal Management, 35(5), 545-565. Barnett, J. (2001). Adapting to climate change in Pacific Island Countries: The problem of uncertainty. World Development 29(6): 977-993.
69
Barnett, J. (2011). Dangerous climate change in the Pacific Islands: food production and food security. Regional Environmental Change, 11(1), 229-237. Brouwer, R., Akter, S., Brander, L., & Haque, E. (2007). Socioeconomic vulnerability and adaptation to environmental risk: a case study of climate change and flooding in Bangladesh. Risk Analysis, 27(2), 313-326. Burke, L., Selig, E., Spalding, M. (2002). Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. Cannon, T., & Müller-Mahn, D. (2010). Vulnerability, resilience and development discourses in context of climate change. Natural Hazards, 55(3), 621-635. Carneiro, G. (2011). Marine management for human development: a review of two decades of scholarly evidence. Marine Policy, 35(3), 351-362. Cesar, H. (2002). The biodiversity benefits of coral reef ecosystems: Values and markets. Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques, Paris. Cesar, H., & Chong, C. K. (2004). Economic valuation and socioeconomics of coral reefs: methodological issues and three case studies. Economic Valuation and Policy Priorities for Sustainable Management of Coral Reefs, 14-40. Cinner, J. (2005). Socioeconomic factors influencing customary marine tenure in the Indo-Pacific. Ecology and Society, 10(1), 36. Clifton, J. (2009). Science, funding and participation: key issues for marine protected area networks and the Coral Triangle Initiative. Environmental Conservation 36(02): 91-96. Corrin, J. (2014). The root of the problem: carbon rights and natural resources issues in Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. New Zealand Universities Law Review, 26. Cutter, S., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. L. (2006). Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards. Hazards, Vulnerability, and Environmental Justice, 115-132. Daily,G.C.,Alexander,S., Ehrlich,P.R.,Goulder,L., Lubechenoc.J.,Matson,PA.,Tilman,D. (1997).Ecosystem services: benefits supplied to human societies by natuarl ecosystems (Vol.2): Ecological Society of America Washington (DC). Day, J., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., Holmes, G., Laffoley, D. D. A., Stolton, S., & Wells, S. M. (2012). Guidelines for applying the IUCN protected area management categories to marine protected areas. IUCN. Dudley, N. (Ed.). (2008). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. IUCN.
70
Dulvy, N. K., Reynolds, J. D., Pilling, G. M., Pinnegar, J. K., Phillips, J. S., Allison, E. H., & Badjeck, M. C. (2011). Fisheries management and governance challenges in a climate change. The Economics of Adapting Fisheries to Climate Change. In: OECD, editor. The economics of adapting fisheries to climate change .Paris, OECD. Dyoulgerov, M., Bucher A., Zermoglio. (2011). Climate Risk and Adaptation Country Profile (2011) – Solomon Islands. Vulnerability, Risk Reduction and Adaptaion to Climate Change, Solomon Islands Flower, K. R., Atkinson, S. R., Brainard, R., Courtney, C., Parker, B. A., Parks, J., ... & White, A. (2013). Toward ecosystem-based coastal area and fisheries management in the Coral Triangle: Integrated strategies and guidance. Jakarta, Indonesia: Coral Triangle Initiative Support Program for the US Agency for International Development. Fujita, M., & Thisse, J. F. (1986). Spatial competition with a land market: Hotelling and Von Thunen unified. The Review of Economic Studies, 53(5), 819-841. Gagahe, N. (2011). Report on 2009 population and housing census. Solomon Islands Population and Housing Census, National Statistic Office, Honiara, Solomon Islands. Govan, H., Schwarz, A., Boso, D. (2011). Towards Integrated Islands Management: Lessons from Lau, Malaita, for the implementaion of a national approach to resources management in Solomon Islands. WorldFish Center Report to SPREP, Honiara, Solomon Islands. Govan, H., Tabunakawai, K., Jenkins, A., Lasgorceix, A., Schwarz, A., & Notere, D. (2009). Status and Potential of Locally- managed Marine Areas in the South Pacific : Meeting Nature Conservation and Sustainable Livelihood Targets Through Wide –spread Implementaion of LMMAs : World Fish Centre, Honiara, Solomon Islands. Grimsditch, G. D., & Salm, R. V. (2006). Coral reef resilience and resistance to bleaching. IUCN, The World Conservation Union.
Halpern, B. S., & Warner, R. R. (2002). Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects. Ecology letters, 5(3), 361-366.
Hannesson, R. (2002). The economics of marine reserves. Natural Resource Modelling, 15 (3) , 273-290. Horwood, J. W., Nichols, J. H., & Milligan, S. (1998). Evaluation of closed areas for fish stock conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology, 35(6), 893-903. Huhtala, A., Ambrosi, P. (2010). Making the Most of Public Finance for Climate Action. Washington, DC, United States of America. http://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/43684020.pdf
71
Hviding, E. (1998). Contextual flexibility: present status and future of customary marine tenure in Solomon Islands. Ocean & Coastal Management, 40(2), 253-269. Hviding, E., & Baines, G. B. (1994). Community based fisheries management, tradition and the challenges of development in Marovo, Solomon Islands. Development and Change, 25(1), 13-39. Jones, P.J.S., De Santo, E.M., Qiu, W., Vestergaard, O. (2013). Introduction: An empirical framework for deconstructing the realities of governing marine protected areas. Marine Policy. Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol. Kelman, I., West, J.J. (2009). Climate Change and Small Islands Development States, A Critical Review. Ecological and Environmental Anthropology, Volume (5) pp 1-16. Klein, R. J., Schipper, E. L. F., & Dessai, S. (2005). Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions. Environmental Science & Policy, 8(6), 579-588. Kilfoyle, A. K., Freeman, J., Jordan, L.K.B. Quinn, T.P., Spieler, R.E. (2013). Fish assemblages on a mitigation boulder reef and neighbouring hard bottom. Ocean & Coastal Management. Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman. Lal, P.N., Holland, P. (2010). Economics of Resources and Environmental Project Management in the Pacific. IUCN and SOPAC , Suva, Republic of Fiji. Laukkonen, J., P. K. Blanco, et al. (2009). "Combining climate change adaptation and mitigation measures at the local level." Habitat International 33(3): 287-292. Lawrence, A. (2012). Blue Carbon: A new concept for reducing the impact of climate change by conservation coastal systems in the Coral Triangle: World Wide Fund Nature (WWWF). Leigh, A. H. (1946). von Thünen's theory of distribution and the advent of marginal analysis. The Journal of Political Economy, 481-502. Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Key methods in geography, 117-132. Maczulak, A.E. (2009). Conservation: Protecting Our Plant Resources: Conservation Infobase Publishing. MECDM : Solomon Islands National Adaptation Plan of Action (2008). Ministry of Environment, Climate change, Disaster Management and Meteorogy. Honiara, Solomon Islands.Solomon Islands.
72
McCrea-Strub, A., Zeller, D., Sumaila, U.R., Nelson, J., Balmford, A., Paul, D. (2010). Understanding the cost of establishing marine protected areas. Marine Policy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. McMichael, A., Scholes, R., Hefny, M., Pereira, E., Palm, C., & Foale, S. (2005). Linking ecosystem services and human well-being. Ecosyst Hum Well-4, 43-60. Moberg, F., & Folke, C. (1999). Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecological economics, 29(2), 215-233. Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P. J., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T. H., & Rouget, M. (2006). Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(12), 681-687. Naidoo, R., & Ricketts, T. H. (2006). Mapping the economic costs and benefits of conservation. PLoS biology, 4(11), e360. Nichols, K. (1999). Coming to terms with “integrated coastal management: problems of meaning and method in a new arena of resource regulation. The Professional Geographer, 51(3), 388-399. Pauku, L.R., Lapo, W. (2008). The Solomon Islands National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Maraghoto Holdings Company Limited, Honiara, Solomon Islands. Pelling, M. and J. I. Uitto (2001). Small island developing states: natural disaster vulnerability and global change. Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental Hazards 3(2): 49-62. Reenberg, A., Birch-Thomsen, T., Mertz, O., Fog, B., & Christiansen, S. (2008). Adaptation of human coping strategies in a small island society in the SW pacific—50 years of change in the coupled human–environment system on Bellona, Solomon Islands. Human Ecology, 36(6), 807-819. Rini, S. (2011). National Development Strategy 2011 to 2020. Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Coordination, Honiara, Solomon Islands. Roberts, C. M., Bohnsack, J. A., Gell, F., Hawkins, J. P., & Goodridge, R. (2001). Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science, 294(5548), 1920-1923. Rosen, F., & Olsson, P. (2013). Institutional entrepreneurs, global networks, and the emergence of international institutions for ecosystem-based management: the Coral Triangle Initiative. Marine Policy, 38, 195-204.
73
Sanderson, J., & Islam, S. M. N. (2007). Climate Change and Economic development: SEA Regional Modelling and Analysis. Chippenham & Eastbourne, United Kingdom. Schmidhuber, J., & Tubiello, F. N. (2007). Global food security under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19703-19708. Slade, T.N. (2012). Pacific Experience with Modalities Relevant for Climate Change Financing. Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Communiqué 2011, Suva, Fiji Islands. Smith, A. H., & Berkes, F. (1993). Community based use of mangrove resources in St. Lucia. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 43(2-3), 123-131.
Sore, R. (2010). Solomon Islands National Plan of Action: Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral reefs, fisheries and food security. Ministry of Environment, Disaster Management and Meteorology (MECDM). Honiara, Solomon Islands. Sulu, R., Boso, D. (2011). (in press). State of the Coral Triangle Report of the Solomon Islands. National CTI Coordinating Committee, Honiara, Solomon Islands. van Beukering, V.P.J.H., Scherl, L.M., Sultanian, E., Lisher C. (2007). Arnavon Community Marine Conservation Area (Solomon Islands). Case Study 2. The Role of Marine Protected Areas in contributing to poverty reduction. Honiara, Solomon Islands. Van Liere, K. D., & Dunlap, R. E. (1980). The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public opinion quarterly, 44(2), 181-197.
Veitayaki, J., Matthews, E., Gibson, L., & Vuki, V. (1995). Overview of Destructive Fishing Practices, the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Apia, Samoa Wickham, F., & Clerke, J. (2012). National Climate Change Policy, 2012–2017. Ministry of Environment, Disaster Management and Meteorolgy (MECDM). Honiara, Solomon Islands. Wilkinson, C. R., & Buddemeier, R. W. (1994). Global Climate Change and Coral Reefs: Implications for People and Reefs: Report of the UNEP-IOC-ASPEI-IUCN Global Task Team on the Implications of Climate Change on Coral Reefs. IUCN. Wood, L. J., Fish, L., Laughren, J., & Pauly, D. (2008). Assessing progress towards global marine protection targets: shortfalls in information and action. Oryx, 42(03), 340-351.
74
Appendix 1
Figure A.1 Household status of respondents, Sairaghi
Figure A.2 Income generation type, Sairaghi site, Western Province
75
Figure A. 3 Primary place of employment, Sairaghi site, Western Province
Figure A.4 Average household spending (monthly 2012), Sairaghi site, Western Province
76
Figure A. 5 Household status, Naro Community respondents
Figure A . 6 Respondents’ rating of income by each project site
77
Figure A. 7 Education status of Naro site, Guadalcanal Province
Figure A. 8 Level of Education – Naro site, Guadalcanal Province
78
Chiefs, 7%
House hold leaders, 50%
Household's Wives, 27%
Relatives, 13%
Non relative, 3%
Figure A. 9 Household status of respondents, Oibola site, Malaita Province
Figure A. 10 Level of Education, Oibola community, Malaita Province
79
Better Similar Worse WorstNo
commercialfarm
Percent 11% 37% 35% 16% 2%
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
Figure A. 11 Profitability of farm operation in three project sites, 2012 (combined)
Figure A. 12 Profitability of farm operation by individual site, comparing 2012
with 2007.
80
Figure A . 13 Time generally spent on farms by project sites– (combined)
Figure A . 14 Time spent on farms by individual project sites,
respondents.
81
Figure A .15 Reasons why villagers are abandoning farm land – (combined)
82
Figure A. 16 Family members stayed away from home during the study period – (combined for the three project sites)
Pailoghe &Sairaghi Naro Oibola
Zero 78% 53% 70%between zero and 12months 2% 3% 0%between 12 and 24 months 2% 13% 3%between 24 and 36 months 12% 17% 13%between 36 and 48months 4% 13% 7%More than 48 months 2% 0% 7%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
Figure A.17 The number of years family members stayed away from home –
(combined)
83
No stayaway Work Studies Business Combinatio
ns Other Jobs
Percentage 69% 19% 2% 7% 4% 1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Perc
enat
ge o
f Res
pond
ents
Figure A. 18 Purpose for staying away from home: three project sites (combined)
Pailoghe & Sairaghi Naro OibolaNo stay away 78% 53% 70%Work 16% 20% 17%business 0% 17% 10%Combinations 4% 3% 3%Other jobs 2% 0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Perc
enat
ge o
f res
pond
ents
Figure A .19 Reasons to stay away from home: each project site analysis
84
Appendix 2
Expert and Peer Group responses
Figure B. 1 Composition of focus Group Interviewed
Figure B.2 Education background of Climate Change Expert respondents
85
Figure B. 3 Who do you think decide on which project to make?
Figure B.4 Who do you think owns the Projects?
86
Figure B. 5 Occupations of Respondents
Figure B.6 Importance of the climate change projects to the communities, respondents’ perceptions.
87
NationalSecurity Commerce Health Climate
ChangeSector 7% 17% 22% 54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
Figure B. 7 Which sector do you think government should allocate and spend more funds?
Strong Leadership
10%
Strong Financial Management
27%
Community Participation
37%
Church Support to the Project
19%
Commercial Viabilty of the
project7%
Figure B. 8 Reasons that make you think positive about the climate change projects.
88
Figure B. 9 Reasons for thinking negatively of the climate change projects
Figure B .10 If the project could not finish on time – what would be the main contributing factors?
89
Figure B. 11 Who do you prefer to work in future climate change projects?
Figure B. 12 How do you rate the impact of the climate change project on the communities?
90
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Shortage of marine resources foreconomic purposes
Less of marine protein for householdconsumption
Land dispute over limited fishingground
over populated over on smaller arealinked to health issues
Shortage ofmarine resources
for economicpurposes
Less of marineprotein forhousehold
consumption
Land dispute overlimited fishing
ground
over populatedover on smallerarea linked tohealth issues
Percenatage 42% 32% 17% 10%
Figure B. 13 What are the issues associated with impacts of climate change on these three project sites?
Figure B.14 Do you agree that financial management is an important component of climate change project management?
91
Figure B. 15 What would you think is the most challenging factor to effective climate change project implementation?
Figure B .16 What do you think of the current level of government’s support to climate change project in the country?
92
Figure B. 17 What do you think of the current development of climate change programs in the country?
Figure B.18 What do you think are the reasons for land dispute?
93
Appendix 3
“Socioeconomic cost and benefits of Government spending in relation to Climate change Projects in the Solomon Islands: Case study of three adaptation funded sites in the Solomon Islands:”
Questionnaire Survey: SECTION A Socioeconomic Status
1. What is your name …………………………………………………………….
Gender Occupation Marital Status 2. How old are you? 30 to 35 years 36-40 years 41-45 years 46-50 years 51-54 years 3. Number of children 4. Number of males 5. Number of females 6. What is your Highest Level of Education? Grade 1 to 7 Grade 8 to Grade 12 Tertiary Education No formal
Education 7. Can you give a rough estimate of your household income per month? $100 to $200
$201 to $300 $301 to $400 $401 to $500
Over $500
8. How many people are working in your household? One Two Three four More than four
94
9. What are the different sources of income for the entire household? if any. Please list. Sources of Family Income (i) (ii) (iii) (ix) (v) 10. Who pays the main expenses every month in this household? Father Mother Children Relatives Others
(specify) 11. What is the main Family Expense? How do you cope if it is not paid? Family main Expense How do you pay for it? Climate Change Project 12. What type of Climate Change Project is in your area? Name Purpose : Scope How many years The cost of the Project (if known)
Quality of performance 13. Please Rate what you perceived about the Climate Change Project in your area? Tick which box you think is your best judgment: from 1 the least to 5 being the most important.
95
(a) Importance to the Community
1 2 3 4 5
(b) Do you think that community benefits from the Project? 1 2 3 4 5
(c) Do you think that what is been done could help the community to adapt to the environment?
1 2 3 4 5
(d) Do you think that what is been done could help the community economically? 1 2 3 4 5
(e) Do you think that the money should be spent on other things other than this climate change initiative?
1 2 3 4 5
(f) Which area you think the government should spent more money on? Please tick the area you perceive should get more resources than this climate change.
Climate Change
Health Education Commerce Tourism
14. What is the main reason you think positive about the project? Please provide number from 1 to 5. (1 the least to 5 the main reason) Strong Leadership
Strong Financial Management
Community Involvement
Church Support
Revenue from the project
96
15. What is the main reason you think negative about the project? Poor Leadership
Weak financial Management
Community Involvement (little)
Church Support(little)
Revenue from the project
16. Do you think that the community benefits from the project? Please give value to the opinion. Not at all Not relevant No sure strong Very strong 1 2 3 4 5 17. If the Project is not completed according to timing? What do you think is the main contributing factor? Strong Leadership
Strong Financial Management
Community Involvement
Church Support
Disagreement amongst villagers
18. Who do you think you would work with on future climate change projects? National Government
Provincial Government
NGO Local
Church Run NGO
International NGO
19. Who do you think the real Beneficiaries of the Climate Projects? Communities The National
Government Provincial Government
Implementing Body E.g. NGO
Land owing group
20. Do you think the project improves the livelihood of the people within the project sites? 20. Why do you have that perception? Please explain? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
97
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SECTION B IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. In your understanding, what do you understand about climate change?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Do you know any Impact of Climate Change on the Society? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Why do you think the government and donor partners should do more in the course of climate change in the country? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Do you think these projects have a positive or negative impact on the Communities? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. What did the community do without the project initiative to adapt to the situation? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Can you explain and give example of what is the direct benefit of the climate change project on the community? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. What were some of the problems people encountered as a result from the effect of the climate change? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Do you agree that project financial management is a critical element of the management of the entire project? If yes or Not, Pease Explain. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99
9. What do you think is the main contributing factor of the Project Failure? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. What would you recommend to rectify such situation? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SECTION C Interview Questions for Open-Ended Questions
1. What are the objectives of your organisation into climate change activities in the country? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What are you doing to achieve these objectives?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. How do you define the Impact of Climate Change in the community?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. How do the communities perceive the Climate Change Projects in their respective areas?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. What are the achievements so far since your organisation has participated in the Climate Change program in the area?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. What would you consider to be the most challenging factor in successfully implementing the project? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. If the project is not to be effectively implemented who would you think will take the full responsibility? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8. What do you think about the level of support by the communities towards the Climate Project? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9. Do you think the government is doing enough towards it support to the Climate Change initiatives in the country? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. What would be the main contributing factor if you would do to improve the future climate change implementation projects? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION D INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT CLIMATE CHANGE AND DISSSATER MANAGEMENT OFFICIALS Open-Ended Questions
1. What are the current developments with regard to Climate Change Initiatives in the country? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. How are you going to determine which community benefits from the climate change activities? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What do you think the about the general administration of these projects?
102
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. How confident you say that it is the communities who benefits from these
projects? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Did you experience any dispute with the communities in relation to the projects? And if so what is the main reason for such? And how was it resolved? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. What do you think of the statement? Most of projects when it comes to the rural communities, it is only the Donor providers who benefits from such program --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. What will be your main challenge to effectively implementing the projects? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. In your knowledge and experience in Climate Projects, do you think that
resources been allocated into these projects are adequate and will ensure effective implementation of these projects?
103
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Do you think that your staff is qualified and capable of implementing these projects? Please explain!----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. In closing, what have you learned from the community in general ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
