Breaking or following the fishing rules and regulations:

motivations, benefits and incentives for Kia Islanders,

Fiji




Presented by


Lui Hepworth



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


MSc Environmental Assessment and Management




September 2011


GBM01 Lui Hepworth
i
Abstract

Although illegal fishing is prevalent, few studies have attempted to understand
peoples motives behind it. This study seeks to address this gap in the
literature by investigating motives for breaking the fishing conservation rules
and regulations, as well as researching incentives for following them.

This study takes place on Kia Island, Fiji where the community is heavily
dependent on its fishing grounds for their livelihood and hope to benefit from
the recent establishment of a Marine Protected Area (MPA). Illegal fishing has
now become a major problem in this area and inadequate enforcement of the
fishing grounds and MPAs is a key issue.

Methods included, surveys with householders and semi-structured interviews
with experienced fishers to empathise and understand peoples needs to break
the rules. A participatory approach was taken to ensure that those being
studied also learnt from the experience.

Results found that peoples motivations for breaking the rules fell under three
main themes; Economic; Monitoring and enforcement; and Social and
cultural aspects.

The primary motive for illegal fishing was found to be economic, with a lack of
education and awareness exacerbating the problem. It was found that some
were desperate for money due to the high cost of living. This was found to be a
national problem following coops and a flood, which have left the country in
economic decline. To make up for this shortfall, some fishers break the rules
and regulations as these methods bring in more money than legal ones.
Amongst other examples given, it was said that nets bring in a greater catch
and fishing in the MPA is easier as there are more species there.

The level of education on the island is low, which exacerbates the issues of
illegal fishing, and a lack of enforcement by authorities, NGOs and Fish
wardens allows it to continue.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
ii
This primary motive is consistent with previous studies, however disparities
were found between the secondary and underlying motives. It was concluded
that underlying motives for illegal fishing will be different for each situation and
can be based on many factors such as economics, education level, insularity,
alternative livelihood options, tourism, funding, government regime and political
climates. Motives therefore, cannot be assumed as each situation has its own
unique set of complexities and requires its own research to fully understand
local motives for illegal fishing.

This study has uncovered motives for illegal fishing and found incentives to
help prevent it. The recommendations made will help reduce illegal fishing
practices in Kias fishing grounds.

19,000 Words
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
iii
Acknowl edgements

I would like to thank my dissertation supervisor Dr Rebecca Elmhirst for all her
support and guidance during the course of this project.

I would like to thank Community Centred Conservation (C3) for giving me this
opportunity to work on Kia Island. In particular, Chis Poonian for his remote
support and guidance, and Maleli Quera for his local support and for being a
good mum when I was unwell.

I give a warm thank you to the community of Kia for welcoming me into their
community and making me feel so at home. I hope that my work will benefit
you and your future generations.

Finally I would like to thank Charlie Bennett for my introduction to grog party
etiquette and J onathon Syron-Pain for sharing in the ups and downs of our Kia
experience.


C3 Acknowledgements

Akosita Rokomate-Nakoro, Programme Coordinator, Fiji and South Pacific
Islands Programme is supported by an Indigenous Leaders Fellowship from
Conservation International

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

Our heartfelt thanks to the people of Kia for warmly hosting us and
enthusiastically participating in the project


GBM01 Lui Hepworth
iv
Contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................iii
Contents................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ........................................................................................................ v
List of Plates .......................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ......................................................................................................... v
Chapter 1 - Introduction ............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Aims and objectives ...................................................................................... 4
1.3 - Thesis Structure............................................................................................. 5
Chapter 2 - Literature review ..................................................................................... 6
The worldwide fisheries management problem...................................................... 6
What is an MPA?................................................................................................... 7
The benefits of MPAs ............................................................................................ 8
Suitability of MPAs for fisheries management ...................................................... 10
MPA suitability for study site ................................................................................ 11
Community reliance on coastal and marine resources ......................................... 12
Enforcement issues and illegal fishing ................................................................. 13
Corruption in Pacific island fisheries .................................................................... 13
Motives for illegal fishing...................................................................................... 14
Incentivizing legal fishing ..................................................................................... 16
Community rights and involvement ...................................................................... 17
Tenure................................................................................................................. 19
Chapter 2 - Site description ..................................................................................... 21
Chapter 4 Methodology ........................................................................................ 25
Chapter 5 - Results and Discussion......................................................................... 36
Importance of fishing ........................................................................................... 36
The threat of illegal and environmentally unfriendly fishing methods.................... 38
Following or Breaking the Rules and Regulations: Motivations, Benefits and
Incentives ............................................................................................................ 42
Economic............................................................................................................. 42
Enforcement and monitoring................................................................................ 50
Social and Cultural Aspects ................................................................................. 55
Presentation back to the community .................................................................... 60
5.1 Recommendations......................................................................................... 62
Chapter 6 - Conclusion............................................................................................ 66
Bibliography............................................................................................................. 69
Appendix ................................................................................................................. 74

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
v
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1: Location of Kia Island. 24
Figure 2: Kia Islands location within the Qoliqoli Cokovata
fishing grounds.
24

List of Plates
Plate 1: Photograph of a hand drawn simplified map of Yaro
village
25
Plate 2: Kia fishermen arriving at Yaro with their catches.

26

List of Tables
Table 1: Number and percentage of fishers interviewed from
Kia villages.
32
Table 2: Household Survey Results: Primary and secondary
sources of income.
39
Table 3. Household Survey Results: Perceived threats to the
coastal and marine resources of Kia.
42
Table 4. Household Survey Results: Perceived Coastal and
Marine Management Problems

43

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
1
Chapter 1 - Introduction

Kias Story

A mother and her two sons, whose father had been killed and
their home destroyed in tribal warfare, were searching for a new
home. As they stood on the hill on the north coast of Vanua
Levu, looking out across the sea, their sights fell on a small,
uninhabited island. The younger of the two sons pointed and
said, I want to live there (Ki). I want to live, and all three
members of the party said, over-there (Ki-a). And so Kias
name was born.

When the eldest son returned from visiting Kia, he reported back,
Plenty fish, but no water. The younger of the two sons decided
to face the water problems and inhabit the island, starting its
community.
(Osea Masiniqa, Village Elder)

Today, the now much larger community of Kia Island (Kia) still face water
difficulties, but the bountiful supplies of fish are gone. Fishers have to travel
further and catch more fish to provide for their growing community.

This research takes place on Kia, Fiji and aims to understand motives for
breaking the fishing conservation rules and investigate incentives for following
them. This is a particular issue for the setting of this study, where the
community is heavily dependent on its fishing grounds for their livelihood and
illegal fishing has become a major problem (Veitayaki, 1997; Teh, 2009).

Kia is enveloped by The Great Sea Reef, known locally as Cakaulevu or
Bainivauliku the Wall to the North (WWF, 2009a). The Great Sea Reef is the
third longest continuous barrier reef in the world and in terms of biodiversity is
considered of global importance (Heaps, 2005). The importance of the South
Pacifics coastal zone is recognized by Lam (1998) as containing some of the
most biological diverse ecosystems in the world and has been identified as a
major priority for Marine Protected Area (MPA) implementation (Bartlett et al
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
2
2009).

Working closely with the Provincial Chief (Tui Macuata) and Fiji Local Marine
Managed Areas network (FLMMA), WWF have set up a network of MPAs in
the traditional fishing grounds Qoliqoli Cokovata I Macuata. Kia is one of 37
villages from five districts of the Macuata province that are involved in the
development of one of Fijis first network of MPAs covering 30% of Fiji waters
by 2020 (Heaps, 2005). It is hoped that MPAs will target illegal fishing activities
such as over-fishing, fishing with small net size, use of hookah in beche-de-
mer harvesting, catching endangered species, the use of fish poisoning, and
prevent damage to the near shore environment caused by sand dredging from
coastal zones, coastal erosion, development activities and waste output (C3,
2011c).

Traditionally the people of Macuata have rights over this part of the Great Sea
Reef with overall governance by the Tui Macuata, Ratu Aisea Katonivere.
Traditionally communities have fishing grounds Qoliqolis assigned to them
and each Qoliqolis is governed by that community. The governmental,
Fisheries Department assist with the enforcement of legislation (C3, 2011c).
Unfortunately, the Fisheries Department is believed to be under-funded, which
has hampered the control of unlicensed fishing, sale of undersized and
protected species, (Hunt, 1999; dynamite fishing and the use poisonous vine
(duva) (Hunt, 1999; Teh, 2009). Protected species which are targeted for the
food trade are humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus, Labridae), coral
groupers (Plectropomus areolatus, P. leopardus, and P. laevis) and other
groupers (Epinephelus spp.), which have status as IUCN Red Listed species.
(Teh, 2009).

Illegal fishing has now become a major problem in areas close to main urban
centres. Commercial fishers continually encroach into fishing grounds owned
by others using contemporary fishing gears such as underwater torches and
speedboats. Disputes are now common over the utilization on their resources.
(Veitayaki, 1997; Teh, 2009). Inadequate enforcement of MPAs has been a
key issue in both developing and developed countries (McClanahan 1999;
Evans & Russ 2004). Enforcement issues can arise due to many factors such
as lack of surveillance due to remoteness of site, failure to assign enforcement
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
3
responsibility, lack of funds for policing or lack of public support, which leads to
socially accepted poaching (J ones 2002) (Lundquist and Granek, 2005).

Although illegal fishing is prevalent, a review of the literature reveals few
studies that have sought to understand the motives behind it. Two studies that
look to understand the motives for illegal fishing are by Wood (2004),
conducted in the Seychelles and by Heuer et al (2008) in the Philippines.
Wood (2004) concludes the motives for poaching are primarily economics
exacerbated by lower levels of education amongst poachers. Heuer et als
(2008) results all appear to be mostly economically based, with a lack of
awareness of the rules exacerbating the problem. Although both studies reflect
the same primary motive for illegal fishing, the secondary reason was different
in each; poor education in Woods (2004) study and lack of awareness in
Heuer et als (2008). Woods (2004) study also uncovered several other
motives for illegal fishing, which did not come to light in Heuer et als (2008)
study, showing a disparity between results. This lack of research and
disparities between studies demonstrates and gap in the literature that requires
further study. This study seeks to address this gap in the literature by
investigating motives for breaking the fishing conservation rules and
regulations, as well as researching incentives for following them.


GBM01 Lui Hepworth
4
1.2 Aims and objectives

The aim of this research was to understand motives for breaking the fishing
conservation rules and investigate incentives for following them.

This is a particular issue for the setting of this study, where the community is
heavily dependent on its fishing grounds for their livelihood and hope to benefit
from the recent establishment of an MPA.

Obj ecti ves
Using surveys and interviews with members of the community, the primary
objectives of this study were to determine;

The economic significance of various marine goods and services.
Attitudes, perceptions and needs in terms of awareness raising and
opportunities for management.
Peoples understanding of illegal and restricted fishing.
Motives for breaking the rules and regulations.
Incentives for following the rules and regulations.

The secondary objectives were to;
Present findings to local community stakeholders to ensure two-way
inclusive engagement.
Ensure inclusion of marginalised stakeholders and demonstrate gender
awareness.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
5
1.3 - Thesis Structure

Chapter 1 - Introduction Sets the scene, briefly describing the
background area of this research.
Chapter 2 - Literature Review Reviews current literature relevant to
this study and exposes gaps which require further research.
Chapter 3 - Site description Sets the scene in a geographical context
and in relation to local fishing grounds.
Chapter 4 - Methodology Details data collected and methods used.
Chapter 5 - Results and Discussion Analysis of results and discussion
of findings. Recommendations for further research.
Chapter - 6 Conclusion States conclusions of key findings.
Chapter - 7 Bibliography List of references cited.





GBM01 Lui Hepworth
6
Chapter 2 - Literature review
MPAs have great potential in the fight to save the worlds marine biological
diversity (Lam, 1998). They have been viewed as the savior of global fisheries
and a solution to fisheries mismanagement failures by some fishers, managers
and conservationists (Roberts et al. 2001; Gell and Roberts 2003). Kaiser
(2005) however argues that while MPAs have been used successfully for
particular species in certain locations (Gell and Roberts 2003; Roberts et al.
2005), they are not the cure-all solution that some claim (Halpern 2003; Zeller
and Russ 2004).

This literature review researches the suitability of MPAs as a tool for fisheries
management and discusses their application in the South Pacific. The
difficulties with enforcing MPAs is highlighted and motives behind illegal fishing
are uncovered while looking for incentives for fishers to adhere to their
restrictions. There is a particular focus on tenure systems that are prevalent in
the study area. This review also exposes gaps in the literature requiring further
research.

The worldwide fisheries management problem
In 1982 the United Nations (UN) Third Conference on the Law of the Sea
extended management jurisdiction over fisheries resources to 200 nautical
miles (370.4 km), know as Exclusive Economic Zones EEZs. It was thought
that 90% of marine fisheries would be encompasses by these zones and
therefore be economically managed (Kaitala and Munro 1995) (Lauck et al,
1998). In spite of this the worlds fish stocks continued to decline and many
stocks collapsed including those within EEZs. An example of this is the
collapses of the Northern cod (Gadusmorhua) at Grand Banks, Canada, in the
1980s, the cause of which remains under fierce debate (Myers et al. 1997).

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

"69% of the world's marine [fish] stocks ... are either fully to heavily
exploited, overexploited, depleted ... and therefore are in need of urgent
conservation and management measures" (Lauck et al, 1998).

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
7
Lauck et al (1998) discussed that although many factors affect fish stock
including environmental fluctuations, declines and stock collapses result in
large from over-fishing. Fish populations have survived for thousands of years
without collapsing from environmental changes and the level of fishing is
excessive for maintaining sustainable stocks. Lauck et al (1998) believes that
one of the factors associated with over-fishing is the inaccuracy of sustainable
catch calculations, which are set to provide optimum catch, but may not allow
for natural fluctuations and therefore lead to over-fishing. Additionally by-
catches, unreported catches, discards and incidental morality all increase the
actual mortality above the target level Lauck et al (1998) making predictions
more complex. Although fish stock assessment is now highly sophisticated,
further research will be needed until results can be reliably achieved over the
long-term leading and sustainable fisheries achieved (Lauck et al, 1998). Being
realistic about what scientific predictions can achieve in a complex natural
system such as the marine (Mangel et al, 1996), Lauck et al (1998)
recommends use of MPAs to diversify the fisheries management strategy.
Lauck et al (1998) recommends that MPAs should become a part of all marine
fisheries in a strategy that exploits part of the resource and protects the
remainder.

What is an MPA?
There are many different terms for MPA, however the primary growth of
protected area knowledge was commenced by the International Union for
Conservation Nature (IUCN) (Chape et al, 2005). The IUCN definition of a
protected area is:

An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and
maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural
resources, and managed through legal or other effective means. (IUCN,
1994)

Although over 1,000 terms exist for Protected Area, this definition has been
widely adopted and used by the United Nations Environment Programme
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) for recording protected
area information. Protected areas are now one of the most significant forms of
land use by humans covering 12% of the earths surface. The commitment to
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
8
the marine however is an inadequate, with only 0.5% of the earths oceans
being protected (Chape et al, 2005). The concept of protecting marine areas
and development of MPA framework has trailed terrestrial equivalents by
nearly a century (Lam, 1998). The IUCN more specifically defines an MPA as;

Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and
associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been
reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed
environment. (IUCN, 1994)

This definition of an MPA is the most widely accepted. In the Pacific Islands,
the words taboo, reserve, conservation area, protected area, and marine
protected area (MPA) are all used to refer to the community-based marine and
coastal closures (Bartlett, 2010). Most islands in the South Pacific refer to
these closures as Taboo (tabu or tapu spelling used by ni-Vanuatu people)
(Bartlett, 2010). In Fiji the most widely terms used are Taboo and MPA, which
are used interchangeably (Field Notes) In this paper such areas are referred to
as MPAs.

The MPA concept of excluding fishing activity from parts of the sea in order for
species to reproduce and repopulate is simple for non-specialists to
understand and makes them an attractive alternative to current complex
marine management tools (Roberts et al. 2001; Gell and Roberts 2003).

The benefits of MPAs
The basic principle of an MPA is to protect an area of the marine environment
from overexploitation allowing species to re-charge (Lam, 1998).

Novaczek (1995) lists eight important advantages of MPAs;

1) to protect biomass and population structure of commercial species,
2) to limit by-catch of juveniles,
3) to protect ocean biodiversity,
4) to protect essential life stages of commercial species,
5) to protect and enhance productivity,
6) to provide a location for marine research,
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
9
7) to protect artisanal and community fisheries, and
8) to enhance public education and encourage non-destructive
enjoyment of the sea. (Lauck et al 1998)

By using MPAs particularly vul nerabl e species can be protected in the marine
reserves allowing them to rebuild their population (Lam, 1998). The overall
benefits of MPAs to fisheries (increased fish populations, survivorship and
amount of legal sized fish) have been validated throughout the world (e.g.,
Rowley 1994; Gell & Roberts 2003; Halpern 2003). Non-target fish have also
been shown to increase in abundance (Halpern 2003). Numerous field studies
have shown a higher abundance of fish present in fished reefs adjacent to
protected areas (McClanahan and Mangi, 2000). This benefit is due to
spi l l over (Rowley, 1994) as larvae are released or species migrate from
MPAs into surrounding areas, which can be fished. Bioeconomic models have
substantiated this claim (Costello and Kaffine, 2009).

Coastal communities benefit from improved livelihoods due to increased fish
sizes and abundance in the adjacent areas (Halpern and Warner, 2002). MPA
also allow degraded coral reefs to be restored benefiting the biodiversity of the
reef and increase their desirability for ecotourism, underwater photography,
recreation and scientific studies (Lam, 1998). The economic benefits of
conserving reefs for tourism such as scuba diving and snorkeling has been
demonstrated (Gomez, 1997).


MPAs have been successfully used on the Great Barrier Reef as a fisheries
management tool and their role has been recognized in preserving special
marine areas. MPAs can increase support and public awareness for marine
conservation and can provide sites for monitoring and research (Lam, 1998).

In the developing world, the Philippines have been at the forefront of
establishing community-based MPAs since the early 1980s, with many
exemplary success stories being case studied (White et al, 1994; Ferrer et al,
1996; Christie and White, 2000; Salm et al, 2000; White et al, 2002. Christie
and White (2007) conclude that MPAs have the potential to improve coral reef
ecological conditions while simultaneously providing better lives of the
dependant.
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
10

Sui tabi l i ty of MPAs for fi sheri es management
Kaiser (2005) argues that scientific evidence chosen to support the success of
MPAs is sometimes only drawn from studies that have a positive outcome
(Halpern 2003; Zeller and Russ 2004) (Kaiser, 2005). More studies are
therefore needed that draw from unsuccessful application of MPAs in order to
understand their limitations (Kaiser, 2005). Kaiser (2005) continues to discuss
that the majority of successful studies draw from coral and rock reef systems
and are not valid for many commercial temperate species, which may move
considerable distances within a year, are widely spread across a variety of
habitats or exhibit different behaviors between sea basins (Kaiser, 2005).

The unsuitability of MPAs for wide ranging species is strengthened by
Horwoods (2000) study of Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua). Calculations show
that even if 25% of the North Sea was protected this would have little effect on
protecting their spawning stock biomass (Horwood, 2000). Amongst other
ecological concerns, closing off fishing from one area of the sea may lead to
greater ecological damage as fishing is displaced to previously undisturbed
and perhaps unknown essential fish habitats (Kaiser, 2005). However, Kaiser
(2005) promotes their use for closures on nursery areas, spawning
aggregations, or at migration bottlenecks, as the negative effects of
displacement are likely to be offset by the benefits. Kaiser (2005) goes on to
state that The scientific community is split regarding the efficacy of the
unilateral use of MPAs to achieve sustainable exploitation of fish and shellfish
stocks (Steele and Hoagland 2003, 2004; Zeller and Russ 2004).

Kaiser (2005) argues that when stock assessment or the available effort
controls (eg days at sea) are implemented effectively with suitable catch
controls, fisheries have been managed successfully. This has been the case
for Thames herring (Clupea harengus) fisheries, Western Australian rock
lobster (Palinurus cygnus), New Zealand hoki (Macruronus novaezealandiae)
and Alaska salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), which have achieved Stewardship
Council certification as sustainable fisheries.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
11
MPA suitability for study site
Disparities, however arise between the success of these fishing controls in
developed countries, such as the examples given by Kaiser (2005), versus
their use in developing ones. Developed countries such as Australia have far
more advance public awareness, infrastructure and law enforcement than
developing countries such as the Philippines (Gomez, 1997) and are therefore
more able to manage such practices.

Due to their physiological requirements, coral reefs are concentrated in the
tropics and are therefore mostly located along the coasts of developing
countries (Gomez, 1997), which may be less able to manage fisheries using
contemporary controls. Additionally in the South Pacific where this study takes
place, it has already been recognized that such contemporary management
systems have failed to provided effective fisheries management, since the
colonial late 1950s (Doulman, 1992). Attempts to manage fisheries via
centralized systems in the South Pacific, since the colonial period did not
involve fishers in the decision-making and failed as a consequence (Lam,
1998). Due to these failures, the introduction of different methods to diversify
the fisheries management approach, as Lauck et al (1998) recommends is
needed. Though MPAs may not be suitable for all species, they have clear
benefits for coral and temperate rock reef fish species, and are the only
method for protecting sensitive habitats such as deep-water corals and
calcareous algae (Lauck et al, 1998). This shows MPAs as an ideal solution
for the protection of coral reef fisheries in the South Pacific and Fiji, the
location of this study.

The importance of the South Pacifics coastal zone is recognized by Lam
(1998) as containing some of the most biological diverse ecosystems in the
world and has been identified as a major priority for MPA implementation
(Bartlett et al 2009). Lams (1998) recommends a combination of smaller highly
protected reserves and lager multiple use management regimes in a system
that complements. As described below, these must be set-up in conjunction
with local communities, by re-establishing traditional rights or Customary
Marine Tenure system and adapting them to accommodate MPAs.

A decade after Lams (1998) paper the South Pacific region has seen a rapid
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
12
increase community established MPAs, which is historically unprecedented
Bartlett (2009). Despite this rapid increase Bartlett (2009) reports highlights
questions their compatibility with local ideologies. (This compatibility is
discussed further in section: Tenure).

Recent reviews suggest that Pacific islanders motivations for MPAs is
grounded in food security and not abstract biological conservation concepts
and it has been agued that these communities lack a historical conservation
ethic (Bartlett et al 2009). Few studies have been carried out to determine
peoples expectation, motivations and ideological support for MPAs (Bartlett,
2009). To address this gap in the literature, Bartlett (2009) investigated how
local reserve assessments and decisions in Vanuatu are made Bartlett (2009)
found that the motivation behind establishing marine reserves was mostly
conservation-oriented and non-utilitarian. In a review of the literature, no such
studies were available for Fiji, where this study was held. The results from the
Vanuatu study will however, provide useful benchmark data to this study,
which looks in part at the communitys motives for adhering to MPA
restrictions.

Community reliance on coastal and marine resources
These reefs have extremely important economic value to these countries,
although this has only become recognized in recent years (Gomez, 1997). The
marine environment provides vital resources for Pacific Islanders with 90% of
their protein consumption coming from the sea (Lam, 1998). In Fiji 80-90% of
this from the reefs. (Lam, 1998). Coastal fisheries account for more then 80%
of livelihood activities for Fijis coastal communities with over 70% of recorded
catch sold for income (Institute of Applied Sciences, 2009). Most (80%) people
in Fiji live on the coast (J enkins, et al 2004) and actively participate in some
form of fisheries activity for sustenance, medicine, shelter and income.

The study site, Kia Island is located within the province of Macuata and the
community their fish within the Qoliqoli Cokovata (Cokovata Fishing Grounds).
The present catch per unit effort (CPUE) values for the Qoliqoli Cokovata, in,
show a healthy fishery status, however with 60% of total fin fish sold, an
increasing population and demand may lead to declines in fish stock for
Macuata coastal communities (WWF, 2009b).
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
13

Enforcement issues and illegal fishing
Inadequate enforcement of MPAs has been a key issue in both developing and
developed world (McClanahan 1999; Evans & Russ 2004). Enforcement
issues can arise due to many factors such as lack of surveillance due to
remoteness of site, failure to assign enforcement responsibility, lack of funds
for policing or lack of public support, which leads to socially accepted poaching
(J ones 2002). Government and resources instability can lead to a breakdown
in enforcement infrastructure and compromising enforcement of MPAs
(McClanahan 1999; White et al. 2002). The limiting effect this has on MPAs
has been well documented (White et al, 2002; Yasue, 2010). Additionally,
empirical research demonstrates that MPA effectiveness rapidly deteriorates
when conflict resolution mechanisms and collective action break-down
(Christie and White, 2007).

In Fiji, the Fisheries Department, which is responsible for enforcing fishing
rules and regulations, is believed to be under-funded. This has hampered the
control of unlicensed fishing, sale of undersized and protected species, (Hunt,
1999; dynamite fishing and the use poisonous vine (duva) (Hunt, 1999; Teh,
2009). Protected species which are targeting for the food trade are humphead
wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus, Labridae), coral groupers (Plectropomus
areolatus, P. leopardus, and P. laevis) and other groupers (Epinephelus spp.),
which have status as IUCN Red Listed species (Teh, 2009). Illegal fishing has
become a major problem in areas close to main urban centres. Commercial
fishers continually encroach into fishing grounds owned by others using
contemporary fishing gears such as underwater torches and speedboats.
Disputes are now common over the utilization on their resources. (Veitayaki,
1997; Teh, 2009).

Corruption in Pacifi c island fisheries
Corruption in the fisheries sector is thought to be widespread throughout the
Pacific islands fisheries. It has been found to occur from low level gifts of
fish and small-scale nepotism. To grand level regular large-scale financial
transactions, organized criminal behavior and political interference in official
processes. The three areas within Pacific island fisheries where corruption
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
14
impacts are most significant are: issuing of licensing; giving access rights to
foreign companies; and turning a blind eye during monitoring and inspection.
(Hanich and Tsamenyi, 2009). Political instability, low economic growth and
governmental and institutional weaknesses have left Pacific island fisheries
vulnerable to corruption (Hanich and Tsamenyi, 2009). The United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) recently reported that corruption siphons
off scarce natural resources and weakens national institutions. This reduces
the Pacific islands ability to benefit from their fisheries resources (Hanich and
Tsamenyi, 2009)

In Fiji, corruption allegations have been made against senior officials and
Fisheries Ministers. These mostly regarded the granting of licences to foreign
charter companies, when resources were over-fishing and capacity reduction
was needed. In 2005, the director of Fisheries and another senior official were
jailed having been found guilty of corrupt issuing of licences. Further cases
within the Ministry of Fisheries are currently pending (Hanich and Tsamenyi,
2009).

Motives for illegal fishing
Although illegal fishing is prevalent, a review of the literature reveals few
studies that have sought to understand the motives behind illegal fishing.

Wood (2004) studied motives for illegal fishing in the Seychelles using semi-
structures interviews with fishers, classifying poachers and non-poachers with
Discriminant Function analysis (DFA) on questions responses.

Results from this study showed poachers motive for fishing in the MPA;
Those near MPAs feel they have lost fishing grounds
Economic incentives
Decline in legal fish, therefore incentive to fish illegally (Sutinen, 1990)
Higher catch per unit effort inside MPA
Many felt they were not receiving the MPA benefit of spillover
Optimism for the future of fish stocks
No alternative income available to poachers and poachers were less
educated than non-poachers
75% said they would poach more if fuel price increased
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
15
MPAs were for tourist not fisheries and displaced them from fishing
grounds
Corruption prevented regulation being imposed uniformly and large
complexes were allowed to cause damage to reef
Non-poachers say poachers have a lack of respect for the law
(Wood,
2004)

Wood (2004) concludes the motives for poaching are primarily economics
exacerbated by lower levels of education amongst poachers, a generally
higher (and perhaps false) optimism for the future of fish stocks and the socio-
political environment in which MPAs are managed in the Seychelles.

In a study in Panaon Island, Philippines Heuer et al (2008) found reasons for
illegal fishing were;
More catch (15.6 %)
Laziness (9%)
Direct need (6.6%)
Insufficient catch otherwise (6.6%).
(36.9 % would not comment)

Most fishermen fishing illegally stated that it was for their own consumption,
however the policed believe it is mostly for selling. Some fishers also claim not
to know where the sanctuaries are due to lack of markers Heuer et al (2008).
When asked about illegal fishing, fishers only regarded illegal practices such
as dynamite, cyanide and hooka. They were unsure of other illegal practices
and didnt consider fishing in the MPA to be illegal even though it is not allowed
(Heuer et al, 2008). Heuer et als (2008) results all appear to be mostly
economically based, with a lack of awareness of the rules exacerbating the
problem. These results concur with Woods (2004) main finding that motives
for poaching are primarily economics.

Woods (2004) study however uncovered several other reasons for illegal
fishing, which did not come to light in Heuer et als (2008) study. Reasons for
this may be due to the different methods employed during each study. Woods
(2004) study was focused specifically to understand motive for illegal fishing
and semi-structured interviews were design around this topic.
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
16
Heuer et als (2008) study was part of a wider socioeconomic study, which
then unveiled high level information about illegal fishing, but was not
specifically designed to investigate this topic. It is also likely that as the studies
took place in different situations and locations they yielding different motives
for illegal fishing. Further research in the Panoan Islands is needed to uncover
more in-depth motives for illegal fishing.

Understanding motives for non-compliance is imperative for successful MPA
management (Wood, 2004), however few studies set out to determine them.
This lack of knowledge regarding illegal fishing motives and stakeholders
ambiguous understanding of fishing rules and regulations is a distinct gap in
the literature, which this study seeks to address.

Incentivizing legal fishing
As an alternative to enforcement, other approaches look at incentives such as
payments or subsidies to encourage conservation practices. These
approaches recognise that although the benefits of sustainable management
are of great global importance the cost of their implementation usually falls on
the resource users through restricted access and loss of income. Decision
makers at the local level need to see tangible benefits if they are to support
such measures and to achieve conservation of biodiversity (Balmford et al.
2002). Economic incentives such as funds for education, alternate livelihood
and leasing of fishing rights offer great potential to offset losses incurred. Other
economic incentives include schemes such as scholarships, jobs in return for
resorts leasing land and money placed in community funds. Additionally,
species specific schemes can include payments to villagers for spotting turtles
and nests, with additional payments made if eggs successfully hatch (Gjertsen,
2010).

The majority of studies looking into incentives for legal fishing regard economic
motives as the main drivers and suggest economic incentives. Many initiatives
exist to generate income needed to fund MPAs such as user fees, levies,
surcharges, leases, government appropriations, donations, bio-prospecting,
corporate sponsorship concessions, debt-for-nature swaps and international
donors (Cesar, 2004). Most schemes however, are still reliant on external
funding from parties such as NGO or government. Current 2-3 year NGO and
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
17
Government funding cycles hamper long-term commitment (Poonian et al,
2008) and can lead MPA failure if funding is discontinued.

Lessons can be learned from Mohli Marine Park (Parc Marin de Mohli,
PMM) in Comores, which was initially regarded as a flagship in MPA co-
management (Poonian et al, 2008). Due to an end to funding however, the
park is now operating at a vastly reduce capacity (Wells, 2005) and local
community stakeholders have become disillusioned as to the benefits of the
MPA and are de-motivated (Hauzer et al, 2008).

Although initially well funded the lack of sustainability was seen once funding
ceased and enforcement was greatly reduced. This led to the re-emergence of
destructive fishing practices and turtle poaching (Poonian et al, 2008).

Borrini-Feyerabend et al (2004) has shown that stakeholder-inclusive projects
work better on a decentralized scale with longer term small infusions of money.
Donors should therefore consider spreading funding over five or ten years as
the MPA develops (Poonian et al, 2008).

Literature on incentives generally assumes economic drivers for illegal fishing.
More studies need to be done that specifically explore these motives. As seen
by Woods (2004) study, economic drivers are not the only motives for
breaking the rules. Gaining a better understanding of motives will aid the
formation of suitable incentives, which this also study seek to address.

Community rights and involvement
A solution to illegal fishing is the involvement of communities and other
stakeholders in establishment of MPAs. Involving community stakeholders at
the early stages of planning is essential, and gives stakeholders a sense of
ownership, leading to acceptance of regulations and assistance with their
enforcement (Lundquist and Granek, 2005). This approach has been seen as
key to increasing the number of MPAs and improving their long-term success
(Yasue, 2010).

Involving fishers in problem solving exercises associated with fisheries
exploitation, such as illegal fishing makes them active agents for change. They
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
18
understand the issues better and are more likely to support initiatives even if
the measures proposed appear detrimental to them (Lam, 1998). Involving
communities in the establishment and enforcement of MPAs is more cost
effective as, as fishers are more likely to comply with restrictions and also
participate in surveillance (Lam, 1998). This also makes them more cost-
effective and less reliant on government funds (Yasue, 2010). This use of
such bottom-up approaches have become popular in coastal zone
management schemes such as ASEAN/US Coastal Resources Management
Project Gomez, 1997), where resource users are involved in the management
effort (Gomez, 1997).

Cintis (2010) study in the Gulf of Mexico study not only demonstrates these
arguments, but also recognizes that resource rights are needed for the
success MPAs. In this study Cinti (2010), argues that the current licensing
system provided the wrong incentives for sustainable fishing. Fishers
themselves were far too removed from any decision making, leaving this is the
permit holders who tended to be businessmen more concerned with profits
rather than conserving the resources. In an open fishing ground fishers had no
incentive to conserve resources as anything they didnt catch, it was felt would
be caught by someone else. Cinti (2010) argues that the only way to
successfully promote sustainable fishing practices is to grant rights to the
fishers and communities. In this way fishers who are closest to the resources,
would have an incentive to manage their fisheries more sustainably for their
own futures Cinti (2010). It has been recognised that defining and formalizing
access rights is one of the most critical steps in engaging and empowering
local people to manage and defend their resources (Cinti, 2010).

Cinti (2010) discusses that granting exclusive rights has been shown to have
promising results in the Northern Gulf of California, Mexico and territorial use-
rights in fisheries (TURFs) have been shown to promote sustainable harvests
in Chile.

Other studies have been conducted in Cambodias Tonle Sap region, where
fisheries management has been hindered by; lack of enforcement (Lamberts,
2001; Sophat, 2005), lack of attention to public participation, poor local support
and corrupt officials (Sophat, 2005). Here recommendations include; full
access rights for the communities including rights to protect the area from
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
19
illegal fishing (direct enforcement); decentralized local conflict resolution
mechanism; access to education (Sophat, 2005) and diversified economic
alternatives (Kosal, 1998). Initiatives must include collaboration of all
stakeholders for their success (Kosal, 1998).

Tenure
Many South Pacific islands have traditional marine tenure systems or
customary rights. These rights give ownership of near-shore areas and reefs
to local tribes (Lam, 1998). Traditionally these rights were practiced extensively
and management was promoted at the community level, with a communities
fishing grounds extending from the shore to the outside edge of the reef (Lam,
1998, Veitayaki, 1997).

Fishing areas were owned by a clan, family or chief that regulated its use and
those that did not comply would be treated harshly, which was an effective
deterrent. Anyone wishing to use the fishing grounds would seek permission
from the owners (Veitayaki, 1997). Additionally decisions would be based on a
consensus ensuring cooperation of the community and reducing the need for
formal enforcement (Veitayaki, 1997). This traditional system formed part of a
framework that regulates political and social relationships as well as defining
cultural identities (Lam, 1998). They come with centuries of empirical
knowledge of the fishing grounds and their traditional management (Veitayaki,
1997).

Unfortunately, the strong traditional systems have been eroded by the uptake
of contemporary exploitive fishing methods (Veitayaki, 1997; Caillaud, 2004),
breakdown of chiefly authority (Caillaud, 2004; Clarke, 1990; Matthews et al,
1998), the adoption of money-based economies, increasing population
pressures and new political and legal systems. Additionally, a lack of interest in
the young (Caillaud, 2004) and children being educated in schools away from
the tribe, exacerbates the loss of traditional knowledge, which would
historically be passed down from the elders (Clarke, 1990; Matthews et al,
1998). Pacific island communities have however only recently modernized and
still have remnants of traditional management practices, which make them apt
for the restoration of such systems (Veitayaki, 1997). Restoration of the tenure
system not only involves the community stakeholders in the planning, but also
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
20
empowers them to take ownership of managing their own resources (Lam,
1998, Veitayaki, 1997). Restoration of the tenure system also revives features
of their culture and tradition, which are otherwise being lost (Veitayaki, 1997).

Although known as traditional resource management or customary law this
does not mean that they are static. These systems have strong roots in local
history and experience, but their unwritten, uncodified form allows flexibility to
adapt changing circumstances such as political, environmental and economical
ones (Lam, 1998). Traditionally sustainable resource use was easier to
achieve as populations were lower and having a lower consumption capacity
[21] (Veitayaki, 1997). The success of MPAs in tenure systems will depend of
the stakeholders being able to satisfy both their growing sustenance and
economic needs (Lam, 1998). The flexibility and ability to adapt to changing
needs described by Lam (1998) is demonstrated in Bartletts (2010) study in
Vanuatu, where local communities have embraced the input of western
scientific knowledge and adapted it to their own systems to create hybrid ones.
As Lam (1998) proposed, these traditional community based systems are ideal
for such adaptation and it is these hybrid systems that are most successful in
the South Pacific islands (Bartletts, 2010).

The success of such systems is also being demonstrated in Fiji where
customary owners of fishing grounds have banned the use of gillnets and
employed fish wardens to patrol their grounds. These communities are
showing that traditional resource management practice is effective for the
future (Veitayaki, 1997).

Caillaud, (2004) comcludes that recognition by government is needed to
empower traditional laws and that a hybrid of modern law, traditional law and
science is needed along with meaningful stakeholder participation at all stages
(science, planning, legislation and implementation).


GBM01 Lui Hepworth
21
Chapter 2 - Site description

Fi j i background
Fiji is an archipelago in the South Pacific, made up of 844 islands, cays, and
islets (Teh et al, 2009), covering an area of 18,333 sq km (11,385 sq miles)
(FCO, 2011). 106 of these islands are inhabited (Teh et al, 2009) with a
Population of 837,271 (Fiji National Census of Population, 2007) . Suva is the
capital of Fiji and is located on the largest island Viti Levu (FCO, 2011).

Fijis main ethnic groups are Fijian, Indian, European, other Pacific Islanders
and Chinese. English is the official language (FCO, 2011) and the standard
Fijian dialect is Baun, however different regions have their own dialects (C3,
2011c). Hindi is also spoken (FCO, 2011), mainly by Indian decedents.

Ki a Island
This study took place on Kia Island (Kia), which is situated in the Northern
Territory off the north coast of Vanua Levu, Fijis second largest island after Viti
Levu. Kia lies 24km from the mainland with a land area of approximately 2km
2

(C3, 2011c).

In fair sea conditions, Kia is approximately 1.5hrs travel by fiberglass boat with
outboard motor from its main trading town Labasa (Field Notes). Figure 1
shows Kias location.

Figure 2 below shows how the Great Sea Reef envelopes Kia and the islands
position within the Qoliqoli Cokovata (Cokovata Fishing Grounds). The Qoliqoli
Cokovata stretches from the coast of Vanua Levu to the north west seaward
side of the Great Sea Reef (WWF, 2009a). On the map, Marine Protected
Areas are shown in red, the nearest to Kia lies to the west of Ligua and Daku
villages. It is this protected area that is generally being discussed throughout
this study, when interviewees refer to the MPA or the Taboo.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
22

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


Figure 2: Kia Islands location within the Qoliqoli Cokovata fishing grounds.
The Network of Protected Areas are outlined in red. (WWF, 2009)

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
23
The island has a rocky topography with areas exposed to the elements
growing only grasses, but more sheltered areas and valleys are densely
populated with tropical plants.

The island has a total population of 262 split between three villages, which are
located in sandy bays on the coast. Ligau is the original village of Kia and as
the population grew Yaro and Daku villages were formed. C3 are based in the
Yaro village, the largest of the three villages with a population of 143. Ligua
and Daku have populations of 96 and 35 respectively. Household size varies
greatly from 1-15, however not all members may be present at one time as
some may be schooling or married elsewhere (C3, 2011c).

Plate 1 shows the central position of C3s Base in Yaro village.

Plate 1: Photograph of a hand drawn simplified map of Yaro village (not to
scale). C3 Base is labelled C3 (C3, 2011).
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
24
Fi shi ng methods
Kia fishers use a variety of fishing methods including; hand-line, spear gun,
nets, reef gleaning, beche-de-mer diving. Travel to the fishing grounds is by
fiberglass boat with outboard motor (plate 2).


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


GBM01 Lui Hepworth
25
Chapter 4 Methodol ogy

This research project was designed to understand motives for breaking the
fishing conservation rules and regulations and investigate incentives for
following them. The study was conducted in conjunction with Community
Centred Conservation (C3), an international non-profit organization established
in 2002.

C3 has the following mission statement:
To develop conservation efforts worldwide by building the capacity of local
individuals and institutions through grassroots research and training initiatives.

C3 works closely with community resource user groups basing themselves
within the community for the long term (C3, online).

C3 employ staff locally to co-ordinate the programme. On Kia, the Programme
Officer, Maleli Qera co-ordinates research locally while being permanently
based on island. Maleli acts as liaison between C3 and the different
stakeholder groups such as village elders and the Head Mistress of the school.
International interns and Masters students, who must hold relevant
qualifications, join the team on a temporary basis to conduct research projects.
Masters research projects are overseen remotely by C3s Research and
Development Manager, Chris Poonian.

Parti ci patory observati on
During the study period I lived in Yaro Village on Kia following their local
practices and customs, such as cooking Fijian foods, bathing at the ponds,
collecting water and fire wood and attending local church services.

By immersing myself into community life I gained first hand experience of
villagers daily life and its challenges. Adopting their lifestyle enabled better
understanding and empathy to the communitys needs, priorities and
aspirations. Spending significant periods of time with those being studied and
engaging in their everyday life is known as participatory observation. This
method of research acknowledges that the research is an intervention in the
world of those being studied. This intervention is used positively to ensure all
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
26
parties to learn from the process (Pryke et al, 2004). The daily contact I had
with villages also built trust and openness with them. This was seen during
interviews and surveys, as interviewees were relaxed and comfortable and felt
they were able to talk openly about sensitive issues such as illegal fishing.

Proj ect Approach
The overall project approach was to;
Gather literature on fisheries management issues, MPAs, illegal fishing
issues of MPAs and incentives for following the fishing rules and
regulations.
Primary data collection; socioeconomic surveys and semi-structured
interviews with community members.
Data analysis; analyse results from socioeconomic surveys in-line with
SEM-Pacifika guidance. Textual analysis was conducted on the semi-
structured interviews.
Discuss results; Discuss results of the data analysis highlighting
concurrence with literature.
Recommendations; make recommendations for further work.
Conclude findings; Draw overall conclusions from the study.

Surveyi ng Methodol ogy
This research was initiated by conducting socioeconomic surveys following the
SEM-Pacifika guidelines to socioeconomic monitoring (SEM-Pacifika).
Following analysis of these surveys, semi-structure interviews were developed
to explore illegal and restricted fishing in more detail. These surveys were
developed in-line with SEM-Pacifika, while drawing on techniques from other
research literature (such as Mikkelsen, 2005; Pryke et al, 2004; Clifford, 2010).

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
27
SEM-Pacifi ka
SEM-Pacifika socioeconomic monitoring guidelines have been developed for
Pacific sites. Socioeconomic assessment is a method of gathering information
such as cultural, social, economic and political conditions as well as
information on households, groups, communities, organisations and resources.
It is a method of gathering information about individuals and communities and
common topics are; resource use patterns, resource governance,
demographics, stakeholder characteristics and perceptions, local knowledge
and market attributes.

SEM-Pacifika supports participatory, process-orientated assessment, which
encourages stakeholders to be involved in the participatory process and all
learn from it.

Socioeconomic assessments can be used to establish baseline information
and can be repeated over time for monitoring change. By following a standard
set of guidelines, SEM-Pacifika assessment reports can be compared and their
leanings shared with other study sites across the Pacific (Wongbusarakum et
al, 2008). These guidelines are in-line with Global SocMon, which is
implemented at both the global and regional levels (SocMon, 2011)

Data sources
Primary data sources were from socioeconomic surveys conducted with
householders, semi-structured interviews with fishers and field notes.
Secondary data sources were used for background information and included
C3 data and maps sourced from the internet and WWF reports.

Consent and Confi denti ali ty
All survey and interview work was carried out with the permission of the village
elders, which was sought by C3.

In-line with C3s guidance, all surveys and interviews commenced with a
confidentially statement, which sought consent from the participant to use the
information given for research purposes. Consent was also sought to record
Illegal and Restricted Fishing Interviews with a Dictaphone.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
28
Throughout this report names have been replaced with pseudonyms to protect
the identity of individuals.

Translati on
Translation of surveys and interviews was done by the Programme Officer,
Maleli Qera. Maleli is qualified in;
- BA Literature and English Language, University of the South Pacific
- Postgraduate certificate in education, University of the South Pacific

With expertise in;
- Ethnobiology
- Socioeconomic research
- Environmental education

Maleli has 10 years teaching experience followed by working as a research
assistant for USP, including conducting socioeconomic surveys.

Although 300 regional dialects exist, the standard form of Fijian is Bauan (also
known as vosa vakabau or standard Fijian), which is spoken between those
with different dialects (C3, 2011c).

Maleli is from the island of Koro that has its own local dialect. The interviewees
have their own Kian dialect. Interviews were held in Bauan, meaning that
Maleli needed to translate from English into Bauan and translate responses
back into English. On occasion villagers would respond to questions in the
local Kian dialect, complicating the translation process.

There was a great reliance on the translators ability, as textual analysis was to
be carried on the Illegal and Restricted Fishing Interviews. It was extremely
important to ensure accurate translation otherwise meanings maybe lost in
translation. Question were discussed in detail before commencing the
interviews to ensure understanding and avoid frustration (Clifford et al, 2010).

Househol d Survey
The purpose of this survey was to gather socioeconomic data on resource use
patterns, resource governance, demographics, stakeholder characteristics and
perceptions, local knowledge and market attributes.
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
29

Surveys were highly structured and conducted with a representative from each
of the 49 households on the island. See appendix 1 for the complete
Household Survey.

Interviewees were selected based on the following criteria;
Head of the household or most senior person available.
One person from each Household.

Survey questions were asked in English and translated into Bauan. Answers
were given in Bauan and translated back to, and written down in English.

Analysi s
Results were grouped into categories and the percentage of respondents who
noted each problem was calculated. Results were then ranked to display
results in order of greatest importance.

Il l egal and restri cted fi shi ng Key i nformant i nterviews
The purpose of the Illegal and Restricted Fishing Interviews was to ascertain;
peoples understanding of illegal and restricted fishing
why people may need to break the rules
what the advantages and disadvantages of breaking the rules are
what the advantages of following the rules are
ways to incentivizing legal fishing and how to get the whole community
to participate

Semi-structured interview questions were carefully designed to develop an
understanding of peoples motives for breaking the rules, without assigning
blame. Open-ended questions were asked and further probing used as
needed, to divulge further information and make the interview more dynamic
(Mikkelsen, 2005). In some cases a choice of questions or question wording
was available to use dependant on the outcome of the previous question. See
appendix 2 for the complete Illegal and Restricted Fishing Survey.

Interviewee cri teri a
Interviewees were selected based on the following criteria;
Fishers who were experienced and fished on a regular basis.
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
30
Have good knowledge of local fishing areas and practices.
Were originally from Kia and were currently long term residents.
Were available for interview.

Participants were selected to include a range of;
Older fishers (over 30 years old).
Younger fishers (whose ages ranged 22-24 years old).
Women fishers.

16 interviews were conducted in total, with members of each of the three
villages. More interviews took place in the larger villages (table 1).

Tabl e 1: Number and percentage of fi shers i nterviewed from Ki a vil l ages.
Vi l l age
Total
popul ati on
No of
fi shers
No fi shers
i nterviewed
% fi shers
i nterviewed
Daku 35 25 3 12.1
Yaro 131 90 8 8.9
Ligau 96 62 6 9.7

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
31
Translati on
Survey and interview questions were asked in English and translated into
Bauan. Answers were given in Bauan and translated into English with brief
notes being made. Interviews were recorded using a Dictaphone and later
translated into English for full transcription.

Analysi s
Textual analysis was conducted on the interview transcripts;
Sections, phrases or individual words were marked and assigned a
code.
Coded sections were grouped according to themes that emerged.
Themes were organised into important trends, categories and common
elements for discussion (Clifford, 2010).
Quotes that best exemplify the topic are used in the discussion.

Further i nterview techni ques
Before interviews took place, questions were discussed in detail with
Maleli, until a complete understanding of the meaning of each question
was agreed. Results of initial interviews were discussed afterwards and
adjusted where needed to ensure understanding by interviewees.
It was important not to lead interviewees eg by giving examples
(Mikkelsen, 2005)
For their comfort and privacy, interviewees were interviewed in their
own home where possible or in another private location (Mikkelsen,
2005) eg the C3 base or relaxing under a tree.

Feedback to the communi ty
The results from the Illegal and Restricted Fishing Interviews were fed-back to
the community via a two-way presentation (Plate 3). The presentation was held
at the end of a community meeting for the whole island, which ensured good
representation from all villages.

The presentation took the form of prewritten flipcharts containing the results
from the Illegal and Restricted Fishing Interviews. During presentation the
audience was encouraged to ask questions and provide their views. These
responses were captured on additional flip charts, prepared for this purpose.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
32
Cultural traditions were adhered to with grog being drunk by participants during
the presentation.

Plate 3: Presenting results of Illegal and Restricted Fishing
Interviews back to Kia community. In this photo Lui Hepworth (red shirt),
J onathon Syron-Pain (white t-shirt), passing a bowl of grog and Maleli Qura
(green shirt, left).

The presentation was done in English and translated into Baun. Responses
were translated back into English. The presentation was recorded via two
Dictaphones, being worn by the presenter and translator to ensure all
comments were captured.

Fi el d notes
During the course of this study notes were kept regarding;
Informal conversational interviews
Informal key informant interviews
Everyday conversations
Observations made

Informal conversational interviews were unplanned interviews that occurred
during the course of the study (Mikkelsen, 2005). For example these included
conversation which were struck up in a bar or in the waiting queue for the
barbers. These conversations began with locals interested in the purpose of
my visit. These conversations lead on to topics based on my research and
sometimes lead to interviewees discussing their views on the subject. Informal
key informant interviews were carried out when specific information about a
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
33
particular topic was needed. These were carried out with elders of the
community and C3s Programme Officer as required.

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

Li mi tati ons
The scope and depth of this study was limited to the time in the field, which
was three months. This factor was based on my availability and dissertation
deadline. Organising studies in developing countries always takes a lot longer
and extra time must be factored in (Mikkelsen, 2005). Reliance on an
interpreter adds to the organisational time (other difficulties, which caused
delay are discussed below). Once all Household Surveys had been completed,
as many Illegal and Restricted Fishing Interviews were conducted as time
permitted.

Skewi ng of Resul ts and Contenti ous Issues
Presence of C3 in the village will lead to a skewing of results as some
interviewees may be giving answers that they feel C3 want to hear (Mikkelsen,
2005). Recent activities such as rubbish awareness, beach-clean and tree
planting for coastal erosion project will have raised awareness of these issues
shortly before the socioeconomic surveying began. These activities are likely
to have been brought up in surveys far more than if the surveying had taken
place before they took place.

My focus on the contentious issue of illegal fishing led me to be concerned
about how my research could cause tensions between the villagers, jeopardise
C3s position or compromise my own safety. It was important to discuss each
step of the way with Maleli and my more experienced, C3 and University
project supervisors. It was also important to keep a neutral position, not to
assign blame and try to gain understating of the issues faced by empathising
with all parties.

Translati on
While conducting Household questionnaires it appeared that Maleli may be
giving more information than just translating, and I feared he may be leading
interviewees. I discussed with Maleli how well the interviewees were
understanding the questions and if he had to give them examples in order to
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
34
understand. He stated that some English words dont have equivalents in Fijian
and they take a whole sentence or even 2 to explain. He also stated that you
mustnt give examples and that he tries to guide them until he knows that they
understand. This may take a while as sometimes he has explain the question
in several different ways before they understand. Following this conversation I
was confident that Maleli was not leading the interviewees.

Di ffi cul ti es
Internet connection using an internet dongle Flashnet was unreliable and it
was not possible to browse the internet. To overcome this it was best to use an
email client (eg Outlook for PC or Mail for Mac). These send emails without the
need to download graphics heavy webpages. Saving files as reduced PDFs
increased their chances of sending. C3 should however, research possible
alternatives, such as a fixed-line connection.

Electricity supply is unreliable; the generator is scheduled to run for 3-4hrs per
evening (1 galloon of fuel), however villagers not paying their fuel turn and
breakdowns mean that electricity is not provided daily. This could be frustrating
and caused work delays due to lack of lighting or laptop charge. The village
hall and a few houses have solar panels, which work consistently well in the
climate. C3 should invest in solar panels to ensure a daily supply and ease
working conditions.

The relationship with the translator was at times difficult due to the working
relationship and local laid back working attitude. As the interpreter worked for
C3 and not for me it was difficult to exert control on his availability for
translation well go in a minute, could mean anything from half an hour, to
several hours or eventuate into not at all. Unreliable interviewees and
disappearing interpreter frequently added to the frustrations of organising
surveys and interviews. Being English and not liking to shout at people, it took
a long time to realise that if you want something done may need to shout at
people to get it done. After observing Maleli organising locals, I learnt that this
is not at all rude and quite the normal way of communicating to get things
done.

Grog drinking is a traditional custom in Fiji and on Kia it is drunk most
evenings. Grog is made from the root of the yagona plant, which is pounded
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
35
and mixed with water. The resulting mixture is strained through cloth before
being drunk. Grog is drunk during meetings and social occasions and its
effects are soporific. When drinking grog regularly I found it hard to get
motivated the next day. It is difficult to refuse drinking grog as it is such a part
of the culture. I found that this can be combated by drinking smaller amounts
low tide and not drinking every round.

Interruptions are frequent and C3 interns are still a novelty on the island, with
villagers frequently coming into the base to chat. Being firm and letting
villagers know that you will join them after finishing work appeases their
curiosity. Headphones are essential for concentration as shouting is a usual
form of communication.

With all the limitations, difficulties and frustrations that were part of everyday
life, the most important virtue was patience.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
36
Chapter 5 - Results and Di scussi on
Importance of fishi ng
Table 2 displays households primary and secondary incomes as revealed by
the Household Survey. It can be seen that fishing was recorded as the primary
income in 82% of Kian households and the secondary income in 8%. These
findings are consistent with the literature which finds that coastal fisheries
account for more than 80% of livelihood activities for Fijians (Institute of
Applied Sciences, 2009).

Employed jobs on the island represent the primary income for 14% of
households and the secondary income for 4%. Of these; teaching, nursing and
working as a pastor all require a higher level of education and qualifications,
which are beyond the level of most fishers on Kia. These roles are filled by
individuals originating from outside of Kia (Field Notes). Other sources of
income such as running a shop, canteen or selling goods such as pastries,
cigarettes and grog are mostly sources of secondary income (2% of primary
incomes and 14% of secondary), as they do not bring in as much money as
fishing (Field Notes). Incomes that make use of the land; farming, selling pigs
and weaving mats (using pandanus leaves grown on the island) only represent
12% of secondary incomes and are not used as primary incomes.

Other secondary incomes included:
Hiring out fishing boat
Paid army weekends
Remittances
Social welfare

These incomes rely on either having the money to buy a boat, army
experience, family or health circumstances and therefore may not be
immediately available as alternative incomes for fishers.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
37
Tabl e 2: Househol d Survey Resul ts: Pri mary and secondary sources of
i ncome.
Income
Percentage
Pri mary (%)
Percentage
Secondary (%)
Fishing 82 8
School teacher 4
School Teacher (wife) 4
Nursing (wife) 2 2
Working for Gold Hold
Company 2 2
Having a shop 2
Hires out fishing boat 2
Work as pastor 2
None 49
Small canteen/selling,
cigarettes, grog, pastries 14
Farming 6
Selling pigs 4
Fishing and selling grog 2
Paid army weekends 2
Remittances 2
Social welfare 2
Weaving mats 2
Fishing and remittances. 2
Selling grog, has small
canteen and own private
fishing company 2
Total 100 100

During the Household Surveys interviewees commonly stated that it was
important to protect the marine resources, as they are their main source of
income. Laakeas comment echoes these beliefs;
It is everybodys duty to see to the protection of marine resources as it
is providing everything eg education, vanua
1
and church. Laakea

These Household Survey results demonstrate the limited number of alternative
incomes the community has and how heavily reliant they are on fishing.


1
The meaning of vanua is land; a holistic view of the land, people, leadership
and social structures.
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
38
The threat of illegal and environmentall y unfriendly fishing
methods

Household Survey results showed that illegal and environmentally unfriendly
fishing methods were perceived as major threats to the communitys main
livelihood. When asked to list the five most major threats to the coastal and
marine resources of Kia, a number of illegal and environmentally unfriendly
fishing methods were raised. These were;

Night divers
Compressor diving
Poachers
Catching endangered species
Catching undersized
Nets
Poisonous Vine
Environmentally unfriendly fishing gear/methods
Dynamite
Illegal fishing
Catching spawning fish
Extraction of live coral

The illegal fishing methods revealed by Kia fishers is consistent with those
reported in Fiji by Hunt (1999), Teh (2009) and Veitayaki (1997).

When all Illegal and environmentally unfriendly fishing methods are grouped,
this issue ranks the highest Perceived Threat to Coastal and Marine
Resources (table 3). Some interviewees even listed more than one illegal or
environmentally unfriendly fishing method within their five most major threats,
leading the total percentage to be higher than 100%.

Interestingly, when asked about Coastal and Marine Management Problems
(table 4), the top three issues related to lack of monitoring, to uphold the rules
and regulations of fishing. The fourth highest ranked was Illegal and
unfriendly fishing methods (results of different methods combined). These
results show that the highest areas of concern for coastal and marine
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
39
management are illegal and restricted fishing and the lack of its prevention by
monitoring. These results combined with the Perceived Threats results, show
how great a concern the community has for these practices.



GBM01 Lui Hepworth
40
Tabl e 3. Househol d Survey Resul ts: Perceived threats to the coastal and
mari ne resources of Ki a.
Threat summary
Percentage
of threats
raised (%)
Percentage of
interviewees*
(%)
Illegal and environmentally unfriendly fishing 32.8 161.2
Dumping of rubbish 16.2 79.6
Hurricanes / Cyclones 7.9 38.8
Over-fishing 7.9 38.8
Anchor, polling, fishing hooks damage coral 5.4 26.5
Outboard motor / Oil spillage 3.7 18.4
Pig pens by coast / pig waste - eutrophication 2.9 14.3
Outboard motor / noise pollution 2.1 10.2
Storm surges / spring tides / Tsunami / strong
waves 2.1 10.2
Burning 1.7 8.2
Changing weather / Climate change 1.7 8.2
Coastal erosion 1.7 8.2
Many boats - pollution / damage 1.7 8.2
Increase in temperature 1.2 6.1
Spear gun 1.2 6.1
Abuse of fishing grounds / resources 0.8 4.1
Cutting down of trees / Deforestation 0.8 4.1
Fish Wardens 0.8 4.1
Lagoon getting shallower 0.8 4.1
Change in wave action - higher and stronger 0.4 2.0
Coral death 0.4 2.0
Damage from large vessels 0.4 2.0
Disappearing of marine species 0.4 2.0
Forestry treatment process 0.4 2.0
Goldhold - bad for environment and health 0.4 2.0
Light from the village generator 0.4 2.0
Over-population 0.4 2.0
People not respecting each other 0.4 2.0
Reef gleaners break coral when walking on reef. 0.4 2.0
Soil sedimentation due to bad weather 0.4 2.0
Too many fishermen 0.4 2.0
Too many outboard motor 0.4 2.0
Too much grog 0.4 2.0
Use of herbicides on land 0.4 2.0
Waste from mainland 0.4 2.0
Total 100.0 491.8
* Note: Percentage of interviewees totals more than 100% as interviewees
raised more than one threat.
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
41
Tabl e 4. Househol d Survey Resul ts: Perceived Coastal and Mari ne
Management Probl ems
Management Probl em Summary Total
Percentage of
probl ems
raised %
Percentage of
i nterviewees* %
Fish Wardens not doing job 28 29 57
Fish Wardens/community - lack of
funding/facilities to monitor 16 16 33
Authorities not monitoring/providing
facilities 14 14 29
Illegal and unfriendly fishing methods 12 12 24
Community members not
participating 7 7 14
Lack of environmental knowledge /
communication 4 4 8
Dumping of rubbish 3 3 6
Provincial chief 3 3 6
Abusing ocean 1 1 2
Communication between fishing
wardens and authorities. 1 1 2
Fisheries management not effective 1 1 2
Fishermen - lack of knowledge 1 1 2
Fishing ground owned generally 1 1 2
Goldhold right in village 1 1 2
Loss of coastal trees 1 1 2
Over-fishing 1 1 2
Too far from authorities 1 1 2
Too many fishing licences given 1 1 2
Too much grog 1 1 2
Total 98 100 200
* Note: Percentage of interviewees totals more than 100% as interviewees
raised more than one threat.

How illegal and environmentally unfriendly fishing methods are threats to the
marine resources, was revealed by the Illegal and Restricted Fishing
Interviews. Reasons given were:

Nets catch any species and size
Undersized and spawning fish are caught before they reproduce
Dragging nets and dynamite damage the reefs/fish habitats
Night divers torchlight can kill corals
If the taboo/MPA is broken they wont receive its benefits
Endangered species like turtles and humphead wrasse will become
extinct
Poisonous vine kills all species present
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
42
Compressor diving allows beche-de-mer to be taken from deep water
before reaching maturity

These actions will lead to;
A decrease in the fish population and other marine species
Future generations not benefiting

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

Although illegal and environmentally unfriendly fishing methods are seen as a
major threat, some members of the community continue to break the rules.

Peoples motivations for breaking the rules were uncovered by the Illegal and
Restricted Fishing Interviews, which revealed the main themes to be;
Economic
Monitoring and enforcement
Social and cultural aspects

Economic

Background
Fijis economy is based on small internal markets inhibiting economies of scale
and delivering few employment opportunities. Fijis remote location inhibits
trade and the islands economies are vulnerable to climate change and natural
disasters (World Bank, 2011).

Coups in 2000 and 2006, plunge the country into economic decline; tourism
dropped, business confidence collapsed, and many skilled Indo-Fijians
emigrated. Heavy flooding in 2009 further damaged the fragile economy as
crops and infrastructure were damaged. Flood relief assistance is being
provided, however Fijis relationship with key external partners is strained as
restoration of full bilateral relations depend on its return to democracy (World
Bank, 2011). Although elections have been proposed for 2014 (Field Notes),
the interim Prime Minister has confirmed that elections will not take place until
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
43
his regimes People Charter is adopted (World Bank, 2011). Investment is
likely to remain constrained due to the political uncertainty (FCO, 2011). Food
and fuel account for nearly half Fijis merchandise imports and its current
account deficit is vulnerable to rising fuel and food prices in 2011 (FCO, 2011).

Kias remote location means that it is dependant on the cost of fuel for fishing
and transport. On a typical day fishers can make F$50-80, of this F$15 will go
towards shared fuel costs. The fuel cost for a return trip to Labasa on the
mainland to trade fish or buy supplies is F$120 and this cost is usually spread
between boat occupants (Field Notes).

A limited amount of vegetables are grown on the island. In previous times
more crops were grown on the island, however continuous slash and burn
techniques left the island barren. Cassava is the main crop grown, which
thrives in arid and low nutrient conditions. The island appears to have mostly
recovered over time and is now well covered with vegetation (Field Notes).
Other food supplies such as sugar, flour, rice and other vegetables need to be
purchased and transported from the mainland as well as most housing
materials (Field Notes). Currently Kia District School in Ligua teaches students
up to the age of 13 years old. Students wishing to continue schooling must do
so in Labasa incurring the cost of school fees, materials and boarding (Field
Notes).

There is one nursing station for the island, located in Yaro Village, with a
registered nurse, who works directly for the Government and two Village
Health Workers to assist her (C3, 2011c). Any treatments that cannot be dealt
with by the nursing station require travel to the hospital in Labasa and usually
incur treatment costs (Field Notes).

Economic reasons for breaking the rules and regulations
Throughout the Restricted and Illegal Fishing interviews, economic gain was
the most dominant theme as to why it is necessary for some people to break
the rules, why it is more widespread now and as an advantage of illegal
fishing. These findings concur with, studies conducted in the Seychelles
(Wood, 2004) and Philippines (Heuer, 2008), that found the primary motive for
illegal fishing to be economic.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
44
Most importantly, interviewees revealed that;
They cannot meet their daily needs by fishing legally.
People were desperate for money as the cost of living is higher now
days

Heuers (2009), finding that a motive for illegal fishing was that fishers received
insufficient catch by fishing legally, is consistent with the finding that some Kia
fishers feel they cannot meet their daily needs by fishing legally. Heuer (2009)
also found that fishers had a direct need to fish illegally. Heuers (2009) study
does provide further detail of this direct need, however perhaps like the Kian
fishers; people were desperate for money as the cost of living is higher now
days. Further research is needed in the Panoan Islands to determine
underlying motives for illegal fishing.

Vaino highlights this high cost of living;

Times are hard and sugar is expensive. The Government of the day has
increased the food prices very fast. Vaino

Sugar is one of Fijis major industries (FCO, 2011) with its price referenced as
a benchmark against the cost of living. In recent years its cost has risen from
$2-3kg to $9kg (Field Notes).

Other main reasons for breaking the rules and regulations were:
To get money
Meet their daily needs
To provide for the family, education and housing
Commitments to the vanua, the church and the Government.

Directly translated Vanua means land, however its meaning is a holistic view
of the land, people, leadership and social structures (Field Notes). Here
economic commitments to the Vanua include providing for the familys needs
(discussed below), and looking after the land and the community eg money
collections for a new village generator or fuel to run the existing one. All
villages must pay a monthly subscription to the church and additional
collections are done during services or for additional church events (Field
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
45
Notes). Commitments to the government relate to taxes paid on goods, which
are seen to be high (Field Notes).

Meeting daily needs and providing for the family, education and housing are all
economic factors, as discussed above. Fish is caught for sustenance and is
eaten nearly every day (Household Consumption Surveys) however, an
average 79% of fish caught is sold (Household surveys), showing that more
fish are caught for money than subsistence. Other marine goods such as
beche-de-mer are caught purely for monetary gain (Household surveys). It
has been reported report that over 70% of recorded catch from coastal
fisheries in Fiji is sold for income(Institute of Applied Sciences, 2009). (WWF,
2009b). The percentage of catch sold by Kia fishers appears to be higher than
this average. This may be due to the lack of alternative incomes available,
however further research would be needed to ascertain the reasons behind
this disparity.

The money earned from fishing is used to meet the daily and familys needs.
The want money was clearly demonstrated by a local fisherman after catching
a baby Humhead Wrasse. He confirmed that he knew it was endangered and
illegal to catch. When asked why a he had caught it, his reason was simply
money (Field Notes).

There was a strong feeling that the fish buyers being located on the shores of
Kia were encouraging fishers to fish more regularly as money is easily
available on a daily basis. The high price paid for beche-de-mer makes it more
highly sought after and therefore encourages its over-fishing. Vaino shares his
feelings on the effects the fishing company has;

The presence of the fishing company is slowly turning the fishing ground into
a desert. People go out and get in whatever they can to sell to the company. It
will be even worse in years. The fishing company encourages people to break
the rules in order to get more fish and more money Because of the
presence of the fishing company their fishing ground is turned into a
commercial commodity. If there was no company, they wouldnt be bothered
about getting draudrau in numbers. As they can only get one draudrau and
share it among the whole village. - Vaino

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
46
The fishing company was also listed by two interviewees in the Household
Survey as a Perceived Management problem and a Perceived Threat.

Interestingly another economic issue was that people did not know how to
manage funds and therefore needed to get money daily. It was frequently said
in conversation that even when fishers make good money eg $150, by the next
day they have spent it all (Field Notes). Additionally, this lack of money
management puts extra pressure on the marine resources at times like
Christmas where extra money is needed (Field Notes). Household Survey
results support this finding with, Mismanagement of funds being stated by 5%
of interviewees, as a Perceived Community Problem.

It was also felt that the presence of the fishing company on the shores of Kia
exacerbated this problem as money readily available daily as Tabbebo
discusses;

Because money is coming to the shore. Before go to Labasa. Have to charge
the boat have to bring the boat. Now money right in front of you in the shore.
Because the buyers are right in your Coro. Dont have to pay fuel, dont have
to go far to sell your products. - Tabbebo

Corruption
Corruption was also implicated as a reason for illegal fishing with talk of
provincial chiefs accepting money from companies to fish using illegal
methods, keeping most of the money from tourist ventures and keeping money
given by WWF in return for local tribes not fishing in MPAs (Household Survey;
Field Notes). Officials in government departments have also been implicated in
fishing in the MPA themselves (Feedback Presentation) and accepting bribes
to turn a blind eye to fishing companies conducting illegal practices (Household
Survey; Illegal Fishing Interviews; Field Notes).

Corruption also said to play a part in Woods (2004) study that found it
prevented regulation being imposed uniformly and large complexes were
allowed to cause damage to reef.These allegations of corruption are consistent
with those documented in the literature by Hanich and Tsamenyi (2009), who
report corruption at many levels including senior officials and Fisheries
Ministers. They report the areas where impacts are most common to be; in the
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
47
issuing of licences; giving access rights; and turning a blind eye to during
monitoring and inspection.

Economic benefits of breaking the rules and regulations
The greatest benefits of breaking the rules and regulations are its increased
economic benefits;
There are more species, present in greater numbers in the MPA.
Methods such as night diving or fishing from the MPA are quicker and
easier than legal fishing methods, bringing in money more quickly.
Illegal methods such as net fishing bring in a greater catch.
Illegal species are bigger in size, so bring in more money

Wood (2004) and Heuer et al (2008) also founds that fishers fished in the
MPAs as there were more species present and it was easier to get a larger
catch.

Paahana discusses the problems faced by families and ease of fishing in the
MPA;

In my opinion maybe its the problems each family faces. There is not enough
money and people steal from the MPA. Most of the families are desperate and
they find it hard. Especially those that live in town areas. Cost of living is
higher. But even here on the island, people are also taking from the no go
zone. They are getting good money from fishing from the MPA, because there
are plenty of fish there. This is in comparison to fishing from unrestricted areas.
- Paahana

The benefits of net fishing are highlighted by Aakav, a net fisherman;

People break the law because they have so much to do for the vanua, the
church and the Government. As my field is the net fishing, I think using the net
is the only way to solve these problems as we can catch a lot of fish in one go
and get a lot of money. Aakav

Economic benefits of following the rules and regulations
Economic reasons were also stated as benefits of following the rules and
regulations and as incentives for legal fishing. These were;
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
48

More species, in greater numbers and bountiful supplies of marine
resources.
It will be easier to fish and wont have to go as far, saving on fuel
money.
More money and increased livelihoods.
The benefits will also passed on to future generations.

Laakea discusses the benefits to the village of following the MPA restrictions;

One good thing is for instance the MPA, if we follow the rules there will be
more species found and during harvesting periods we will harvest more. When
we are following the rules and regulations we will see the results in our village.
There will be a lot of money and increase in livelihoods. - Lui

Economic vs conservation

Few interviewees gave conservation reasons for following the rules and
regulations for the benefit of conservation. Some interviewees raised that; fish
and other marine species that were absent will re-appear in their fishing
ground, endangered species will be saved, and that they will have a healthy
marine eco-system. Seikz discusses some of the conservation aspects;

Most species which are absent for quite sometime, will return. We will have a
healthy reef. The marine species will be more healthy and pretty. - Seikz

This theme however, was weak in comparison to following the rules and
regulations for economic reasons. Discussion focussed far more on healthier
resources, bountiful supplies and other economic benefits as opposed to
conservation aspects, such as healthier eco-system. These results support
Bartletts (2009) review that Pacific islanders motivations for establishing MPAs
is not due to an abstract biological conservation concept Bartletts (2009).
Motives are partly grounded in food security as study proposes, however the
far greater motivation, appears be monetary reasons (as discussed above).
These results are therefore in contrast to Bartletts (2009) study, which found
that motivations for establishing MPAs in Vanuatu were mostly conservation-
orientated.
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
49

Traditionally, Kia fishers fished for their own sustenance or fished for the
provincial chief when called to do so for events or gatherings. The islanders
grew crops and were mostly self-sufficient, bartering with other tribes for any
additional needs (Field Notes). It appears that money has become an
important part of everyday needs and islanders rely on fishing to earn it. These
findings support (Matthews et al, 1998) view that the adoption of money-based
economies has contributed in the erosion of the once strong traditional
systems.

Economic incentives to follow the rules and regulations
Economic incentives (after education and awareness) were the second most
popular theme as ways of incentivizing legal fishing.
The main suggestions were;
Government or NGOs to provide cash/other rewards for people who
flow the rules and regulations.
Fish Wardens to monitor giving cash rewards.
Government to provide village boat and fuel to help monitor the fishing
grounds.
To benefit the future generations

It is unlikely/unrealistic that the Government or NGOs would provide cash
incentives to encourage people to follow the law and such rewards would have
to be significantly large if they are to compete with the gains of illegal fishing.

Additionally the suggestion that this be monitored by the Fish Wardens once
they have undertaken refresher courses is dubious due to the lack of integrity
of some (as discussed in section: Enforcement and monitoring).

As an incentive to legal fishing, Laakea suggested an increase in fish and
beche-de-mer prices to make it easier to follow the rules and regulations due
to the increased value of their legal catches. Unfortunately, beche-de-mer is
already heavily fished due to its high value, and therefore increasing its price is
likely to encourage more people to harvest it, thus exacerbating the problem.

Many interviewees stated that future generations would not benefit if people
continue to break the rules and regulations. It was discussed that the benefits
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
50
to future generations should be used as an incentive for legal fishing and to get
the whole community to participate, as Ashmita states;

Encourage or beg them not to break the rules for our future generations. And
we should do this everyday. - Ashmita

Enforcement and monitoring

Background
The Government department responsible for monitoring and enforcing the
rules and regulations of fishing is the Fisheries Department. The operational
cost of the fisheries department far outweigh the revenues it generates (F$2.22
million and F$0.31 million in 1997 respectively) (Hunt, 1999) and it has been
said that lack of funds hamper its ability to prevent illegal fishing (Hunt, 1999).

Traditionally, fishing areas were owned by a clan, family or chief that regulated
its use and those that did not comply would be treated harshly, which was an
effective deterrent. Anyone wishing to use the fishing grounds would seek
permission from the owners (Veitayaki, 1997). On Kia, local rules are debated
in community meetings and agreed by consensus (Field Notes). As rules are
decided upon by consensus this ensures cooperation of the community and
reduces the need for formal enforcement (Veitayaki, 1997). Unfortunately,
these strong traditional systems have been eroded by the uptake of
contemporary exploitive fishing methods (Veitayaki, 1997), breakdown of
chiefly authority (Cauillaud, 2004; Clarke, 1990), the adoption of money-based
economies, increasing population pressures and new political and legal
systems (Matthews et al, 1998). To exacerbate this problem, Kia does not
have an official chief (Tui Kia) installed for the whole island. The Tui Kia rules
over the whole island and takes responsibility for the head village Ligua as well
as Daku. The chief of Yaro (Tui Yaro) falls under his authority. Traditionally, the
title of chief is passed down to the next eldest brother or eldest son. On Kia
however, when the last chief passed away in the late 80s, he did not have a
living son or brother to take up the title. Currently the previous chiefs adopted
son is acting Tui Kia. There has been talk of officially installing him as Tui Kia,
however as this goes against tradition, discussions have continued for many
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
51
years, leaving the island without an officially recognised chief for over 20 years
(Field Notes).

During the installation of the MPA, WWF recruited Fish Wardens from the local
community to be responsible for monitoring the fishing rules and regulations. It
is their duty to uphold the rules and report anyone that breaks them to the
authorities. It is said that WWF also agreed to provide facilities such as a boat
and fuel to help the Fish Wardens carry out their duties. Unfortunately these
facilities were not provided, and the Government stopped giving fuel money for
monitoring purposes (Field Notes).

Enforcement and monitoring reasons for breaking the rules and
regulations
Lack of enforcement and monitoring was another strong theme, highlighting
that;
Fish wardens are not carrying out their duties.
The authorities rarely monitor the fishing grounds.
The laws are not strict on Kia.
It is difficult to report people breaking the law as everyone is related.

Within this theme, Fish Wardens not carrying out their duties was the most
strongly stated reason for people breaking the rules and regulations. The Fish
Wardens role is seen as crucial in the monitoring process. The Household
survey results give further evidence for this problem. 'Fish Wardens not doing
their job' was the highest perceived coastal and marine management problem,
raised by 57% of interviewees (Household Surveys). The second highest
perceived coastal and marine management problem in the Household
Surveys, raised by 33% of interviewees was that Fish Wardens/the community
do not have the facilities eg boat and fuel to monitor the fishing grounds
(Household Surveys).

To combat these issues, a number of interviewees suggested that Fish
Wardens should attend refresher courses to remind them of their duty in
monitoring the fishing grounds. In both the Household Surveys and the
Restricted and Illegal Fishing Interviews, interviewees suggested the
Government or NGOs should provide these facilities to help the monitoring
process. In contrast to this, other results from the Household Surveys and
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
52
Restricted and Illegal Fishing Interviews, suggest that it is more a problem of
attitude or want of self-gain that is preventing the Fish Wardens doing their job,
rather than a lack of knowledge or understanding of their role. One Household
Survey respondent even stated that the Fisheries department used to give fuel
money for monitoring but the Fish Wardens used it for their own use eg fishing
(Household Survey). Additionally, not having a boat or fuel provided does not
explain why the Fish Wardens dont monitor the fish buyers operating on the
shores of Kia.

It may be that Fish Wardens have little incentive to carry out their duty as they
are not paid and also find it hard to report people, as they are related. The
population of Kia originated from one family and marriage within the
community is common meaning that most people are closely related (Field
Notes). Some of the Fish Wardens are also Fish Buyers for the fishing
company and are commonly known to be buying endangered species and
undersized fish themselves. This could be because it is difficult for them to turn
away fish caught by relatives, who are desperate for money, but could also be
for want of self-gain.

Fish Buyers buying endangered and undersized species encourages fishers to
catch them (Cinti, 2010) and Fish buyers undertaking the Fish Warden role
represents a conflict of interest, as they are self-monitoring. Niteshni feels that
if Fish Wardens are not carrying out their duties or are carrying out illegal
activities themselves, they should be changed for people interested in
conservation;

The fish wardens have every right to make people to follow these rules and
regulations. For example, see if the people follow illegal fishing methods and if
the fish wardens are not active they should be changed. It is important that
they put up people who are really interested in conservation work. If the Fish
Wardens are not following their work properly, they should stop. I mean resign
and let other people take over. Like people who are interested in marine
conservation work. - Niteshni

Many interviewees stated that the authorities rarely monitor the fishing grounds
around Kia and this may be due to Kias remote location. Results from the
household survey also raised that the authorities didnt monitoring or provide
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
53
facilities as a Coastal and Marine Management Problem raised by 29% of
interviews. Reasons for not monitoring the fishing grounds may be due to a
lack of funds available (Hunt, 1999). This point was raised by a Labasa Police
Officer during the presentation of results to the community. He stated that the
Police lack facilities to monitor meaning that the government doesnt have the
funds. He asked that if NGOs can help with the monitoring that would help
them (Feedback Presentation).

Laws not being strict on Kia may relate to the breakdown of chiefly authority
described by (Matthews et al, 1998) and lack of official Tui Kia, leading to rules
and regulations not being enforced locally. This lack of authority and respect
was highlighted as a community problem during the Household Surveys:

No chief for island, so no proper respect. If there was a chief they would
respect. Temo

Traditional ties are affected because they don't have a chief installed. 1)
Vanua (land - holistic view land, people leadership, social structures). No
traditional title has been installed as Tui Kia, therefore the whole land has lost
its values and people are not following their structured roles. There is no sense
of direction. 2) Lotu (The Church) Because of above, church obligations are
also not carried out fully, there is no sincere Christian and people take things
lightly. - Mathias

It is not only difficult for Fish Wardens to report people because they are
related, but also for other members of the community, which exacerbates the
problem.

Enforcement and Moni tori ng Incenti ves to Fol l ow The Rul es and
Regul ati ons
Fish Buyers refusing to buy them was raised as key solution to encourage
people to follow the rules and regulations. Other solutions included;
That people who break the law should be reported and an investigation
done up the purchasing chain
The youth to take courses and help with monitoring
For people to tell others on the spot not to break the rules

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
54
Lovoti demonstrates telling others on the spot ;

Like for example if you are out fishing and you see people fishing in the MPA,
you should tell them on the spot like this, its not allowed to fish from the MPA,
its not allowed. Come away from the fishing ground, from the MPA. Lovoti

As the laws are not strict on the island and it is difficult to report relatives, some
interviewees suggested;

The Government should send a representative to come and stay on the island
as an official monitor. And work together with the fish wardens on the island in
carrying out the rules and regulations. - J oel

Unfortunately, with a Government lacking the funds and monitoring already
scarce, it is unlikely they would fulfil this role. Additionally, with such corruption
apparently common place, it is debatable how long the integrity of a
government official on the islands would last.

An incentive for outsiders not to fish in Kias fishing grounds however, comes
from a story of a recent conflict. Kia islanders who spotted night divers, loaded
up their boats with stones and went out to confront and throw stones at them.
The conflict resulted in a fight and subsequent court case (Field Notes). This
method of self-policing has however had an impact, as one Labasa resident
tells;

I dont think poaching is a problem in their grounds. We dont go there as they
will throw stones at our boats. - Labasa Businessman

With Kias insularity and authorities under-funded, it appears this self-policing
may have a greater impact on deterring outsiders from Kias fishing grounds
than official enforcement.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
55
Social and Cultural Aspects

Background
The island has one primary school, Kia Island District School, which has four
teachers, including one that acts as the Head (C3, 2011c). The school takes
students aged 6-13 years old (classes 1-8). Students wishing to continue study
must pass a national exam and attend high school on the mainland, incurring
the cost of school fees, materials and boarding. The high school teaches up to
the age of 18 (form 3-7). If students fail the national exam they must repeat the
year and re-sit the exams. It is said that most of the boys that fail don!t want to
re-sit and stay in the village to fish. From those that pass the exams, many end
up staying in the village to fish as the parents cannot afford to send them to
school on the mainland. Of those that gain a higher education, most do not
return to Kia and instead get married on the mainland or gain employment
there. This has lead to a low level of education on the island (Field Notes).
Additionally, it is believed that children being educated in schools away from
the tribe, has exacerbated the loss of traditional knowledge, which would
historically be passed down from the elders (Matthews et al, 1998). In the past
NGOs have held conservation workshops on the island, but these have been
infrequent and many islanders do not attend them (Field Notes).

Apart from one Catholic family in Kia, all others are Methodist and all practice
their religion. (C3, 2011c). Religion plays a large part in the life and beliefs of
the Kian people. Each of the three villages has its own church and with the
exception of Friday, services are held daily with two services on Saturdays and
Sundays, and an additional choir practice Sunday morning (Field Notes).

Educational reasons for breaking the rules and regulations
Lack of education or awareness frequently came up as a reason for people not
following the rules and regulations. Reasons included;
Lack of education or understanding.
Ignorant of the law.
Not attending workshops.
Not interested.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
56
Ravi, a school teacher from Kia District School highlighted that the high
number of school dropouts puts pressure on the marine resources as those
leaving tended to stay on the island to fish. This, he felt leads to a decrease in
fish population and a therefore a greater need to break the rules to cater for
their needs;

Because the cost of living is high and there are a lot of school dropouts.
Maybe there are a lot of fishermen when they drop out and there are not a lot
of fish to catch. Unemployment, no job. They have no source of money, so in
order to attend to family needs they have to break the rules. - Ravi

It was also said that those attending workshops dont always feedback what
they have learnt to the community or when they do, it is not understood by the
villagers. Niteshni highlights this point;

The problem lies with the people who represent the village at the workshops.
When they come back they do not relay the message they have learnt back to
the people. And that is why many people dont understand. Sometimes
representative come back and convey the message to the people which
cannot be understood by them. - Niteshni

People not having licences was highlighted as a reason for not knowing the
rules as the rules and regulations, as illegal practices and legal fish sizes are
given on the license. These comments are directed to outsiders rather than the
islanders as the Kia fishers have fishing licences (Field Notes). These findings
are consistent with the findings of previous studies where a low level of
education (Wood, 2004) and lack of awareness amongst fishers (Heuer et al,
2008) exacerbates the problems of illegal fishing. Additionally as discussed,
the low education level of fishers makes it harder for them to gain alternative
livelihoods. This finding is consistent with Woods (2004) findings that no
alternative income was available to poachers due to their lower education.

In opposition to these views, about two thirds of the interviewees stated that
people do understand the importance and benefits of following the fishing rules
and regulations, but some still break them. Strengthening this view:
All interviewees demonstrated good understanding of illegal and
restricted fishing practices during the interview.
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
57
All interviewees for the Household Surveys had a good knowledge of
coastal and marine resources and a positive conservation attitude.
General discussions with people during the study also revealed that
they were aware of the rules and regulations (Field Notes).

The benefits of MPAs listed by interviewees were consistent with those
documented in the literature by Lam (1998), Lauck et al (1998) and Gell and
Roberts (2003). It therefore appears that most people do know the fishing rules
and regulations and have a good understanding of the reasons behind them.
These finding are in contrast to Heuer et als (2008) who found fishers to be
unsure of many illegal practices and didnt consider fishing in the MPA to be
illegal even though it is not allowed

Perhaps some Kia fishers do not fully understand the reasons behind the
fishing rules and regulation and therefore dont see the benefit of following,
however others are fully aware but still choose to break them.

Educational incentives to follow the rules and regulations
When asked to provide ways of incentivizing legal fishing and getting the whole
community to participate, the most common theme, stated by all interviewees
was increasing education and awareness. Ideas included;
More workshops by NGOs
Discussion in community meetings
Teach youths in schools
Discussions in social groups such as the youth, womens, mens and
church groups
Preached and pray for in church
Hold a community fun day.

One drawback of community meetings is that they can last for several hours
and participants get tired and lose interest towards the end (Field Notes),
therefore as Kitaek points out, discussions on the rules and regulations of
fishing should be included in the main agenda;

OK back to village meetings. If its brought up in village meetings, things like
this come up as other matters towards the end of the meeting. This issue
should not come under other matters but be part of the main agenda. Telling
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
58
people on the spot should also be a priority. - Kitaek

Other more informal media suggested were;
Talk in yaqona (grog) sessions.
With the family.
While relaxing under the trees.
For individuals to tell others on the spot not to break the rules if seen
doing so.

These results have found that the lack of education and awareness exacerbate
the problem of illegal fishing. These results are also consistent with Woods
(2004) study that found that lack of education exacerbated the problem and
Heuers (2009) study that found lack of awareness as the secondary reason for
illegal fishing.

A positive outcome from these results however, show that there are many
opportunities available to engage the community to address this.

Attitude
As well as the attitude of the fish wardens, the attitude of the people was also a
theme as to why people break the rules and regulations. A number of
interviewees stated that some fishers;
Were exercising their rights as owners of fishing ground.
Dont have any pride for their resources.
Are arrogant, selfish or just dont want to follow the rules.
Believe there are too many restricted areas and not enough un-
restricted area

Niteshni impersonated the attitude shown by some fishers;
Some people have the attitude that they own the fishing grounds. We own
these fishing grounds. Who are these people to come and put a taboo area
here? - Niteshni

This attitude towards the law by those that do not follow the rules is consistent
with Woods (2004) study that found that non-poaches say poachers have a
lack of respect for the law. Rule breaking by some individuals may encourage
others to follow them and can also create animosity between villagers. Kitaek
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
59
raises this point and suggests following the rules and regulations as a solution
for eliminating animosity;

There are 2 kinds of people here. There are some people who still follow the
rules and regulations and there are others that dont care about the rules. For
example the MPA, some people respect the laws concerning the MPA and
other people dont. Sometimes it creates animosity between the people. If all
the people follow the rules then there will be no animosity and we will have a
healthy marine eco-system throughout the island. - Kitaek

With regards to incentives and community participation, he also suggested a
change in attitude for the Fish Wardens;

Fish Wardens , they must change their attitudes and do their work properly in
monitoring the marine eco-system. - Kitaek

Surprisingly, during this interview we were informed that a humphead wrasse
had just been brought in. Kitaek who is a Fish Warden himself, did not bat an
eyelid to this news, before ironically making the above statement. Consistent
with Woods (2004) study, some believe there are too many restricted areas
and not enough un-restricted areas left to fish in. Wood (2004) also found that
some fishers didnt feel that they were receiving the benefits of spill-over and
therefore had little faith in MPA establishment. Wood also found that some
fishers believed that MPAs were for tourists and displaced fishers from their
fishing grounds. These finding however, did not come to light in this study or in
Heuer et als (2008).

It seems that whether or not individuals understand the fishing rules and
regulations, there are those that choose not to follow them. A lack of
enforcement, the breakdown of chiefly authority (Cauillaud, 2004; Clarke,
1990) and lack of Tui Kia may all contribute to the lax attitude towards the rules
and regulations. These results are consistent with J oness (2002), findings that
such lack of public support leads to socially accepted poaching, that is
apparent on Kia.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
60
Religion
Another reason highlighted for not following the rules and regulations was the
attitude that God will always provide;

Because it is gods gift, he provides and we only have to harvest. - Laakea

In the Household surveys, the belief that the community did not have to look
after the marine resources as they are Gods gift and that God will always
provide was raised by some interviewees. Wood (2004) found that some
fishers did not support conservation efforts as they were optimistic about future
fish stocks. Woods study however, did not state the reasons behind this belief
and therefore it is not possible to determine if these beliefs were religiously
based. Further investigation into this belief would be useful for the
development of incentives to follow the rules, as religion can be a powerful
influence. In opposition to this view, interviewees raised that they should look
after the resources as they are Gods gift and if the community does not look
after them, God can take them away or punish them.

Conclusion is. Kia islanders. You live and fish in Kia so you have to protect
your source of income. Your source is fish. Its you responsibility to protect
your godly given place. God will take away what he has given you if you are
not protecting this place. - Tabbebo

These results show a split the religious attitude of the community with regards
to the preservation of Gods gifts.

Presentation back to the community
The presentation was well received by the community and this style of
presentation was shown to be a good way to present information to the
community, allowing the audience to ask questions if they wished.
Unfortunately, only a few members of the community who were mostly the
elders were vocal and no women were in attendance. This shows that this form
of presentation is not suitable to gain representative views of the community,
but is good way to present to larger audience. As this presentation was
conducted after a community meeting for the whole island, it was a good way
of engaging the elders from all three villages at once. A limitation of this
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
61
however, is that community meetings can be long and grog drinking makes
individuals sleepy. As participants get weary they not be paying full attention,
particularly towards the end of meetings.

The presentation was attended by two local police officers that had come to
get fish for a police conference. For this purpose the elders had authorised a
one-day lifting of the MPA restrictions. The following day, one of the officers
approached Maleli and stated that after listening to my talk, he felt so guilty
that he had come to get fish from the MPA.

Recommendations from this meeting are presented in recommendations
section 5.1.


GBM01 Lui Hepworth
62
5.1 Recommendations

The experience of living and Kia during this study highlighted many issues that
the Kia community face. The recommendations given below are therefore
limited to the scope of this project.

Economi c
Promoting agricultural practices would decrease the need to but food and
reliance money. Additionally sustainable techniques such as composting
should be promoted to improve the soils fertility and avoid the problems
caused by slash and burn techniques.

Promoting alternative livelihoods would reduce the communities reliance on
fishing.

Teaching money management skills would enable fishers to budget and save,
therefore reducing the daily and peak pressures on the marine resources.
Additionally, restricting the days that Fish Buyers can operate would take away
the day availability of money and encourage fishers to budget. These days
could be used to implement the land, further reducing the reliance on money.

A number of project to be supported by either NGOs or Government have
failed to materialize (Household Surveys). The community should look to
address their problems themselves rather than rely on funding that may never
come. The current economic and political situation and apparent widespread
corruption is only likely to hinder any external funding. Additionally WWF, who
offered to provide monitoring facilities, should be contacted for an update on
the situation.

Enforcement
Fish Wardens being Fish Buyers is a conflict of interest which must be
addressed. Fish Wardens that do not carry out their role or break the laws
should be changed. Individuals who are interested in conservation should be
given the opportunity.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
63
Fish Buyers buying endangered and undersized species encourages fishers to
catch them (Cinti, 2010). Enforcement of rules and regulations in this area is
crucial as it is unlikely that fishers will catch fish that they cannot sell. Due to
lack of funding for authorities and Kias insularity the community should look to
themselves for monitoring. This monitoring can start on the shores of Kia in
particular with monitoring the Fish Buyers.

Illegal fishing by outsiders may be mostly out of the control of Kia community,
however many illegal and environmentally unfriendly methods of fishing can be
stopped by the community of Kia. In order for these issues to be resolved it is it
is clear that participation of the whole community is needed.

Educati on / Communi cati ons
Many different media were suggested to promote education and awareness.
C3 should look to engage with each of these and a community fun day could
be organized in liaison with the school and social groups. Workshops
regarding the rules and regulations of fishing should be carried out by C3 and
include experts from other organisations such as University South Pacific
where appropriate. J oining the FLMMA network would facilitate this and lead to
better sharing of information by authorities and other NGOs.

As the main reasons for illegal fishing were economic, the economic benefits of
following the MPA restrictions and legal fishing should be strongly promoted,
as well as the benefits to the future generations. These educational and
awareness programmes should seek to change attitudes towards conservation
and teach the social values of the reefs to take some focus off purely economic
incentives.

Currently updates from C3 regarding their work are scheduled at the end of the
community meeting. Community meeting can last for several hours.
Participants getting tired towards the end, especially when drinking grog and
loose interest (Field Notes). Discussion regarding the fishing rules and
regulations should be part of the main agenda and C3 should organise its own
feedback sessions with the community and social groups.

To prevent the loss of traditional knowledge, these teachings should be
incorporated in to the school curriculum (Caillaud, 2004). Locally C3 should
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
64
extend their school conservation workshop Reef Rangers to include traditional
knowledge.

The high number of school dropout at the age of 13 should be addressed.
Promoting a higher level of education beyond the age of 13 should be
investigated in liaison with the Head Mistress. A Kia resident discussed that
the school has the space for additional classes (Field Notes).

Kia community are very religious and C3 should engage with members of the
church groups to promote conservation of Gods gifts.

Presenti ng to the communi ty
Further work needs to be done to include women and to gain views of the less
vocal members of the community. This can be done by engaging the different
social groups such as the womens, youth and church groups. Working with
smaller groups in a less formal setting would enable those less confident to put
their views across.

Recommendations for C3, which were asked for during the presentation were:
Provide workshops/seminars and pamphlets re: management
Promote awareness of the effects of fishing during spawning period.
Publish strengths and weaknesses from surveys results so they can
see what they need to improve on.

Presenting the results from studies to the community is a lot of information for
villagers to take in at once, especially if they have a low educational level. All
three of these recommendations would therefore be useful for increasing the
communities understanding of the issues. Publishing the results in an easily
understandable format for villagers to be able to study at their own pace, would
also be an excellent way to give results from studies.

Further research
This study should be expanded to neighbouring communities to understand
their motives for illegal fishing. The same methods and surveys should be used
for consistent comparison of results.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
65
It would also be interesting to investigate why the percentage of catch sold by
Kia fishers may be much higher than the average for Fiji. Investigating how
much money fishers make and how they spend it could be measured over time
as impact of alternate livelihoods and agricultural venture are promoted.

Infl uence thi s research has already had
Due to the lack of reliance of the Fish Wardens highlighted by this study, C3
have brought forward the training of conservation awareness officers (personal
email from Chris Poonian, C3).

The feedback of result to the community as discussed already has a strong
influence on one local police officer, who felt guilty as he had come to collect
fish from a listing of the MPA. The presentation also had a clear impact on
other members of the community including the elders who were discussing the
implications of the results in subsequent meetings and grog sessions.

Additionally, the findings of this research will be shared with reef conservation
experts from across the world, as I will be presenting them at Reef
Conservation UKs annual meeting in London in December 2011.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
66
Chapter 6 - Concl usion

Analysis of results found that the community of Kia are heavily reliant on
fishing for their livelihoods with few alternative incomes available. Interviewees
identified a number of illegal and environmentally unfriendly fishing methods
that threaten the coastal and marine resources and therefore, their livelihoods.
The illegal methods raised were consistent with those reported in the literature
by Lam (1998), Lauck et al (1998) and Gell and Roberts (2003). The lack of
enforcement and monitoring to prevent these activities was also found to be of
major concern to the community.

Peoples motivations for breaking the rules fell under three main themes;
Economic
Monitoring and enforcement
Social and cultural aspects

The primary motive for illegal fishing was found to be economic, which concurs
with previous studies in the Seychelles (Wood, 2004) and Philippines (Heuer,
2008).

Most importantly, interviewees revealed that;
They cannot meet their daily needs by fishing legally.
People were desperate for money as the cost of living is higher now
days.

This high cost of living was found to be a national problem following several
coops and heavy flooding that have lead the country into economic decline
(World Bank, 2011) and increased the costs of imported goods such as food
and fuel (FCO, 2011). A way to make up for this shortfall is by breaking the
fishing rules and regulations, as these methods bring in more money than legal
methods; illegal methods such as net fishing bring in more catch and fishing in
the MPA is easier as there are more species in greater numbers present. The
presence of the fish buyers is said to exacerbate the problem, as money is
available everyday, encouraging fishers to fish daily. Fish buyers are also
buying illegal and undersized species, encouraging fishers to catch them by
providing a market (Cinti, 2010). Economic reasons were also found to be
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
67
behind reasons for following the rules and regulations and few stated
conservation ones. These results support Bartletts (2009) review that Pacific
islanders motivations for establishing MPAs is not due to an abstract biological
conservation concept. Motives are partly grounded in food security, however
the far greater motivation is economic.

Fish Wardens not carrying out their duty was strongly highlighted as being a
reason for people not following the rules and regulations. It was found that
some Fish Wardens are also Fish Buyers, which represents a conflict of
interest, as they are self-policing. Authorities, NGOs and Fish Wardens not
monitoring was found to contribute to the lack of enforcement. Fishers
themselves also contribute to the problem by catching undersized and
endangered species or by using illegal fishing methods such as nets. Adding to
the difficulties of enforcement, it was also found that it is difficult to report
people who break the rules as everyone is related. Kias remote location, the
countries economic decline, government instability and corruption are believed
to play a part in the lack of enforcement of fishing laws and high cost of living
reported by islanders.

It was also found that a lack of education and awareness exacerbates the
problem of illegal fishing. These results are consistent with previous studies
that found that the issue of illegal fishing was exacerbated by lack of education
(Wood, 2004) and lack of awareness (Heuer, 2009). It seems that whether or
not individuals understand the fishing rules and regulations, there are those
that choose not to follow them. A lack of enforcement, the breakdown of chiefly
authority (Cauillaud, 2004; Clarke, 1990) and lack of Tui Kia may all contribute
to the lax attitude towards the rules and regulations. Such lack of support may
have lead to socially accepted poaching consistent with finding by J oness
(2002). A positive outcome from this study however, show that there are many
media available to engage the community and address the gap in education
and awareness, and these opportunities should be fully explored by C3. These
educational and awareness programmes should seek to change attitudes
towards conservation and teach the social values of the reefs.

It was found that the literature often assumes economic motives for illegal
fishing, which is consistent with the primary motive found in this study as well
as studies by Wood (2004) and Heuer (2008). However, disparities were found
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
68
between the three studies with regards to the secondary and underlying
motives. These disparities may in part, be due to different techniques
employed and survey questions used. It is likely though, that underlying
motives for illegal fishing will be different for each situation and can be based
on many factors such as economics, education level, insularity, alternative
livelihood options, tourism, funding, government regime and political climates.
Economic motives therefore, cannot be assumed as each situation has its own
unique set of complexities and requires its own research to fully understand
local motives for illegal fishing.

Findings of this study were presented back to the community to close the loop
on this participatory project and to meet the secondary objectives. The method
used proved a good way to present to a larger audience including participants
from all villages. However, less vocal members of the audience did not share
their views and no women were in attendance. The project therefore, did not
fully meet the secondary objective of ensuring two-way inclusive engagement.

The illegal fishing interviews included women and younger fishers. The
Household surveys however, tended to exclude women and younger members
of the community as they were held with the most senior member of the
household, who tended to be men. Additionally, during this short study time it
was not possible to gain a full enough understanding of the whole community
and who marginalised groups may be. For these reasons the project failed in
its secondary objective to include marginalised members or the community and
demonstrate gender awareness. Consequently, further work needs to be done
to engage with women and potentially marginalised groups, which can be done
via the social groups such as the womens, youth and church groups.

The results of this study uncovered motives for breaking the fishing
conservation rules, to address a gap in the literature that has been little
studied. The study met its aims and primary objectives, and has suggested
further research to fully meet its secondary ones. This study has contributed to
the literature, has opened up further lines of research and has presented
recommendations which, will help reduce illegal fishing practices in and around
Kia.

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
69
Bibli ography
Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, CP, Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, RE.,
J enkins, M., J efferiss, P., J essamy, V., Madden, J ., Munro, K., Myers, N.,
Naeem, S., Paavola, J ., Rayment, M., Rosendo, J ., Roughgarden, K.,
Trumper, K., Turner, RK. (2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild nature.
Science. 297(5583) pp950- 953.
Bartlett, CY., Maltali, T., Petro, G., Valentinea, P. (2010). Policy Implications of
Protected Area Discourse in the Pacific islands. Marine Policy. 34 pp 99104
C3. (online). www.c-3.org.uk. Accessed 16/09/2010.
C3 Household Surveys. (2011a). C3 unpublished data.
C3 Household Consumption Surveys (2011b). C3 unpublished data.
C3. (2011c). A Review of secondary and observational socioeconomic data
available for the management of coastal resources of Kia Island. C3
unpublished data.
Caillaud, A. Boengkih, S., Evans-Illidge, E., Genolagani, J ., Havemann, P.,
Henao, D,. Kwa, E., Llewell, D,. Ridep-Morris, A., Rose, J ., Nari, R., Skelton,
P., South, R., Sulu, R., Tawake, A., Tobin, B., Tuivanuavou, S., Wilkinson, C.
(2004). Tabus or not taboos? How to use traditional environmental knowledge
to support sustainable development of marine resources in Melanesia. SPC
Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin.
17.
Cesar, H., Aish, A. (2004). Financing Marine Protected Area Networks in a
developing country setting: theory, practice and challenges. Cesar
Environmental Economics Consulting. Arnhem. The Netherlands.
Chape, S., Harrison, J ., Spalding, M., Lysenko, I. (2005). Measuring the Extent
and Effectiveness of Protected Areas as an Indicator for Meeting Global
Biodivsity Targets. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Cambridge,
UK.
Christie, P., White, A., T., Moce, K. (2000). Comparative Assessment of
Stakeholder Management in Traditional Fijian Fishing Grounds. Environmental
Conservation. 27 pp291-299.
Christie, P., White, AT. (2007). Best Practices for Improved Governance of
Coral Reef Marine Protected Areas. Coral Reefs. 26 pp10471056.
Cinti, A., Shaw, W., Cudney-Bueno, R., Rojo, M. (2010). The unintended
consequences of formal fisheries policies: Social disparities and resource
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
70
overuse in a major fishing community in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Marine
Policy. 34 pp 328339.
Clarke, WC. (1990). Learning from the Past: Traditional Knowledge and
Sustainable Development. Contemporary Pacific. 2 pp233-253
Clifford, N. French, S., Valentine, G. (2010). Key methods in Geography.
SAGE Publications Ltd. London.
Costello, C., Kaffine, DT. (2009). Marine Protected Areas in Spatial
Doulman DJ . (1992). Community based fishery management: toward the
restoration of traditional practices in the South Pacific. In: FAO/J apan Expert
Consultation on the Development of Community Based Coastal Fishery
Management Systems for Asia and the Pacific. FI:CCFM/92/Sp.4.
Evans, R.D., Russ, GR,. (2004). Larger biomass of targeted reef fish in no-
take marine reserves on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 14 pp505519.
Feedback Presentation. Lui Hepworth. (2011). Feedback Presentation of
Results to the Community of Kia.
Ferrer, EM., Polotan de la Cruz, L., Domingo, MA. (1996). Seeds of Hope.
Manila: College of Social Work and Community Development. The University
of the Philippines. Philippines.
Fiji National Census of Population 2007. Available online at
www.statsfiji.gov.fj/. Accessed 29/08/11.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). (2011). Available online at
http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-
country/country-profile/asia-oceania/asia-fiji. Accessed 28/08/11.
Gell, FR., Roberts, CM. (2003). Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects
of marine reserves. Trends in Ecology. 18 pp448455.
Gjertsen H., Niesten, E. (2010). Incentive-based approaches in marine
conservation: Applications for sea turtles. Conservation and Society. 8(1) pp5-
14.
Gomez, ED. (1997). Reef management in developing countries: a case study
in the Philippines. Coral Reefs16, Supplement S3-S8.
Halpern, BS. (2003). The impact of Marine Reserves: Do Reserves Work and
Does Reserve Size Matter? Ecological Applications. 13 pp117137.
Hanich, Q, Tsamenyi, M. (2009). Managing fisheries and corruption in the
Pacific Islands region. Marine Policy. 33 pp386392
Hauzer M., Poonian C., Iboura, MC. (2008). Mohli Marine Park, Comoros
Successes and Challenges of the Co-Management Approach. In Obura DO,
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
71
Tamelander J , Linden O (Eds) Ten years after bleaching - facing the
consequences of climate change in the Indian Ocean. CORDIO Status Report
2008. Coastal Oceans Research and Development in the Indian Ocean/Sida-
SAREC. Mombasa, pp 83-91
Heaps, L. (2005). Fijis Great Sea Reef. The Hidden Gem of the South Pacific.
WWF SPPO. Suva. Fiji.
Heuer, A., Navarette, D., van Bochove, J W., Harding, S., Raines, P. (2009).
Socio-Economic Study: Local Livelihoods, Use and Management of Coastal
Resources and Efficiency of Marine Protected Areas in Panaon Island. Coral
Cay Conservation. London
Hodgson G., Dixon, J A. (1988). Logging Versus Fisheries And Tourism in
Palawan. Environment and Policy Institute, East-West Center. Hawaii. p95.
Hunt, C. (1999). Fijis fisheries: their contribution to development and their
future. Marine Policy. 23(6) pp57185.
Institute of Applied Sciences. (2009). A nation-wide survey of village-based
fishing pressure in Fiji. In: J enkins AP, Prasad SR, Bacchiochi J , Skelton P,
Yakub N (eds), Proceedings of the Inaugural Fiji Islands Conservation Science
Forum, Wetlands International-Oceania, Suva, Fiji.
IUCN. (1994). Resolution 17.38 of the IUCN general assembly [IUCNThe
World Conservation Union 1988] reaffirmed in Resolution 19.46 [IUCNThe
World Conservation Union].
J enkins A., Skykes H, Skelton P., Fiu M., Lovell E. (2004) Fijis Great Sea
Reef, The first marine biodiversity survey of cakaulevu and associated coastal
habitats.
J ones, PJ S. (2002). Marine protected area strategies: issues, divergences and
the search for middle ground. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 11
pp197216.
Kaiser, MJ . (2005). Are Marine Protected Areas a Red Herring or Fisheries
Panacea? Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science. 62 pp11941199
Kosal, M. (1998). Social Implication of Conservation of the Designated "Prek
Toal" Core Area of the Tonle Sap Biosphere Reserve, Cambodia. 1998
UNESCO-MAB Young Scientists Research Award Report. Ministry of
Environment. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Lam, M. (1998). Consideration of Customary Marine Tenure System in the
Establishment of Marine Protected Areas in the South Pacific. Ocean &
Coastal Management. 39 pp97-104.
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
72
Lamberts, D. (2001). Tonle Sap Fisheries: A Case Study On Floodplain Gillnet
Fisheries. Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations. Bangkok, Thailand.
Lauck, T., Clark, CW., Mangel, M., Munro, GR. (1998). Implementing the
Precautionary Principle in Fisheries Management Through Marine Reserves.
Ecological Applications. 8(1). Supplement: Ecosystem Management for
Sustainable Marine Fisheries. ppS72-S78
Lundquist, CJ ., Granek, EF. (2005). Strategies for Successful Marine
Conservation: Integrating Socioeconomic, Political, and Scientific Factors.
Conservation Biology. 19(6) pp17711778.
Matthews, E., Veitayaki, J ., Bidesi, VR. (1998). Fijian Villagers Adapt to
Changes in Local Fisheries. Ocean and Coastal Management. 38 pp207-224.
McClanahan, TR. (1999). Is there a future for coral reef parks in poor tropical
countries? Coral Reef. 18 pp321325.
McClanahan, TR., Mangi, S. (2000). Spillover of Exploitable Fishes from
Marine Park and its Effect of the Adjacent Fishery. Ecological Applications.
10(6) pp1792-1805.
Mikkelsen, B. (2005). Methods for Development Work and Research: A New
Guide to Practitioners 2
nd
Ed. SAGE Publications Ltd. London.
Poonian, CNS., Hauzer, MD., Iboura, CM. (2008). Challenges for effective and
sustainable co-managed Marine Protected Areas: a case study from the
Comoros Islands. Proceedings of the 11th International Coral Reef
Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 7-11 J uly Session number 23
Property-Rights Fisheries. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics. 54 pp32134
Pryke, M., Rose., Watmore., S. (2004). Using Social Theory Thinking Though
Research. SAGE Publications Ltd. London.
Roberts, CM., Bohnsack, J A., Gell, FR., Hawkins, J ., Goodridge, R. (2001).
Marine Reserves Enhance Adjacent Fisheries. Science. 294 pp19201923.
Roberts, CM., Hawkins, J P., Gell, FR. (2005). The role of marine reserves in
achieving sustainable fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society B-Biological Sciences. 360(1453) pp123-132.
Rowley, RJ . (1994). Marine Reserves in Fisheries Management. Aquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 4 pp233254.
Salm, RV., Clarke, J ., Siirila, E. (2000). Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A
Guide to Planners and Managers. Washington DC: International Union for
Conservations and Nature and Natural Resources. pp 370.
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
73
Sobel J . (1993). Conserving Biological Diversity Through Marine Protected
Areas. Oceanus. 36(3) pp1926.
SocMon. (2011). Online. www.socmon.org. Accessed 29/09/11.
Sophat, S., Kong, HK., Sethik, R., Sithirith, M. (2005). Fisheries Resource
Management in Boeng Tonle Chhmar Lake: How Are The Current
Management Systems Affecting these Resources and the Local Livelihoods?
USEPAM Applied Research Team. Royal University of Phnom Penh.
Cambodia.
Teh, LCL., Teh, LSL., Starkhouse, B., Sumaila, RU. (2009). An Overview of
Socioeconomic and Ecological Perspectives of Fijis Inshore Reef Fisheries.
Marine Policy. 33 pp807817.
The World Conservation Union (IUCN). (1994). Guidelines for protected area
management categories. Gland, Switzerland.
Veitayaki, J . (1997). Traditional marine resource management practices used
in the Pacific Islands: an agenda for change. Ocean & Coastal Management.
37(1) pp123-136.
White, AT., Hale, LZ., Renard, Y., Cortesi, L. (1994). Collaborative and
Community-Based Management of Coral Reefs. Lessons from Experience.
Kumarian Press. West Hartford.
White, AT., Vogt, HP., (2002). Philippine Coral Reefs Under Threat: Lessons
Learned After 25 Years of Community-Based Reef Conservation. Marine
Pollution Bulletin. 40 pp537-550.
Wongbusarakum, SB. Pomeroy, C. Loper, C. Vieux, M. Guilbeaux, A. Levine,
C. Bartlett. (2008) SEM-Pasifika: Socio-Economic Monitoring Guidelines for
Coastal Managers in Pacific Island Countries. Secretariat of the Pacific
Regional Environment Programme, Apia, Samoa.
Wood, L. (2004). Motives for Poaching in Marine Protected Areas in the
Seychelles. West Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science. 3 (2) pp199-208.
WWF. (2009a). Macuata Perception Report. WWF SPPO. Suva. Fiji.
WWF. (2009b). Catch Per Unit Effort Report. WWF SPPO. Suva. Fiji.
Yasue, M., Kaufmanand, L., Vincent, ACJ . (2010). Assessing ecological
changes in and around marine reserves using community perceptions and
biological surveys. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.
20 pp407 418.
Zeller, D., Russ, GR. (2004). Are Fisheries Sustainable? A Counterpoint to
Steele and Hoagland. Fisheries Research. 67 pp241245.
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
74
Appendi x
Appendix A Household Survey


"#$ %&"'(')& *+,"#*+-. ",/0#1
)23 '453678 (292

lnLervlew #:
uaLe:
Notes lo ltollcs ote to osslst tbe lotetvlewet ooly.
:;<= 26 >67;?526;7 @A57 ?;B;?4 =A "#$C%342B2D3 '672E3=A?4
FA57 =;<= BA? ;GHI3424
vlllage:
lnLervlewer:
lnLervlewee:
8ole ln household (eq. lotbet, Jooqbtet, elJet, etc.).

'J:/+.,K:+/1 ":&:#$#J:

Pello, my name ls_________ and l would llke Lo Lake abouL 40 mlnuLes of your Llme Lo ask you abouL Lhe
lmporLance of and lssues surroundlng coasLal and marlne resources on kla. l would prefer Lo speak wlLh
Lhe mosL senlor member of your household currenLly presenL. lease be aware LhaL Lhe resulLs of Lhls
lnLervlew wlll be kepL compleLely confldenLlal from any auLhorlLles and Lhe resulLs of Lhls survey wlll be
dlscussed ln deLall wlLh Lhe whole communlLy ln a few monLhs wlLh Lhe hope of lmprovlng Lhe
managemenL of kla's naLural resources.

.#$+L/&%*'K"

.MN "A>?E;4 AB *A>4;IA57 '6EAG;

WhaL ls your household's H?2G3?O source of lncome?


WhaL ls your household's 4;EA673?O source of lncome?


K+&":&- &J. $&/'J# &K:'0':'#"

KM KA34=35 367 $3?26; &E=2P2=2;4
KN KA34=35 367 G3?26; QAA74 367 4;?P2E;4
KR .;H;67;6E; A6 EA34=35 367 G3?26; QAA74 367 4;?P2E;4

WhaL acLlvlLles does your household parLlclpaLe ln LhaL 26PA5P; EA34=35 A? G3?26; 63=>?35 ?;4A>?E;4?
WhaL QAA74 367 4;?P2E;4 do Lhese acLlvlLles provlde you wlLh?
WhaL percenLage of Lhese goods and servlces does your household EA64>G; and whaL proporLlon do
you 4;55 =A A=I;?4?

kecotJ tbe coostol ooJ motloe octlvltles lo wblcb eocb boosebolJ ls lovolveJ lo tbe toble below. lot eocb
octlvlty, llst tbe teloteJ qooJs ooJ setvlces ooJ petceot ptopottloo of tbelt JepeoJeocy fot tbelt
llvellbooJ, botb lo tetms of tbelt owo coosomptloo ooJ locome qeoetotloo. lleose see l.58 of tbe 5M
loslflko mooool fot mote lofotmotloo oo bow to complete tbls toble.
roporLlon of
dependency
CoasLal and marlne
acLlvlLles
CoasLal and marlne goods and servlces
Cwn
consumpLlon
Sale





GBM01 Lui Hepworth
75
KMS &5=;?63=2P; 367 4>HH5;G;6=3?O 52P;52IAA74

WhaL would your household's opLlons be Lo Q;6;?3=; 26EAG; lf you dld noL (losett ptlmoty ooJ
secooJoty sootces of locome)?


TIO would you choose Lhls acLlvlLy?



WhaL ls currenLly H?;P;6=26Q you from dolng Lhls acLlvlLy as your prlmary source of llvellhood?



uo you have any oLher 27;34 BA? ;6=;?H?24; on kla lsland LhaL you would llke Lo lmplemenL?



:*/#&:"

:M %;?E;2P;7 EAGG>62=O H?A@5;G4

WhaL do you see as Lhe Lwo maln H?A@5;G4 faclng Lhe communlLy of kla?
lease glve as much deLall as posslble.

1

2

:N %;?E;2P;7 ?;4A>?E; EA672=2A64

Pow would you raLe Lhe currenL EA672=2A6 of Lhe followlng resources on kla and on Lhe CreaL Sea 8eef?
AJJ tows os oecessoty

Cood

nelLher

8ad

8eaches
Seagrass beds
Coral 8eefs
CoasLal planLs and Lrees
AgrlculLural land


:S %;?E;2P;7 =I?;3=4 =A EA34=35 367 G3?26; ?;4A>?E;4

WhaL are Lhe flve mosL ma[or =I?;3=4 Lo Lhe coasLal and marlne resources of kla?
lease raLe Lhe LhreaL as -AU8 $;72>G A? *2QI.
losett tbe tespooJeots ooswets lo tbe followloq toble


1hreaL Low Medlum Plgh






GBM01 Lui Hepworth
76
:V %;?E;2P;7 EA34=35 G363Q;G;6= H?A@5;G4

WhaL do you see as Lhe Lwo maln H?A@5;G4 ln Lhe way LhaL coasLal and marlne resources are belng
looked afLer?
lease glve as much deLall as posslble.

1

2

$&J&L#$#J:

$MM &U3?;6;44 AB ?>5;4 367 ?;Q>53=2A64W $MN #6BA?E;G;6=W $MS KAGH5236E;

Are you aware of ?>5;4 367 ?;Q>53=2A64 governlng Lhe followlng coasLal acLlvlLles?
Are Lhe regulaLlons effecLlvely ;6BA?E;7? X(>55OY"=?A6Q5O8 $A7;?3=;5O8 %AA?5OYJA=Z
uo people EAGH5O wlLh Lhe regulaLlons? X(>55OY"=?A6Q5O8 $A7;?3=;5O8 %AA?5OYJA=Z
complete tbe toble fot tbe octlvltles lJeotlfleJ lo c1, tlckloq tbe televoot level of eofotcemeot.

Level of enforcemenL Level of compllance AcLlvlLy 8ules and
regulaLlons
exlsL
? / n
lull ModeraLe noL lull ModeraLe noL








$MV $363Q;G;6= 4>EE;44;4 367 B325>?;4

WhaL Lwo Lhlngs do you Lhlnk have UA?D;7 U;55 for coasLal managemenL ln Lhe communlLy?
lease glve as much deLall as posslble.

1


2

WhaL Lwo Lhlngs do you Lhlnk have 6A= UA?D;7 U;55 for coasLal managemenL ln Lhe communlLy?
lease glve as much deLall as posslble.

1


2



KM[ )6AU5;7Q; AB EA34=35 367 G3?26; ?;4A>?E;4

Ask tbe tespooJeot lf tbe followloq stotemeots ote ttoe ot folse ooJ tecotJ tbelt tespooses wltb o tlck lo
tbe televoot colomo. (1toe ot lolse)
18uL lALSL
Coral ls noL a llvlng organlsm
Seagrass ls an lmporLanL hablLaL for flsh
Marlne proLecLed areas are ln place Lo allow flsh Lo reproduce so LhaL Lhelr numbers do noL
decllne

Mangroves help Lo proLecL our coasLllne from blg waves
We can Lake as many flsh as we wanL from Lhe sea, Lhere wlll always be more
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
77

KMM &==2=>7;4 =AU3?7 EA34=35 367 G3?26; ?;4A>?E;4

Ask tbe tespooJeot to wbot exteot tbey oqtee wltb tbe followloq stotemeots ooJ tecotJ tbelt tespooses
wltb o tlck lo tbe televoot colomo. (Aqtee, loJlffeteot ot ulsoqtee)
Agree lndlfferenL ulsagree
lL doesn'L maLLer whaL happens Lo our marlne envlronmenL
l en[oy golng ouL on a boaL and waLchlng flsh swlm around Lhe coral
lL ls an lmporLanL parL of our culLure Lo have a healLhy marlne envlronmenL
My famlly's healLh and well-belng ls llnked Lo Lhe healLh of our marlne hablLaLs
lL ls lmporLanL LhaL all communlLy members look afLer Lhe reefs
l would voLe for resLrlcLlons on flshlng pracLlces ln my vlllage's flshlng grounds

KMN JA6CG3?D;= 367 6A6C>4; P35>;4

Ask tbe tespooJeot to wbot exteot tbey oqtee wltb tbe followloq stotemeots ooJ tecotJ tbelt tespooses
wltb o tlck lo tbe televoot colomo. (Aqtee, loJlffeteot ot ulsoqtee)
Agree lndlfferenL ulsagree
1he reefs are lmporLanL for proLecLlng land from sLorm waves (ooo- motket
voloe)

Coral ls noL lmporLanL for malnLalnlng healLhy flsh populaLlons (ooo- motket
voloe)

Coral reefs are only lmporLanL lf you flsh or dlve (exlsteoce oooose voloe)
l wanL fuLure generaLlons Lo en[oy Lhe mangroves and coral reefs (bepoest ooo-
ose voloe)

llshlng should be resLrlcLed ln cerLaln areas even lf nobody ever flshes ln Lhose
areas [usL Lo allow Lhe flsh and coral Lo grow (exlsteoce voloe)

We should resLrlcL developmenL ln some coasLal areas so LhaL fuLure generaLlons
wlll be able Lo have naLural envlronmenLs (bepoest voloe)


.A OA> I3P; 36O B>?=I;? EAGG;6=4 ?;Q3?726Q =I; 2GHA?=36E; AB 367 244>;4 4>??A>6726Q EA34=35 367
G3?26; ?;4A>?E;4 AB )23\






&772=2A635 6A=;4
lease use Lhls space Lo add any addlLlonal lnformaLlon glven.
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
78
Appendi x Il l egal and restri cted Fi shi ng Interview

/#":/'K:#. ('"*'JL )#1 'J(+/$&J:
"#$'C":/,K:,/#. 'J:#/0'#T
)23 '453678 (292

lnLervlew #:
Notes lo ltollcs ote to osslst tbe lotetvlewet ooly.

uaLe:
lnLervlewer:
lnLervlewee:
Area of experLlse / role:

vlllage: Pouse no: Pouse name:

'J:/+.,K:+/1 ":&:#$#J:

Pello, my name ls_________ and l would llke Lo Lake abouL 30-40 mlnuLes of your Llme Lo ask you abouL
resLrlcLed flshlng acLlvlLles relaLlng Lo Lhe marlne resources around kla. ?ou have been selecLed as an
experlenced flsher on kla. lease be aware LhaL Lhe resulLs of Lhls lnLervlew wlll be kepL compleLely
confldenLlal from any auLhorlLles and Lhe resulLs of Lhls survey wlll be dlscussed ln deLall wlLh Lhe whole
communlLy wlLh Lhe hope of lmprovlng Lhe managemenL of kla's naLural resources.

1be kl lotetvlew olms to qotbet tlcb JetolleJ poolltotlve lofotmotloo. use tbe below poestloos os
opptoptlote to eocootoqe JetolleJ opeo Jloloqoe, bot keep tbe Jlscossloo televoot. osote tbot ootes ote
ttoosloteJ ooJ tecotJeJ os occototely os posslble to eooble textool ooolysls of tbe lofotmotloo. use o
ulctopbooe lf tbe lotetvlewee ls comfottoble wltb lt.

]>;4=2A64^

1) WhaL do you undersLand as/Lo be resLrlcLed flshlng and lllegal flshlng?

2) Why lL ls necessary for some people Lo break Lhe rules?

3) WhaL makes lL more prevalenL / wldespread now?

4) WhaL are Lhe advanLages and dlsadvanLages of lllegal flshlng?
AdvanLages

ulsadvanLages

3) WhaL are Lhe beneflLs of followlng Lhe flshlng rules and regulaLlons?

6) uoes everyone undersLand Lhe lmporLance and beneflLs of followlng Lhe flshlng rules and regulaLlons?
- Why noL?

7) WhaL can be done so LhaL Lhe people undersLand Lhe beneflLs of followlng Lhe rules and regulaLlons? /
WhaL can be done so LhaL Lhe people undersLand Lhe beneflLs more?

8) Pow could legal/responslble flshlng be encouraged/lncenLlvlzed/rewarded/made aLLracLlve?
(8aLher Lhan enforced)

9) Pow can we geL Lhe whole communlLy Lo parLlclpaLe?
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
79
Appendix C - Ethics forms
UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON
SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

RESEARCH ETHICS CHECKLISTS FOR UNDERGRADUATE AND
MASTERS LEVEL RESEARCH PROJECTS

This Ethics Checklist is designed to help you quickly and easily identify how you should
approach any ethical issues raised by your project or dissertation. If you have any concerns
about completing the checklists, please see your supervisor.

An Ethics Checklist should be completed for ALL research projects and dissertations prior to the
commencement of the project. Please do not approach any participants involved in the research
until these checklists have been completed. The Ethics Checklist will help you identify whether
you need to complete an ethics approval form to be considered by the School of Environment
and Technology Research Ethics and Governance Committee.

The Student Ethics Checklist must be completed by the project student. Once completed, you
should discuss it with your project or dissertation supervisor to ensure that you take the right
follow-up actions.

If you answer no to al l questions in Section B of the Student Checklist you wi ll NOT need
to complete an ethics approval form. Please note that in signing the Student Checklist you
accept that it is still your responsibility for your project or dissertation module to follow the
Universitys Guidance on Good Practice in Research Ethics and Governance, available on the
StudentCentral pages. Any significant change in the question, design or conduct of your project
or dissertation that would alter your answers to the checklist questions must be notified to your
supervisor who will advise you on whether you need to complete an ethics approval form.

If you have answered yes to any of the questions in Section B of the Student Checklist
you will need to complete an ethics approval form prior to the commencement of research.
This does not mean that you will not be able to do the research, but it will need to be approved
by the School Research Ethics and Governance Committee.

Ethics approval forms and supporting guidance are available on StudentCentral pages for your
project or dissertation module. Please discuss completing the ethics approval form with your
supervisor.

Signed copies of the completed Ethics Checklist must be submitted with your project or
dissertation, (the project or dissertation wil l not be marked if the completed checklist is
not included).

Further guidance on ethical issues along with Risk Assessment Forms and examples of consent
and information forms for research participants are available on the StudentCentral pages for
your project or dissertation module.


GBM01 Lui Hepworth
80
Ethics Checklist

Section A Project detai ls - to be completed by the project student

1. Name of student/s: Lui Hepworth
2. Name of supervisor: Beck Elmhirst
3. Title of project (no more than 20 words): Engagement of local stakeholders
in the development of marine protected areas around Kia Island, Fiji.
4. Outline of the research (1-2 sentences):Conducting socioeconomic surveys
and focus groups with local community members.

5. Timescale and date of completion: 1 May-31
st
J uly 2011
6. Location of research: Kia Island, Fiji
7. Course module code for which research is undertaken: GBM01
8. Email address: luihepworth@yahoo.co.uk
9. Contact address: Flat 2, 11 Connaught Rd, Hove, BN3 3WB

10. Telephone number: 07890 288 338

Section B Ethics Checkl ist questions
Please tick the appropriate box Yes No
1. Is this research likely to have significant negative impacts on the
environment? (For example, the release of dangerous substances or
damaging intrusions into protected habitats.)

!
2. Does the study involve participants who might be considered vulnerable due to age
or to a social, psychological or medical condition? (Examples include children, people
with learning disabilities or mental health problems, but participants who may be
considered vulnerable are not confined to these groups.)

!
3. Does the study require the co-operation of an individual to gain access to the
participants? (e.g. a teacher at a school or a manager of sheltered housing)
!

4. Will the participants be asked to discuss what might be perceived as sensitive
topics? (e.g. sexual behaviour, drug use, religious belief, detailed financial matters)

!
5. Will individual participants be involved in repetitive or prolonged testing?


!
6. Could participants experience psychological stress, anxiety or other negative
consequences (beyond what would be expected to be encountered in normal life)?

!
7. Will any participants be likely to undergo vigorous physical activity, pain, or
exposure to dangerous situations, environments or materials as part of the research?

!
8. Will photographic or video recordings of research participants be collected as part
of the research?

!
9. Will any participants receive financial reimbursement for their time? (excluding
reasonable expenses to cover travel and other costs)

!
10. Will members of the public be indirectly involved in the research without their
knowledge at the time? (e.g. covert observation of people in non-public places, the
use of methods that will affect privacy)

!
11. Does this research include secondary data that may carry personal or sensitive
organisational information? (Secondary data refers to any data you plan to use that
you did not collect yourself. Examples of sensitive secondary data include datasets
held by organisations, patient records, confidential minutes of meetings, personal
diary entries. These are only examples and not an exhaustive list).

!
12. Are there any other ethical concerns associated with the research that are not
covered in the questions above?

!


GBM01 Lui Hepworth
81




All Undergraduate and Masters level projects or dissertations in the School of
Environment and Technology must adhere to the fol lowi ng procedures on data storage
and confidential ity:
Once a mark for the project or dissertation has been published, all data must be removed from
personal computers, and original questionnaires and consent forms should be destroyed unless
the research is likely to be published or data re-used.

Please sign below to confirm that you have completed the Ethics Checklist and will adhere to
these procedures on data storage and confidentiality. Then give this form to your supervisor to
complete their checklist.

Signed (Student):

Date: 21/04/2011

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
82

Supervisor Checkl ist: Project approval - to be completed by the project supervisor

If the student answered YES to any of the questions in the Student Checklist then he/she is
required to complete an ethics approval form (please circle as appropriate)

Form required Form not required

If required, please advise the student on completing the ethics approval form

If the student answered NO to all Student Checklist questions, please complete the following
table. The project should not begin until all boxes are ticked (use N/A if appropriate):





If the student answered no to al l checklist questions, please remind them that they must
notify you of any significant change in the structure, design or conduct of the project or
dissertation that would alter their answers to the Ethics Checklist questions.

Any further comments from supervisor:




Supervisor name:

Signed:

Date:

If any of the questions in the checklist have been answered YES, then please submit the
Ethics Checklist along wi th an Ethics Approval Form to the Chair of the School Research
Ethics and Governance Commi ttee.

If all of the questions in the Ethics Checklist have been answered NO, then please
submit a copy of this checkl ist to the School office for fil i ng.

Students must keep a copy of the Ethics Checkl ist and submit it as part of their project or
dissertation. If the project changes significantly, a new checklist must be completed and
included.
(If applicable) A risk assessment form has been completed
This is a practicable and worthwhile research project?
The student has the skills necessary to carry out the research effectively
(If applicable) A participant information sheet or leaflet has been completed

(If applicable) The procedures for participant recruitment and obtaining informed
consent are appropriate (e.g. consent form or questionnaire introduction)
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
83
UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON
SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND TECHNOLOGY
ETHICS APPROVAL FORM UNDERGRADUATE AND MASTERS LEVEL
RESEARCH PROJECTS

This form is to be used by undergraduate and Masters level students seeking
ethical approval for their research from the School of Environment and
Technology Research Ethics and Governance Committee.

All those completing this form must receive approval from an appropriate
ethics committee (usually the School of Environment and Technology
Research Ethics and Governance Committee) prior to beginning their
research.

Please read the University Guidance on Good Practice in Research Ethics and
Governance before completing this form. This form should be checked
carefully for typographical and grammatical errors before submission.
Incomplete or badly presented forms will be returned. Supervisors of student
projects have a responsibility to ensure that the guidance is followed and that
applications are properly presented.

If after considering this form the School Research Ethics and Governance
Committee consider Tier Two approval is required, the project student will be
notified and this form will be automatically passed to the Chair of the Faculty
Research Ethics and Governance Committee for consideration.

Pl ease attach the SET Research Ethi cs Checkli st you have already
compl eted to thi s form.

Secti on A Key detail s

1. Name of student/s Lui Hepworth__________________________

2. Name of supervisor Becky Elmhirst_________________________

3. Title of project (no more than 20 words)
__Engagement of local stakeholders in the development of marine protected
areas around Kia Island, Fiji_____

GBM01 Lui Hepworth
84
4. Aims of the study
Please summarise your aims in one or two sentences. Write no more than 100
words.


Engagement of local stakeholders for the development of co-management of
the Kia marine protected area.

1) Analysis of newly collected SocMon data to identify specific areas of
concern or that require need more in-depth study.

2) Develop communications plan to obtain more in-depth information for this
specific area.

3) Conduct two-way inclusive facilitation with community stakeholders. Gain
further understanding of stakeholders views, in order to:
increase capacity for stakeholder participation and communication between
different stakeholders.
develop management plans to address specific area.

4) Engage community diversity to give voice to all stakeholders.

Investigate and demonstrate gender awareness and inclusion of marginalised
stakeholders.

5. Research context
A brief summary should be provided discussing the relevant published
literature so that the Committee can understand the context to your research.
In addition, please supply four or five up-to-date references to the relevant
published literature. You may supply up to 400 words.

The project will be conducted as part of an MSc internship with Community
Centred Conservation (C3), who are a not for profit NGO.

Project will fall under Objective 1 in the attached Programme Brief 2011.

C3 are currently working on the collection of SocMon (www.socmon.org) data
on Kia. I will assist in the collection and analysis of this data. Following
analysis I will look at one aspect of this in more detail, including local
management options; eg. women in fisheries, intertidal fisheries, destructive
fisheries, turtle exploitation, mangrove deforestation. I will conduct focus
groups with the identified group.

C3s programme coordinator will liaise with local elders of the community to
organise access to the participants.

SocMon manual




6. Research design
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
85
Please provide no more than 400 words and ensure that you discuss your
sampling strategy (if appropriate), data collection methods and strategy for
data analysis.
Following methods advised in SocMon Manual, questionnaires will include:
Household Income / relative dependence of income eg fishing/farming etc
Fishers Surveys of local fishers and key informant surveys of experienced
fishers. Fishing methods and fishing gear.
Ranking people of the village and their hierarchy / regulations.

Above surveys will have been prepared by C3 in advance and trials will have
started.

I will join survey team to assist in conducting above surveys.
Analysis of collected data will follow SocMon manual and C3 methods.

Following analysis. I will choose one aspect to focus on to conduct semi
structured focus group interviews to divulge more in-depth feedback.

Agreement with stakeholders and arrangement of participants will be done in
co-ordination with C3s Programme Coordinator.


Pl ease use Secti on B of the SET Research Ethi cs Checkli st to deci de
whi ch secti on(s) of thi s form to compl ete, and compl ete those secti ons
appropri atel y:

If you ticked yes to Question 1 in the checklist (Negative Environmental
impacts), complete Section B

If you ticked yes to any of Questions 2 9 (Human Participant Issues),
complete Section C

If you ticked yes to Question 10 (Indirect Involvement of the Public), complete
Section D

If you ticked yes to Question 11 (Secondary Data Sources), complete Section
E

The proj ect student and the supervisor must sign the form i n Secti on F.
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
86
Secti on B Potenti al ri sk to the environment

The aim of this section is to check whether you have taken the necessary
steps to ensure your research will avoid having a significant negative impact
on the environment.

7. If the research is likely to have significant negative impacts on the
environment, provide details of these impacts (for example the release of
dangerous substances or damaging intrusions into protected habitats).
















8. Please describe how you will mitigate against significant environmental
harm and manage risks.















GBM01 Lui Hepworth
87
Secti on C Potenti al Ri sk to human parti ci pants di rectl y working wi th
the researcher

The aim of this section is to check whether you have taken the necessary
steps to ensure your research will avoid causing physical or emotional harm,
pain, discomfort or stress to human participants.

9. If human participants are directly involved, provide brief details regarding the
participants and how they will be contacted (e.g. number, age, gender,
ethnicity, general residential location).
C3s programme coordinator will liaise with local elders of the community to
organise access to the participants. Participant will be local fishers and
members of the local community.


10. If human participants are directly involved, provide details of any
participants who might be considered vulnerable due to age or to a social,
psychological or medical condition. Examples include children, people with
learning disabilities or mental health problems, but participants who may be
vulnerable are not confined to these groups. (See the Universitys Guidance
on Good Practice in Research Ethics and Governance for more details.
Proposals involving vulnerable participants are often likely to require ethical
approval from Tier 2, the Faculty of Science & Engineering Research Ethics
and Governance Committee).
n/a



11. If human participants are directly involved, provide details of any risks
participants are likely to face that would not be considered minimal risks. (See
the Universitys Guidance on Good Practice in Research Ethics and
Governance for details of possible risks including, but not limited to, physical
risks to participants, distress arising from prolonged testing or questions of a
sensitive nature, risks for researchers, and risks for vulnerable people). If risks
are only minimal please describe the risks and explain why you believe they
are only minimal.
n/a


12. Describe the procedures that will be put in place to ensure safe and ethical
direct involvement of human participants. (Where necessary and as
appropriate, include comments on obtaining informed consent, reducing harm,
providing feedback, and accessing participants through an individual providing
information such as a teacher, manager, employer etc.) Example consent and
information forms can be found on StudentCentral.
All research will be conducted inline with SocMon manual, which gives clear
guidance on conducting interviews and focus groups within communities.




GBM01 Lui Hepworth
88
13. If covert or other controversial research methods are to be used or if the
research procedures contravene conventional ethical protocols (including
consent, confidentiality and feedback), justify the use of such methods and
procedures here and outline the measures that will be put into place to mitigate
against potential harm
n/a



14. If human participants are to receive financial reimbursement for their time
(excluding reasonable expenses to cover travel and other costs), provide
details and a short justification (e.g. amounts and form of reimbursement).
n/a


GBM01 Lui Hepworth
89
15. Describe in 50-100 words how you will ensure data collection is
confidential and anonymous (e.g. interviews cannot be overheard, details will
not be accessible to others), how data will be stored and who will have access
to the data. If the data will not be confidential or anonymous, outline the
justification for this decision here and procedures for mitigating against
potential harm. In particular, if photographic or video recordings are to be
made in the course of the research, please outline consent and data protection
procedures for the use of participants images.
All data should be stored securely. Documentation should be kept in a locked
cabinet or desk, and electronic data should preferably be kept on a removable
disk or data stick which can be locked away, or if this is not possible on a
password protected computer. For undergraduate projects, normally only the
student and supervisor will have access to the data (see the Universitys
Guidance on Good Practice in Research Ethics and Governance for further
details).
Surveying will be done as per SocMon procedures. It will not be necessary to
ensure that participants are not overheard as this will not pose risk to
participants.

Focus groups will be held in private rooms organised by C3 in coordination
with local elders. Data collected will be securely held on C3s computers.



GBM01 Lui Hepworth
90
Secti on D Potenti al ri sk to members of the publ i c i ndi rectl y i nvol ved i n
the research wi thout their knowl edge at the ti me
The aim of this section is to check whether you have addressed any ethical
issues arising from activities such as covert observation of people in non-
public places and the use of methods that will affect privacy.

16. If the public are indirectly involved in the research without their knowledge
at the time, please provide brief details (e.g. how they will be involved and,
where known, the age, gender, ethnicity and location of those who will be
indirectly involved).








17. Provide details of any negative impacts members of the public will be likely
to face and that would not be considered minimal impacts (e.g. invasion of
privacy, harm to property, being subject to what an individual perceives to be
inappropriate behaviour). If risks are only minimal please describe the risks
and explain why you believe they are only minimal.









18. Describe any procedures that will be put in place to ensure safe and ethical
indirect involvement of members of the public (include comments, where
necessary, on providing information and feedback if requested by the public).
Examples of participation information forms can be found on StudentCentral.













19. If covert or other controversial research methods are to be used or if the
research procedures contravene conventional ethical protocols (including
GBM01 Lui Hepworth
91
consent, confidentiality and feedback), justify the use of such methods or
procedures here and outline the measures that will be put into place to mitigate
against potential harm.









20. Describe in 50-100 words how you will ensure data collection is
confidential and anonymous (e.g. people will not be able to be identified by
photographs or notes taken by observers), how data will be stored and who will
have access to the data. If the data will not be confidential or anonymous,
outline the justification for this decision here and procedures for mitigating
against potential harm.
All data should be stored securely. Documentation should be kept in a locked
cabinet or desk, and electronic data should preferably be kept on a removable
disk or data stick which can be locked away, or if this is not possible on a
password protected computer. For undergraduate projects, normally only the
student and supervisor will have access to the data (see the Universitys
Guidance on Good Practice in Research Ethics and Governance for further
details).














GBM01 Lui Hepworth
92
Secti on E Secondary data

Secondary data refers to any data you plan to use that you will not collect
yourself. Examples of sensitive secondary data include datasets held by
organisations, patient records, confidential minutes of meetings, and personal
diary entries (these are only examples and are not an exhaustive list).

21. Please provide details (50-100 words) regarding any secondary data to be
used that may carry sensitive personal or organisational information.









22. If secondary data sets containing sensitive personal or organisational
information are to be used, outline how such use will be ethically managed
(include details such as anonymising data sets, ensuring protection of source
agency, gaining consent of data owners, and how the data will be stored).












GBM01 Lui Hepworth
93
Secti on F Further detail s, accompanyi ng documentati on and si gnature

23. Please add anything relating to ethical issues that should be considered
when assessing this project that has not been addressed elsewhere on this
form. Continue on another sheet if necessary.










24. Indicate which of the following are attached to this form:
The Research Ethics Checklist should be attached for all projects; you only
need to provide the other documents if they are applicable to your project
Attached
SET research Ethics Checklist (please remember to attach) ..
Participant information sheet ..

Material to be used to advertise the project ..
Participant consent form (or introduction to be used on questionnaire, see
below) .....

Please note that projects that use questionnaires to be completed by
respondents do not need a separate consent from as consent is inferred if the
questionnaire is completed; however, the opening statement on the
questionnaire should indicate that this will be the case. All those completing a
questionnaire should be offered an information sheet providing further details
of the project and contact details for the University. When questionnaires are
conducted by the researcher as part of an interview, then a consent form
should be signed.


25. Please sign this form.

Student name:

Signed:

Date:


26. This form must be checked and approved by your supervisor.

Any further comments from supervisor:

Supervisor name:

Signed:

Date:








"
#

$
%
&
%

'
%
(
)

*
(
(
+
(
(
,
+
-
.








C
1
L
n
1
l
A
L

P
A
Z
A
8
u

W
P
C

/

W
P
A
1

l
S

A
1

8
l
S
k
?

8
l
S
k

M
A
n
A
C
L
M
L
n
1

A

C
A
C
P

8
L
S

C
n
S
l
8
l
L
l
1
l
L
S

8
L
S
L
A
8
C
P

8
A
S
L

!
"
#
$
%

'
(
$
)
*
'
+

,
-
.
)

"
-
/
*
'

0
.
/

1
2
1
3
#
.
*

/
0
%
0
)
*

/
(
$
-
.
)

1
2
1
3
#
.
*

'
*
0
'
#
.

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f
,

e
q
u
l
p
m
e
n
L


P
e
e
d

c
y
c
l
o
n
e

w
a
r
n
l
n
g
s

a
n
d

b
e

a
w
a
r
e

o
f

c
o
m
m
u
n
l
L
y

e
v
a
c
u
a
L
l
o
n

p
l
a
n
s

(
m
o
v
e

p
e
o
p
l
e

a
n
d

p
r
o
p
e
r
L
y

-
l
f

p
o
s
s
l
b
l
e
)

L
o

h
l
g
h
e
r
,

s
h
e
l
L
e
r
e
d

g
r
o
u
n
d
,

s
e
c
u
r
e

L
h
e

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

b
a
s
e

s
l
L
e

a
s

b
e
s
L

p
o
s
s
l
b
l
e

d
u
r
l
n
g

c
y
c
l
o
n
e

s
e
a
s
o
n

(
n
o
v
-
A
p
r
)

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

C

a
n
d

s
u
p
p
o
r
L

f
r
o
m

L
h
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
l
L
y

l
n

e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
L

4
5
*
6
"

L
q
u
l
p
m
e
n
L
,

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

v
a
l
u
a
b
l
e
s
,

m
o
n
e
y


k
e
e
p

v
a
l
u
a
b
l
e
s

l
n
c
l
u
d
l
n
g

p
a
s
s
p
o
r
L
s

a
n
d

m
o
n
e
y

z
l
p
p
e
d

a
w
a
y

s
a
f
e
l
y

l
n

y
o
u
r

b
a
g
s

a
L

a
l
l

L
l
m
e
s
.

W
h
e
n

o
u
L

l
n

L
h
e

f
l
e
l
d

e
n
s
u
r
e

L
h
e

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

b
a
s
e

h
a
s

b
e
e
n

l
o
c
k
e
d

u
p

p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
.

L
q
u
l
p
m
e
n
L

s
h
o
u
l
d

r
e
m
a
l
n

p
a
d
l
o
c
k
e
d

l
n

L
h
e

f
l
l
g
h
L

c
a
s
e

l
f

n
o
L

l
n

u
s
e
.


l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

C

a
n
d

C

w
h
e
n

v
l
s
l
L
l
n
g


7
0
"
*
$

8
#
$
.
*

-
3
3
.
*
'
'


l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f

C
n
l
y

d
r
l
n
k

w
a
L
e
r

f
r
o
m

w
a
L
e
r

f
l
l
L
e
r

o
r

L
r
e
a
L

w
a
L
e
r

o
n

s
l
L
e

u
s
l
n
g

w
a
L
e
r

L
r
e
a
L
m
e
n
L

L
a
b
l
e
L
s

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f

9
$
#
(
)
5
"

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f

u
r
c
h
a
s
e

a

w
a
L
e
r

L
a
n
k

a
n
d

s
L
o
r
e

r
a
l
n
w
a
L
e
r

d
u
r
l
n
g

r
a
l
n
y

s
e
a
s
o
n
-
u
s
e

L
a
n
k

w
a
L
e
r

s
p
a
r
l
n
g
l
y

d
u
r
l
n
g

L
h
e

w
e
L

s
e
a
s
o
n

C
,

C

9
0
%
0
)
*

"
#

*
:
(
-
;
%
*
.
"

/
(
$
-
.
)

5
*
0
<
2

$
0
-
.
=
8
*
1
0
(
'
*

#
6

$
#
#
6

3
*
0
,
'
>


A
l
l

e
l
e
c
L
r
o
n
l
c

e
q
u
l
p
m
e
n
L
,

a
p
p
l
l
a
n
c
e
s

a
n
d

p
o
w
e
r

b
o
a
r
d
s

S
L
o
r
e

a
l
l

e
l
e
c
L
r
o
n
l
c

e
q
u
l
p
m
e
n
L

o
u
L

o
f

h
a
r
m
s

w
a
y

d
u
r
l
n
g

h
e
a
v
y

r
a
l
n
.

l
a
c
e

b
u
c
k
e
L
s

o
r

b
a
s
l
n
s

l
n
s
l
d
e

L
h
e

h
o
u
s
e

w
h
e
r
e

L
h
e

l
e
a
k
s

a
r
e

p
r
o
m
l
n
e
n
L

a
n
d

l
n
f
o
r
m

L
h
e

C

w
h
o

w
l
l
l

a
l
e
r
L

L
h
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
l
L
y

m
e
m
b
e
r
s
.

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

C
,

c
o
m
m
u
n
l
L
y

m
e
m
b
e
r
s

f
o
r

r
e
p
a
l
r
s

W
A
1
L
8

W
C
8
k

!
?
-
6
"

?
0
"
*
$

1
(
$
$
*
.
"
'

0
.
/

'
"
$
#
.
)

?
0
<
*

0
1
"
-
#
.

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f

C
h
e
c
k

w
a
L
e
r

c
u
r
r
e
n
L
s

a
n
d

w
e
a
L
h
e
r

r
e
p
o
r
L
s

b
e
f
o
r
e

h
e
a
d
l
n
g

o
u
L

L
o

s
e
a

a
n
d

a
l
w
a
y
s

s
w
l
m

w
l
L
h
l
n

3

m
e
L
e
r
s

o
f

a

b
u
d
d
y
,

L
a
k
e

h
e
e
d

o
f

s
a
f
e
L
y

L
l
p
s

r
e

c
u
r
r
e
n
L
s

f
r
o
m

c
o
m
m
u
n
l
L
y

m
e
m
b
e
r
s


l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

C

9
0
.
)
*
$
#
(
'

%
0
$
-
.
*

3
-
6
*

*
@
)
@

1
$
#
?
.

#
6

"
5
#
$
.
'
+

A
*
3
3
2
6
-
'
5
+

'
5
0
$
,
'
+

'
"
-
.
)

$
0
2
'
+

6
-
$
*

1
#
$
0
3
'

*
"
1



l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f

A
l
w
a
y
s

b
e

a
l
e
r
L

w
h
e
n

d
o
l
n
g

w
a
L
e
r

w
o
r
k
,

W
e
a
r

p
r
o
p
e
r

r
e
e
f

s
h
o
e
s

a
n
d

s
w
l
m
m
l
n
g

e
q
u
l
p
m
e
n
L

w
h
e
n

w
a
l
k
l
n
g

o
n

L
h
e

r
e
e
f

a
n
d

a
v
o
l
d

c
o
n
L
a
c
L

w
l
L
h

u
n
f
a
m
l
l
l
a
r

o
r
g
a
n
l
s
m
s
.

8
e
a
r

l
n

m
l
n
d

a
n
y

a
d
v
l
c
e

o
r

L
l
p
s

g
l
v
e
n

b
y

l
o
c
a
l
s

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f


C
1
L
n
1
l
A
L

P
A
Z
A
8
u

W
P
C

/

W
P
A
1

l
S

A
1

8
l
S
k
?

8
l
S
k

M
A
n
A
C
L
M
L
n
1

A

C
A
C
P

8
L
S

C
n
S
l
8
l
L
l
1
l
L
S

B
-
'
,

$
0
"
-
.
)

,
*
2

C
-
8
*
$

)
3
0
'
'

8
#
0
"

1
0
;
'
-
D
-
.
)

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f
,

b
o
a
L

c
a
p
L
a
l
n

a
n
d

o
L
h
e
r

p
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s

u
o

n
o
L

L
r
a
v
e
l

l
n

b
a
d

w
e
a
L
h
e
r
,

w
e
a
r

s
a
f
e
L
y

[
a
c
k
e
L
s

l
f

p
o
s
s
l
b
l
e

w
h
e
n

L
r
a
v
e
l
l
l
n
g

a
L

s
e
a


8
o
a
L

c
a
p
L
a
l
n
,

C

E
.
)
-
.
*

6
0
-
3
(
$
*

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f
,

b
o
a
L

c
a
p
L
a
l
n

a
n
d

o
L
h
e
r

p
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
s

L
n
s
u
r
e

m
o
b
l
l
e

p
h
o
n
e
s

a
r
e

f
u
l
l
y

c
h
a
r
g
e
d

b
e
f
o
r
e

L
r
a
v
e
l
l
l
n
g
,

1
a
k
e

f
o
o
d

a
n
d

w
a
L
e
r

w
h
e
n

g
o
l
n
g

L
o

s
e
a

a
n
d

a
l
w
a
y
s

r
e
m
e
m
b
e
r

y
o
u
r

C
A
S
L
v
A
C

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

C
,

b
o
a
L

c
a
p
L
a
l
n

C
3

L
8
S
C
n
n
L
L

F
(
3
3
-
.
)

0

%
(
'
1
3
*

#
$

1
$
0
%
;
-
.
)

/
(
$
-
.
)

?
0
"
*
$

?
#
$
,


l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f

n
e
v
e
r

g
o

o
u
L

L
o

s
e
a

a
l
o
n
e
-

s
L
o
p

s
w
l
m
m
l
n
g

a
n
d

a
l
e
r
L

s
w
l
m
m
l
n
g

b
u
d
d
y

a
s

s
o
o
n

a
s

p
o
s
s
l
b
l
e

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f

E
G
"
$
*
%
*

'
(
.
8
(
$
.
H
'
(
.
'
"
$
#
,
*

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f

A
l
w
a
y
s

a
p
p
l
y

s
u
n
s
c
r
e
e
n

(
a
L

l
e
a
s
L

S

l

3
0
+
)

w
h
e
n

g
o
l
n
g

o
u
L

l
n
L
o

L
h
e

s
u
n

a
n
d

s
w
l
m
m
l
n
g

l
n

a

b
l
k
l
n
l

l
s

n
o
L

e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
-
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
l
a
L
e

c
l
o
L
h
l
n
g

a
n
d

h
a
L
s

m
u
s
L

b
e

w
o
r
n

(
o
u
L
s
l
d
e

o
f

L
h
e

v
l
l
l
a
g
e
)

a
L

a
l
l

L
l
m
e
s

d
u
r
l
n
g

f
l
e
l
d
/
w
a
L
e
r

w
o
r
k
.

8
e
h
y
d
r
a
L
e

o
f
L
e
n
.

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f

9
*
5
2
/
$
0
"
-
#
.

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f

u
r
l
n
k

r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d

a
m
o
u
n
L
s

o
f

L
r
e
a
L
e
d

w
a
L
e
r

d
a
l
l
y
,

d
r
l
n
k

e
x
L
r
a

l
f

y
o
u

a
r
e

c
o
n
d
u
c
L
l
n
g

f
l
e
l
d

w
o
r
k

a
n
d

p
e
r
s
p
l
r
l
n
g

a

l
o
L
.

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f

4
$
#
;
-
1
0
3

I
3
1
*
$
'

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f

l
s

a

c
o
m
m
o
n

o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e

l
n

L
r
o
p
l
c
a
l

c
l
l
m
a
L
e

b
e
c
a
u
s
e

o
f

L
h
e

h
e
a
L

a
n
d

p
e
r
s
p
l
r
a
L
l
o
n
,

p
a
r
L
l
c
u
l
a
r
l
y

l
f

L
h
e
r
e

l
s

a
n

o
u
L
b
r
e
a
k

l
n

L
h
e

c
o
m
m
u
n
l
L
y
.

W
a
s
h

c
l
o
L
h
e
s

l
n

d
l
s
l
n
f
e
c
L
a
n
L

l
f

n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y

a
n
d

L
r
e
a
L

w
o
u
n
d

w
l
L
h

a
p
p
r
o
p
r
l
a
L
e

m
e
d
l
c
a
L
l
o
n

a
n
d

d
r
e
s
s
l
n
g

L
o

a
v
o
l
d

L
h
e

o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e

o
f

s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
L

u
l
c
e
r
s
.

l
n
L
e
r
n
s
,

s
L
a
f
f






!
"
#
$

!
&
'
"
(
)


*
+
"
$
,
+
"
-
.
.
/
0






"
1
2
&
3
'














-
4
5
6
























































1
7
8
4
9
:






















































+
;
<