Protectors of

Paradise: Species
protection and
management of
marine fisheries in
Fiji
By: Cambria Novelly

Introduction
Species protection and management have been around since people
started to take resources to provide their bodies with food. For more than
2000 years, the Indigenous nations of the Fijian islands have managed the
marine fisheries surrounding their islands according to their traditional
ecological knowledge (TEK) (Kintisch 2019 P.32). Traditional ecological
knowledge or TEK is understood as the knowledge passed down through
generations about the relationships the previous generations have had
between humans and other natural resources. These natural resources include
animals, plants, as well as soil, and different environmental conditions are
needed to have a good harvest of these resources. However, when Fiji was
under British colonial rule in 1874 many of these traditional ecological ideas
were ignored and removed from the marine fisheries management plan by the
British government which did not understand the relationship between people
and the fish they rely on to survive and feed their communities. (Kintisch 2019
P.47) Colonization by the British completely changed management practices
for all the natural resources that Fiji has to offer. Colonization also affected the
traditional cultural leaders with the introduction of a market economy which
led to the devaluation of traditional authorities such as clan leaders and chiefs.
These cultural shifts in the country contributed even more so to the
suppression of Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge. The two major
groups that changed and influenced the management practices of Fiji are the
Indigenous Fijians who were content and working well and positively with the
environment implementing their traditional ecological knowledge. The second
group that greatly influenced and changed the management of resources in Fiji
was the British when they colonized Fiji and implemented a British colonial
government that ignored all the traditional ecological knowledge of the
Indigenous Fijians. The British government focused on the market economy
and harvesting fish for profit compared to the Indigenous Fijians who fished
 for subsistence. The major critiques for this changed practice that the British
implemented were how it is ruining the environment, how the current Fijian
government is doing enough to protect what fish is left, how subsistence is
being affected by these regulations, and how it has become hard for families to
fish as a form of subsistence protein.

Overview of the Field’s Evolution

Fijian traditional ecological knowledge has been around for 2000 years and
was in use up until 1874 when Fiji became a part of the British colonies. When it
became a British colony implemented a British colonial government that
ignored all the traditional ecological knowledge of the Indigenous Fijians.
(Kintisch,2019, p.22) Yet in the 1970s when Fiji gained independence from
British rule they started to have a resurgence and appreciation for traditional
ecological knowledge and ecologists started to recognize it as an important
tool for managing natural resources in Fiji. In the 1980s there was a growing
interest in forming management strategies through government collaboration
and local indigenous communities. The incorporation of indigenous strategies
for exploiting and managing their marine fisheries using local traditional
ecological knowledge. The local communities are doing this by reestablishing
reef tenures as well as marine protected areas. Reef tenures are where
fisheries and communities hold traditional rights that are recognized by other
communities. These rights are to the fish and marine resources below the high
tide mark. However, they are rarely recognized by the government. While
marine protected areas are a section of the ocean where the government has
placed some limits on human activity to protect the environment.

Today Fiji is a constitutional democracy that establishes legislative and

policy regimes for all major natural resource sectors including marine
resources. Their constitution has many parts dedicated to protecting and
caring for the environment built into it. Fiji has common law jurisdiction built in
as well that guarantees its citizens the right to a clean and healthy
environment. It also states that Fijian citizens who are concerned about any
development that may have a significant impact on the environment have the
right to partake in the decision-making process to improve the protection of
their environment and the ocean. This ideology is also reinforced by the
passing of Fiji’s Environmental Management Act of 2005 as it strengthens the
Fijian's right to good decision-making by requiring an environmental impact
assessment (EIAs) for major future developments. (Lopez, 2007, p. 27) These
environmental impact assessments allow for decision-makers to take into
account the needs of the present while not compromising the ability of future
needs to also be met.

Using this community-guided ideology is what brought the idea of

establishing a marine protected area (MPAs) to the Kubulau coast in 2003. The
first, locally managed MPA was established in the Kubulau district of Vanua
Levu which is the second largest island in the country of Fiji. Kubulau
communities went about establishing this community-run MPA with funding
help from the Wildlife Conservation Society, for support funding and managing
the marine protected area. In 2005 resource mapping surveys were
conducted by the villages in the Kubulau district to help assess the abundance
of fish, invertebrates, and coral cover in the proposed Kubulau district MPA.
(Lopez, 2007, p. 26) These mapping surveys helped to give villagers a better
understanding of what they were working to protect as well as allowing a
guide for network design to maximize fisheries benefits while equally
distributing costs amongst the villages. They also worked on creating a way to
keep the community equally involved in its regulation. A group of
representatives from each village was put in place to work on integrated
management; these representatives were in charge of broad regulation
discussions. While the village chiefs were in charge of gear restrictions, MPA
temporary closures, and local regulations in each village's sector.

After the implementation of the MPA in the Kubulau district, research

showed that fish abundance increased within a couple of years. In 2011 the
Kubulau community however decided to alter the management slightly in a
way to improve the overall effectiveness and incorporate new information into
the management plan. These changes also had a positive impact and created
another increase in marine resources. This was an effective option so it is now
a meeting that happens every 5 years for all the Kubulau communities to
update and revise the overall management of the MPA to include the new data
that has been collected over the years.

In a three-year study of the Kubulau coast MPA “342 species of fishes

were visually documented during rapid surveys in Kubulau, with a predicted
fauna (based on the number of CDFI species) of 635 species for Kubulau outer
reefs and surrounds.” (Jupiter et al., 2010, p. 13) That is roughly 70% of Fiji's
known coral reef fish, containing about 16% of the coral reef fish diversity
worldwide. (Jupiter et al., 2010, p. 14) Of the list of 342 recorded species found
on the Kubulau coast, MPA 20 species are listed on the IUCN red list of
threatened species. The humphead wrasse is listed as endangered; the coral
trout, the squaretail coral grouper, and the black-saddled coral grouper are
listed as vulnerable. (Jupiter et al., 2010, p. 14) Making this MPA even more
important to the protection of these species. Qoliqoli, small and large LMMAs
are all important to the progress and protection of both endemic and
endangered marine species, helping keep up the biodiversity that Fiji and the
Coral Sea are known for. LMMAs are working more effectively than MPAs due
to the addition of local mindsets and local traditional ecological knowledge of
the proper way to take care of the reef while still keeping it thriving and
sustainable to take from.
Fishing for Subsistence
Fishing for subsistence is one of the main things that is being affected by the
fishing regulations in Fiji. The lack of fishing regulations being upheld is also
affecting subsistence fishing. There are in many ways too many and too few
fishing regulations put in place, affecting the Indigenous communities that still
rely on fishing as the main source of protein for their diets. According to Fiji’s
“Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) estimates generated since 1999
revealed that 50% of rural households are into subsistence fishing mainly for
domestic food consumption.” (Lopez, 2007, p. 26) Meaning that a majority of
families in Fiji rely on fishing as a form of protein. Fish as the main protein also
has a lot of health benefits that the Indigenous Fijians do not receive when they
supplement their protein intake with other forms of protein. However, it is
difficult for these families to get as many fish as they previously did due to large
fishing operations in the waters around Fiji without any limit on how much fish
they can take since they do not have to follow the same regulations as Fijians.
(Larssen,2021, p.110) This is because of large companies from other countries
not having to follow and abide by the same laws and regulations as Fijians do.
Commercial Fishing
Commercial fishing for Fijians has become more
difficult with foreign vessels becoming more
common and a lack of management with these
foreign vessels has led to overfishing of the tuna
stocks in Fiji. According to Fiji Tuna Boat Owners
Association, “in 2015, 75% of the country’s domestic
tuna fleet has stopped operating in the last 5 years.
Most fleets could catch less than 50% of the volume
of fish needed for companies to break even.”
Table 1: Percentage of annual per capita
(Claussen, 2015, p. 11) This is one way that foreign
fish consumption derived from
subsistence fishing and purchases of fish influence is taking out commercial fishing for the
in urban and rural areas (Claussen, 31) Fijians more than 20% of Fijians rely on tuna-related
work for employment. (Claussen, 2015, p. 26) This decrease also means that
fewer Fijians are having steady jobs to make an income to help support their
families. With fewer Fijians having jobs it means that more people are going to
rely on subsistence fishing to feed their families. (Larssen,2021, p.110) It is a
different and difficult issue because MPA’s and subsistence fishing works in
other Pacific Island Nations however it is not implemented or upheld the same
way in the Fijian islands making it difficult for subsistence to be sustainable.

Government Failure
The current practices and laws that are in place by the Fiji government are not
doing what they need to do to conserve and protect marine resources to the
best of their ability. In a lot of ways, it is not enough to restore the damages
that have been done by the colonial British government while they were in
power. Many of the Indigenous groups who are still harvesting fish in their
traditional ways have healthier marine environments surrounding them.
However, the Fijian government does not recognize marine tenure as a law or
ideal to be followed. Marine tenure is a system in which indigenous coastal
communities maintain the right to harvest from nearshore waters close to their
community. Giving them access to all the marine resources and management
of these areas as they feel is best for their community. However the Fijian
constitution “identifies continued ownership of Fijian land according to Fijian
custom as a central principle guiding the conduct of government. The Native
Lands Act provides for the continued occupation and use of ‘native lands’ by
indigenous Fijians according to custom. However, the Constitution does not
formally recognize customary fishing rights or customary marine tenure.”
(Minter, 2008,p.11) This means that if the tribe lost ownership of its customary
marine tenure or qoliqoli, it would not have the customary rights as seen by the
government unless it maintained ownership of the qoliqoli the entire time.
Meaning that when the Fisheries Act and regulations that came with it allow for
the Minister “to designate areas where the taking of fish is restricted or
prohibited. Although generally referred to as a Marine Protected Areas regime,
it is currently not possible to establish areas where all forms of fishing are
completely prohibited. This is because the Fifth Schedule to the Act allows for
the creation of marine reserves that prohibit fishing except by hand net,
wading net, spear, or line and hook. The protection offered by the Act is further
undermined as individuals may apply to the Commissioner of the Division for
authorization to take fish from restricted areas.” (Minter, 11) This is undermining
the entire point of the marine protected area if people are allowed to just apply
to still fish with any of the prohibited methods if they apply and are approved
to fish with other methods. This indicates a lack of coordination between
different sectors working on maintaining fisheries in Fiji. If one act says no to
something however there is another set of regulations that is applied by a
different sector that says it's okay to fish with other methods in this area if you
just apply to them. The LMMAs are marine protected areas that are organized
and managed by local indigenous tribes, following local traditional fishing laws
and practices and implementing new and updated protections for species of
high vulnerability. However this does not stop politicians from being proud of
the “progress” they are making, this is happening with the Locally Managed
Marine Areas or LMMAs which are an international point of pride with
government officials participating in the network's meetings. However,
protecting coastal fisheries resources wasn’t an important priority of the
government. (Kintisch,2019, p.6) However this has been the case with the Fijian
national government, the government “hasn’t heavily focused on protecting
coastal fisheries resources, so change requires political and policy reform. A
stroll along the busy and somewhat grimy docks in Suva on a Friday morning
makes clear the antiquated state of Fiji’s coastal fishing rules and their lax
enforcement.” (Kintisch,2019, p.6) This is important because without these laws
 being enacted and upheld to the standard it needs to be, the fisheries around
Fiji will be overfished and those who rely on them for subsistence will be left
starving as the big industry takes over. This loss of fish in Fiji will have an
impact on everyone in Fiji who relies on it as a form of protein.
The implementation for the
protection of these fisheries is not
being properly handled by the Fijian
government, the wardens are not well
enough trained on how to properly
protect and uphold the laws. The
government has implemented these
FLMMAs in areas to allow for the
indigenous tribes to have control over
their own marine protected area
however they are not properly funding
training for this operation for it to be
successful and have a positive
environmental impact. According to a
survey done by the IUCN states that “A
rough estimate provided by Fiji Locally
Managed Marine Area (FLMMA)
suggests that less than 50% of FLMMA
sites have certified fish wardens.”
(Minter,2008, p.35) The locally
managed marine areas are shown on
the map as inshore SUMA’s in light blue,
these are all the areas that are
managed by local Indigenous groups Map 1: Map of inshore and offshore special, unique
marine areas (SUMAs) (Sykes,11)
on the islands they surround.

One example of the scale of this issue

is in the Northern Lau group shown on
the map in the entire yellow-outlined
area there was only one certified fish
warden for the entire area.
(Minter,2008, p.35) This is important
because without the proper training
and proper amount of fish wardens
patrolling Fijian waters means that
there is easier access for people to
take illegal species, size, and over the
limits of fish causing a greater
environmental degradation of the reef.
Map 2: Map of Ono-i-Lau Island and Vuata Ono, the Lau
Group (Sykes,150)
Conclusion

Existing studies and literature have shown that marine protected areas can be
successful in increasing the abundance and fish biomass of target fish species
as well as non-target fish species. Marine-protected areas can have positive
and lasting effects which have been observed in permanent no-take areas
compared to partial protection or periodically harvested areas. However,
management practices need to stay adaptive and adapt to protect what is
found in each individual marine protected area site. It will take time and an
effort by the government to place more protections and have more people put
in place to make sure this protection is being upheld to protect and manage
the marine fisheries that Fiji has. However, this can not just be a government-
based action; more areas need to be established in accordance with local
indigenous groups, and these areas need to be managed and updated by the
government with local support. As for issues with commercial fishing a stand
needs to be taken on a number of fishing vessels from other countries that can
be allowed to fish in Fijian waters.
Literature Cited