marine resources division information section … · 2 spc traditional marine resource management...

SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin #8March 1997 1

Marine Resource Management and Knowledge

Number 8 — March 1997

S O U T H P A C I F I C C O M M I S S I O N

TRADITIONAL

I N F O R M A T I O N B U L L E T I N

MARINE RESOURCES DIVISIONI N F O R M A T I O N S E C T I O N

Group Co-ordinator and Bulletin Editor: Kenneth Ruddle, Matsugaoka-cho 11-20, Nishinomiya-shi, Hyogo-ken 662, Japan.(Tel: (81) 798712904; Fax: (81) 798714749; E-mail: [email protected])Production: Information Section, Marine Resources Division, SPC, B.P. D5, 98848 Noumea Cedex, New Caledonia. (Fax: 687 263818;E-mail: [email protected]). Printed with financial assistance from the Government of France.

NOTE FROM THE CO-ORDINATOR

In this issue we are pleased to include the first of ourlong-planned contributions from outside the SPC re-gion, with Robin Mahon’s information on fishes knowl-edge in the Caribbean region.

We lead our articles with a long contribution on south-western New Georgia, Solomon Islands by ShankarAswani, a doctoral candidate at the University of Ha-waii. Three shorter contributions follow: T. Akimichi’sfield-notes from fishing communities in Vanuatu, AnnaTiraa-Passfield on the use of holothurians in Rarotonga,and Kelvin Passfield on canoe-making in Tuvalu.

Responding to reader feedback, we are trying to sat-isfy the request for a balanced mixture of articles, timelynews on recent publications and other information ofrelevance to people concerned with coastal – marineresearch and management in the Pacific region. So inthis issue we are pleased to be able to include a mix-ture of long and short contributions, those based onrecently completed fieldwork and others derived frommore casual, but nonetheless valuable, observation andrecording. We would like to encourage other readersto emulate these examples! In particular we wish toencourage people to submit brief contributions on top-ics which interest them from their own backgroundand/or their own communities.

Kenneth Ruddle

Insidethis issue

Troubled water in South-westernNew Georgia, Solomon Islands:is codification of the commons aviable avenue for resource useregularisation?by Shankar Aswani p. 2

The harvesting of rori (seacucumbers) in Rarotonga,Cook Islandsby Anna Tiraa-Passfield p. 16

Fieldnotes on some culturalaspects of marine resource use infour coastal villages of Vanuatuby Akimichi Tomoya p. 18

Construction of traditionaloutrigger fishing canoes in Tuvaluby Kelvin Passfield p. 20

Welcome to the InternationalYear Of the Reef (IYOR) list-server p. 22

Recent publications p. 23

etc...

SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin #8 March 19972

Troubled water in South-western New Georgia,Solomon Islands: is codification ofthe commons a viable avenue for resourceuse regularisation?

by Shankar Aswani 1

In recent decades there has been a growing interest in indigenous sea tenure institutions and their possible role inestablishing a framework for sustainable resource use and conservation. Yet the feasibility of these institutions to copewith social and economic changes have been seldom explored. In this paper a case study is presented where internal de-regularisation of the ‘commons’ is the result of existing socio-cultural principles combined with outside influences. Twoterritorial models are compared to elucidate emerging internal instabilities of sea tenure institutions and possible waysto correct existing problems. The codification of the commons is suggested here as a possible measure to strengthenindigenous common property regimes.

Introduction

Few publications in the last two decades have incitedso much academic debate as Hardin’s (1968) ‘Trag-edy of the Commons’. Hardin’s thesis contends thatunregulated access to common property resources,such as open sea fisheries, leads to unchecked exploi-tation and environmental degradation. Hardin pre-scribed that to prevent this ‘tragedy’, common prop-erty be ‘privatised’. This idea has appealed to manyWestern economists and biologists because of its sim-plicity. The common-property debate has not beenlimited to the academic arena, but has had sweepingimplications in policy formulation. Numerous re-source economists employed by government andnon-government organisations around the worldhave granted Hardin’s thesis the status of divine law.

Hardin’s thesis, however, has not been left undebated.A myriad of researchers have pointed to Hardin’sconceptual confusion between common property (rescommunis) and open access (res nullis) (Berkes, 1989;Ciriacy-Wantrup & Bishop, 1975; McCay & Acheson,1987). Under a common-property regime, participantsin the commons present outsiders from accessing re-sources while enforcing resource-use limitations ontheir participants. Conversely, an open-access regimeis a situation where there is no resource-access exclud-ability or harvest control (Feeny et al., 1990). Hardin’ssemantic confusion between ‘common’ and ‘open’ ac-cess has been seized on by anthropologists who haveshown, through numerous case studies around theworld, that common-property regimes are controlledand regulated by identifiable groups of people2. Suchstudies suggest Hardin’s ‘tragedy’ is avoidable.

While numerous anthropologists have been unre-lentingly critical of resource economists for accept-ing Hardin’s thesis, anthropologists themselveshave uncritically accepted the notion that common-property regimes are conducive to resource-useregulation. This leap of faith is clearly apparent inthe field of maritime anthropology, where numer-ous authors have argued that indigenous environ-mental knowledge, cultural practices and marinetenure are responsible for the conservation of ma-rine resources (Cordell, 1989; Dahl, 1988; Foster andPoggie, 1993; Hyndman, 1993; Johannes, 1978).

In recent decades there has been a great deal of in-terest in indigenous sea-tenure institutions andtheir possible role in establishing a framework forsustainable resource use and conservation. The vi-ability of these institutions to cope with social andeconomic transformation, however, has seldombeen established.

In reviewing contemporary changes in community-based marine resource-management institutions,this paper presents a case study in which internalde-regularisation of the ‘commons’ emerges froma consideration of existing socio-cultural preceptsand the influence of outside forces, and suggestssome measures to strengthen indigenous common-property regimes. To illustrate this process twomarine territorial arrangements in the Roviana La-goon, South-western New Georgia, Solomon Is-lands, are compared: the ‘ territorial – enclosed’ andthe ‘mosaic’ models of property relations.

1 Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii, 2424 Maile Way, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, USA.2 The rejection of Hardin's thesis by anthropologists seems contradictory because Hardin's prescription for 'tragedy' is

'privatisation' or equitable to corporate tenure or 'common-property' regimes as understood by other social scientists.However, Hardins enclosure of the commons really pertains to individual tenure rather than corporate tenure (i.e. commu-nal ownership), and, therefore, 'common property' regimes as understood by anthropologists are still qualitatively differentto individual 'privatisation' of open space access resources as forwarded by Hardin.


The former is a situation where territorial bounda-ries are well-defined, jurisdictional power is central-ised, and sea-space entitlements are regionally rec-ognised by local communities. The latter is a con-dition where territorial boundaries are not secure,administrative control is decentralised, and sea-space entitlements are regionally scattered and con-tended by local communities.

It is argued here that whereas both models suffer frominternal regulatory instabilities, the ‘territorial – en-closed’ model of sea tenure provides a more stableframework to establish co-management goals thanthe ‘mosaic’ model of property relations.

Instabilities in these two systems originate from thecentralisation of chiefly power and the structural flu-idity of the Roviana kinship system. The first di-lemma results from chiefly control of territorial seasand the lack of involvement of the subject popula-tion in the protection and monitoring of the ‘com-mons’. The second dilemma follows from theRoviana bilateral kinship system, which links indi-viduals to multiple kin groups, thereby permittingthe accumulation of land and sea entitlements. This,in turn, allows fishers to have access to multiple ter-ritorial seas and enable competing groups to use theirtenure rights for territorial expansion. The same proc-ess has been noted by Hviding (1996) in nearbyMarovo Lagoon, although Hviding has not seen it asproblematic. The internal instabilities of these two re-gimes are considered problematic here only as far astheir managerial effectiveness is concerned.

Effective regulatory measures imply monitoring,control, and enforcement of existing access and har-vesting rules. Although its focus is narrow, this defi-nition differentiates itself from the more ambiguousindigenous ‘cognised’ view of territorial enforce-ment. ‘Cognised’ control is how people having rightsto a given sea area perceive their access and userrights and those of others. Effective control, on theother hand, is the actual physical enforcement ofthose rights to prevent free-riders from over-exploit-ing resources and interlopers from trespassing intoa territory. The cognised view of property relationshas been used by anthropologists to refute Hardin’sassertion that ‘freedom in the commons brings ru-ins to all’ (1968: 1244). But little attention has beenpaid to the ‘actual’ social and ecological practiceswhich define the failure or success of a commonproperty regime to regulate its resource base.

Some social scientists have justly argued that sea ten-ure does not occur in a social vacuum and, there-fore, cannot be solely reduced to issues of fisheriesmanagement. Further, they contend that sea tenureshould be viewed in the larger context of indigenousrights to resource control and political autonomy(e.g., Hviding, 1996; Ruddle et. al,. 1992). The is-sues presented in this paper do not question indig-enous rights to self-determination and control oftheir resource base, but assess the ability of indig-

enous sea tenure institutions to deal with contem-porary problems of inshore fisheries management.It is not an overstatement that reducing entire socio-cultural phenomena to their fisheries managementutility is a lesser evil in the face of dwindling globalresources and exploding human populations.

The disagreement between anthropologists and re-source economists on the regulatory characteristicsof common property regimes originates in the con-flicting goals of each discipline. The anthropolo-gist’s objectives are to ensure the rights of marginalpopulations, whereas the economist’s main goal isto achieve economic efficiency (Brox, 1990). Ratherthan dichotomising the commons into an ‘either/or’ situation, it is more fruitful to recognise that, likeprivate property and state property, common prop-erty regimes can be effective in regulating resourceuse and access in some cases and cannot in others(Bromley, 1992; Quigging, 1988). Although this hasbeen recognised by some social scientists (Carrier,1987; Feeny et. al. 1990; Ruddle, 1996), the generaltrend in the anthropology of marine common-prop-erty regimes is to reaffirm indigenous rights by pro-moting the notion that sea-tenure institutions aredesigned to conserve resources.

Admitting that micro-tragedies may take place insome regions does not diminish the importance ofindigenous sea tenure as a fisheries managementtool. Conversely, accepting its vulnerability to in-ternal de-regularisation may actually strengthenco-managerial effort between outside forces andlocal peoples to prevent further ecological degra-dation. Co-management as understood here is ajoint effort between local peoples, government andNGOs to implement regulatory measures to man-age small-scale inshore fisheries.


Roviana Lagoon: social context

Roviana Lagoon is located between the Marovoand Vonavona Lagoons on the island of NewGeorgia, Western Solomon Islands. It extends forover 52 km southward from Munda to Kalena Bay(Map 1). The lagoon is protected by a series ofoffshore raised coral reef islands 20–40 m high.The lagoon, with a maximum depth of 40 m, com-prises numerous habitats, including seagrass beds,river mouths, shallow reefs, deep lagoon, and theseaward slope. Numerous human settlements dotthe barrier islands and the New Georgia mainland.Extending from the south-eastern end of the la-goon all the way to Munda and beyond, rain for-ests cover both the New Georgia mainland andthe raised coral islands which enclose the lagoon.

Various tribal groups, sharing cultural and linguis-tic affinities, comprise the inhabitants of RovianaLagoon. The larger tribal groups are the Saikileand Kalikoqu chiefly districts and the smallerMunda area districts of Nusa Roviana – Kokorapa,Dunde, Kekehe, Lodu Maho and Kindu. Althougheach of these groups has independent control of itsmarine and terrestrial estates (pepeso) they all sharekinship ties originating from a long history of tribalinter-marriage between the inland groups ofKazukuru, Taghosaghe, Lio Zuzuloqo and Hoava

with the coastal groups of Vuragare and Koloi(Fig. 1). In addition, kinship relations extend in-ter-regionally to include bonds with Rendova,Marovo, Simbo, Kolombangara, Ranongga,Choiseul, Vella Lavella, Isabel, and other parts ofthe Western Solomons.

Historically, the Munda area has been identified byWestern observers as the geographical and culturalcore of the Roviana Lagoon. As missionaries andtraders established themselves there at the turnof the 20th century, all historical accounts ofRoviana centre on the Munda area. It should benoted, however, that Munda is comprised of sev-eral decentralised tribal groups that have tradi-tional political authority over relatively small landand sea territories.

This decentralisation detracts from its importanceas a cultural core, and has established Munda as asmall regional government and trade centre. To-day, the most prominent tribal groups are the in-ner lagoon chiefly districts of Saikile and Kalikoqu.Unlike Marovo Lagoon, which is divided into nu-merous territories, the Roviana Lagoon is dividedinto two main socio-political enclaves, each underthe centralised power of a chief. The smaller poli-ties comprising each of these two political entitieshave, through a long history of intermarriage, pooled

KalikoquSaikile

Dunde

KinduKekehe

Village Claims

Vuragare Claim

NewGeorgia

ROVIANA LAGOON

VONAVONA LAGOON

Note: these boundaries are only exemplary and do not constitute definitive territorial lines.

RendovaI l d

Chiefly district boundaries

Nusa RovianaIsland

Rarumana

Map 1: Roviana Lagoon. Munda area, Kalikoku and Saikile districts

Note that the illustrated boundaries are not definitive and are not intended to portrayexact boundary divisions.


their land and sea entitlements under the jurisdic-tional umbrella of the chiefs. Nonetheless, indi-vidual descent groups within the larger politicalentities have a high measure of control over theirparticular customary territories.

Commencing at Koqu Kalena, at one extremity ofthe Roviana Lagoon, all the way to Rarumana, atthe end of the Vonavona Lagoon, the Roviana ver-nacular (of the Austronesian language family) isspoken. As most people in the region share a com-mon ancestry, the social and political characteris-tics of each group occupying this large section ofsouth-western New Georgia are fairly homogene-ous. The main core of inhabitants now livingthroughout the Roviana and Vonavona Lagoonsprogressively radiated outwards from NusaRoviana Island, near Munda, over a period of at leasteight generations. These moving populations inter-married with other localised groups as they ex-panded eastward and westward. It is enough to saythat most people in the region are genealogicallylinked at some point in their descent line. This com-mon heritage has created a sense of ‘Roviananess’,or rather a pan-Roviana consciousness.

The primary differentiating element for each tribalgroup in present day Roviana is church affiliation.The Munda area is riddled with competing reli-gious denominations, ranging from the UnitedChurch (former Methodists) to smaller evangeli-cal groups, such as Rema. The larger politicalblocks of Kalikoqu and Saikile are mainly adher-ents of the Christian Fellowship Church (CFC),with smaller pockets of United and Apostolicchurch followers at Saikile. The CFC is an indig-enous church which blends Methodist doctrinewith indigenous beliefs. The importance of theCFC church cannot be understated, as it is themajor player in the cultural, social, political andspiritual life of the lagoon inhabitants. CFC fol-lowers see their church as independent and notbound to the colonial legacy of other Christian de-nominations. Adherence to the CFC church tran-scends the traditional spiritual role of other Chris-tian denominations in the Solomon Islands andtranslates into political regionalism.

The local economy is manly subsistence-oriented,with primary focus on shifting agriculture and fish-ing. Small-scale commercial activities, such as shell-diving, marketing of fruits and vegetables, copraproduction, small-scale logging, operation of vil-lage stores, sale of petrol, and other occupationsare carried out by household members to meet suchcash requirements such as church donations, schoolfees or purchase of store goods. In recent yearsmajor development schemes, such as the openingof a tuna cannery at Noro and the introduction oflogging operations in Roviana, have given young

men and women access to labour markets. To youngpeople, wage-earning represents a temporary periodwith minimal training, and an opportunity to earnsome cash.

The kinship system

Households in Roviana Lagoon are not independ-ent from the larger system of social relations, whichlinks all household members to a series of kindredattachments. Generally, family units live in ex-tended compounds, which include many of theirclosest relatives, and share a series of obligationsto assist their kinsmen. Social groups in Rovianaare formed around the concept of butubutu, or kin-dred groups that share consanguine ties. However,a butubutu is not a kinship designation that refersto a specific consanguine condition. Rather it rep-resents multiple social relations which range fromextended families to full socio-political units (e.g.,butubutu Kalikoqu). Roviana social organisationresembles that of Marovo Lagoon (see Hviding,1996), and Simbo (see Scheffler, 1962), and is prob-ably similar to others social forms in the region.

Affinity to a descent group is cognatic (ambilinealdescent), i.e., membership in a kindship group canbe acquired by matrilineal and/or patrilineal as-sociation. While an individual’s possible array ofkinship associations is manifold, propinquity to agroup usually depends on place of residence, mar-riage, possible advantages in terms of resource ac-cessibility and social prestige.

Roviana’s kinship manifold relations allows an in-dividual to redefine his or her kinship alliances atany time and under any circumstances (Keesing,1972). Notwithstanding the fluidity of the bilateralkinship system, for Roviana people matrilineal de-scent carries more weight. Inheritance rights to landholdings, or a hinia (share), that are held by a spe-cific kin-based group can be transferred, with equalentitlement rights, to their offspring from either thefather’s or mother’s side. On the other hand, rightsto virgin forested land (muqe) not held by any spe-cific lineage but conjointly controlled by all the mem-bers of a tribal group (butubutu) are stronger wheninherited though matrilineal descent. In the con-text of land disputes men will often refer to theirassociation with central females in their descent line(podo pa varikaleqe or ‘born to a woman’) to empha-sise the strength of their claims. Individuals whocan trace their descent to an unbroken line of females,or what Hviding has termed as ‘cumulativematrifiliation’ (1996: 150), tend to have stronger de-cision-making power in matters of a tribal land andsea territories (pepeso) than do those who trace theirdescent patrilineally. Ties to chiefly lineages (tututibangara), however, whether from the maternal orpaternal association, also constitute a powerful filiallink.


A person in Roviana obtains access to land and searesources by virtue of his or her birth rights (pinodo),spousal affiliation (roroto), or location of residence(koa vasina). Rights to use resources must be distin-guished from decision-making rights which allowindividuals or groups to regulate resource use andaccess. Note, that while the bilateral kinship sys-tems give individuals access to various land andsea territories, it does not generally bestow an in-dividual with decision-making powers to morethan one or two territorial units (pepeso). Personsusually have ‘strong’ (ngingira) rights to a certainterritory by virtue of their birth into the control-ling descent group. The degree of one’s rights’strength (tinaqo) varies according to one’s cumula-tive filiations to that descent line (number of timeslinked to a descent line).

Social organisationand marine tenure

A territorial unit (pepeso) in Roviana Lagoon is aproperty domain which extends conceptually fromthe top of the mountains of South New Georgia(tutupeka) to the barrier islands which form theRoviana Lagoon (toba), and beyond to the open sea(lamana), midway between the channel separatingSouth New Georgia and Rendova Island. AlthoughRoviana people see land and sea as integrated, theactual enactment of property rights between thesetwo realms is economically and jurisdictionallydifferentiated. This separation originates in thesettlement patterns of merging coastal and inlandpopulations before the establishment of Britishcolonial rule, at the end of the 19th century.

Much of the literature on Pacific Islands’ tenure sys-tems has stressed the lack of indigenous separa-tion of land and marine spheres of ownership. Theprevalent theme is that sea and land space exist asa continuum and that indigenous thought catego-ries do not dissociate these realms as Westernersdo (Johannes, 1978; Klee, 1980; Ruddle, 1988). Ex-amples of compounded land and sea territorialunits in the Pacific, like the Hawaiian ahupua’a(Meller & Horwitz 1987), the Fijian vanua(Ravuvu, 1983), and the Marovo puava (Hviding,1989; 1996) are put forward to accentuate thisconceptual difference.

The Roviana tenure system, although conceptuallysimilar to those portrayed by other researchers, ex-hibits some contrasts. It is important to differenti-ate between the indigenous ‘conceptual’ view of

land and sea entitlements and the ‘actual’ enact-ment of these rights. Even though Roviana peoplesee entitlement rights to their respective pepeso asall-encompassing, they make a clear economic dis-tinction between land – soil (pepeso) and sea – reefs(kolo-sagauru) spheres. Land is a physical environ-ment that can be actually worked on and altered.Most importantly, it can be claimed through itsphysical modification. For instance, when accessto an untouched parcel of land (i.e., primary forest– muqe, or coastal mangrove groves – petupetu) isconferred to an individual by the chief or villagehead man, that individual can establish permanentclaim to the parcel by altering its biotic features3 .Usually, coconut palms or Canarium nut trees areplanted, although in recent years some people havebegan to plant avocado and mango.

This process encourages a sort of pioneering landgrab, resulting in the clearing of coastal mangrovesand forests to give way to coconut plantations. Theestablishment of a small coconut plantation can beused as a pretext to gain access to land. Disregard-ing the unprofitability and labor requirements ofcopra production, people continue to clear coastalzones to make coconut plantations. This processoccurs at two levels: the ‘intra’ and ‘inter’ kindred-level competition. At the intra-level, siblings com-pete with each other to seize their parents hinia(i.e., land share) of clearing as much land as pos-sible to establish their individual claims. At theinter-level, diverse descent groups within thelarger group (e.g., Kalikoqu or Saikile) competeamong themselves to gain access to communallands4 (muqe) that are under the supervision ofthe chief and which have not been previouslycleared or claimed by any specific descent group.The environmental repercussions of these pioneer-ing activities are manifold.

On the other hand, the sea remains a domainwhich is not easily transformed, and which, com-pared to land, does not provide the same kind ofsustenance and income benefits. Most signifi-cantly, the sea cannot be claimed through its physi-cal modification as can land and, therefore, it re-mains an ‘untamed’ (pinomo) domain. However,there are a few instances where individuals haveclaimed jurisdictional control over waters contigu-ous to their coastal land holdings (hinia) but thenhave been overruled by the chiefs, who stronglyassert communal tenure and access to all lagoonmarine habitats. Further, people tend to ignoresuch individual claims, on the rationale that reefs

3 Note that this process does not include usufructuary (use) rights to communal garden land.4 In recent years this process has been heightened by various descent groups competing with each other to access communal

land for small-scale lumbering (‘walk-about sawmilling’). This is especially prevalent in the Vonavona Lagoon, whereindividual parcels (hinia) have already been cleared and people are moving into communal lands. This, of course, iscreating many problems, because profits from lumbering are not distributed to the community.

SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin #8March 199722

To subscribe to the list

If you wish to instruct others how to subscribeto the list, have them send e-mail [email protected], with the fol-lowing message (only!) in the body of the text:

subscribe iyor-list

To unsubscribe from the list

To unsubscribe from the list, send e-mail to:

[email protected]

with the following message (only!) in the bodyof the text:

unsubscribe iyor-list “Your Name” <[email protected]>

To post a comment or announce-ment of meeting

To post a message to the list, simply addressyour comments or announcements to [email protected]. The message will becirculated to all members of the list. The mem-bers may respond to you directly, or post theircomments to the list for all to read.

Help

To see a list of the functions and services avail-able from the list-server, send an e-mail messageto [email protected], with the fol-lowing message (only!) in the body of the text:

help

Other IYOR-related information

The lnternational Year of the Reef has a World-Wide Web Home Page at the following URL:

http://www.coral.org/IYOR/

Etiquette

1) When responding to a posting to the list, do notrespond *back* to the entire list unless you feel itis an answer everyone can benefit from. I thinkthis is usually the case, but responses such as“Yeah, tell me, too!’ to the entire list will makeyou unpopular in a hurry. Double-check your ‘To’:line before sending.

2) Do not ‘flame’ (i.e., scold) colleagues via iyor-list.If you feel compelled to chastise someone, pleasesend them mail directly and flame away.

3) If you have technical/scientific questions aboutcoral, please conduct as much preliminary researchinto a topic as possible before posting a query tothe list. (In other words, you shouldn’t expect oth-ers to do your research for you.) Please consider:

• Your librarian (an extremely valuableresource),

• The CHAMP Literature Abstracts areaat the CHAMP Web Site:hftp://coral.aoml.noaa.gov

• The CHAMP Online Researche@s Directory (i.e., search for your topic, ask theexperts directly),

• The CHAMP (and other) Web sites’ linkspage(s)

But please *do* avail yourself of the list whenyou’ve exhausted other sources.

5) Please carefully consider the purpose of iyor-listbefore posting a message. This is a forum com-prised of conservation groups, scientists, aquari-ums, government agencies and others interestedin sharing ideas about IYOR.

6) Succinct postings are greatly appreciated by all.


(kali) (eastern side) of Nusa Roviana Island, atthe Munda area. Their roots originated in theKazukuru inland groups who descended to thecoast of Nusa Roviana some 13 generations ago6 ,and the Vuragare coastal inhabitants, who livedin the western section of Nusa Roviana. As kali-koqu inhabitants had also intermarried with theinner lagoon groups of Taghosaghe, Lio Zuzuloqo,and Koloi, they had also accrued strong rightsthere. After the shelling of Nusa Roviana by theBritish, in 1891, kali-koqu inhabitants moved intothe inner lagoon. Over the years this assemblageof tribal groups has emerged as a large socio-po-litical enclave now called Kalikoqu (Fig.1). Theforging of tribal entities in present day Roviana,however, has been superseded by church adher-ence as an organisational force.

The amalgamation of ‘coastal’ and ‘bush’ tribalidentities, as well as the differentiation between‘conceptual’ and ‘actual’ way of dealing with ter-ritorial entitlement, are essential issues to under-stand contemporary regulatory problems of landand sea tenure in the Roviana Lagoon. Two terri-torial arrangements, the ‘territorial – enclosed’ andthe ‘mosaic’ models are compared here to illus-trate de-regularisation processes caused by a se-ries of precepts embedded in the Roviana socio-cultural system.

The territorial – enclosedmodel of sea tenure.

The territorial – enclosed model of marine tenure(Fig. 2) characterises a situation where members ofseveral tribal groups under the administrativeumbrella of one authority jointly use commonly-held aquatic resources. Boundaries to territorialseas are well defined and participants in the com-mons preclude outsiders from accessing resources(See Map 1). In this model the groups comprisingthe large socio-political enclaves of Kalikoqu andSaikile chiefly districts have surrendered their lo-calised territorial control to sea space and havevested the chief with that jurisdictional authority.It is argued here that while inner instabilities arisein this territorial model, enclosure of the commonsprovides a framework that is more adaptable tothe influence of exogenous forces. To understandsome of the existing regulatory problems, as wellas the potential of this model to regulate resourceuse and access, it is necessary to understand thechiefly control of sea space at Kalikoqu and Saikile.

As a result of a long history of intermarriageamong the groups forming each of the mainchiefly districts of Saikile and Kalikoqu7 , tenurerights to passages, reefs and other marine habi-tats that were held by specific descent groups in

6 It should be noted that ethnohistorical accounts are not uniform throughout the region. The chronology presented in thispaper is only an approximation, and does not represent the views of all Roviana inhabitants.

7 Inhabitants of Kalikoqu have also widely intermarried with Saikile inhabitants.

Figure 1: Ethnic homogenisation and realignment of territorial seas along village orcoalition lines

Vuragare tribe----------Kazukuru Tribe------Lio Zuzuloqo tribe-----------Taghosaghe Tribe----------Hoava Tribe

Kindu Dunde Munda Nusa Roviana *Sasavele Baraulu Nusa Hope Olive/Ha’apai

SaikileKalikoqu

* Also Nusa Banga village.

INTERMARRIAGE


the past have been pooled into the larger collec-tion of land and sea entitlements held by all mem-bers of these two socio-political enclaves. As thereare no secessionist claims to sea tenure by anyspecific descent group within each of the chieflydistricts, jurisdictional trusteeship (kinopu) overterritorial sea is confided in the chief (bangara).Nevertheless, waters proximate to each of the con-stituent villages are still co-supervised by localleaders (palabatu).

At Baraulu Village, in Kalikoqu, for example, theReregana Passage is recognised by many in thedistrict as ‘owned’ (tinaqo) by descendants of kota.The chief, who resides at a different hamlet withinKalikoqu, also traces his descent line to kota, andtherefore also holds strong rights at the passage.If a non-Kalikoqu fisher wishes to fish for sub-sistence or small income at Reregana Passage, ask-ing permission from the local headman would suf-fice. However, large-scale commercial activitiesat the passage would require authorisation of thechief. This situation is replicated in other villagesthroughout the area. Notwithstanding localisedadministration of sea space, it is reckoned by eve-ryone that trusteeship of all sea space at Kalikoquis under one chief.

In the daily discourse of Roviana fishers, it is fre-quently heard that chiefs ‘own’ (taqo) the reefs. Al-though many people are aware that chiefs do notown the reefs per se, the concepts of ‘trusteeship’(kinopu) and ‘ownership’ (tinaqo) are commonly

Figure 2: 'Enclosed model' of sea tenure (e.g., Kalikoqu)

Lio Zuzuloqo Taghosaghe

Vuragare

Kazukuru Saikile

Koloi

Baraulu Sasabele Nusa Banga

KALIKOQU

confounded. Obviously, not everyone miscon-strues these concepts. A few elderly individuals stillrecall intra-tribal boundaries within the larger pol-ity of Kalikoqu, and still refer to their localisedrights. They contend that the chief only ‘keeps’ thebutubutu and that each descent group still has somedegree of jurisdictional autonomy over its land andsea states (pepeso). Further, they argue that openaccess to all Kalikoqu members does not equatewith corresponding entitlement rights. Some peo-ple have stronger rights than others by virtue oftheir filial association to the original owning de-scent lines, thus those having stronger rights cancategorically impose access restrictions at any time.Opinions as to who possesses jurisdictional powerover territorial waters vary according to kindredaffiliation. Generally, internal dissent to chieflycontrol of tribal land and sea results from closely-related kin groups opposing the hegemony of thechiefly lineage.

Younger fishers, conversely, feel that all territorialwaters within the boundaries of Kalikoqu and evenbeyond are a ‘public’ good that is supervised andregulated by the chief himself. In fact, younger fish-ers range well beyond their localised territorialboundaries and enter those of Saikile and Munda.Fishers justify access to other territorial waters byinvoking their kin relations to the area’s dominantlineages or by citing prior customary binding agree-ments between their group and that of the visitedterritory. As commercial demand for marine prod-ucts rises, younger fishers further proclaim that


everyone in Roviana should be able to fish every-where, owing to a shared ancestral origin. This‘kinship rationale’ is manipulated to gain access toas many areas as possible. For the most part fish-ing is localised, and crossing of territorial bounda-ries by Roviana fishers is common but not rampant.

Several key processes make the chiefs custodiansof land and sea; First, the chiefs’ multiple filiatorylinks to the major founding groups magnify chieflyauthority over traditional territories. Over manygenerations chiefly lineages have married into allthe landowning groups forming the chiefly en-claves of the Roviana Lagoon, and therefore havebecome vested with the authority to control allholding interests. Second, chiefs can have direct‘ownership’ of reefs. For instance, at Saikile thechiefly lineage is reckoned as ‘owning’ a large reefcomplex within the larger pool of common entitle-ments. Thirdly, major court decisions of recent dec-ades have awarded chiefly lineages legal entitle-ment to timber rights in communal tribal landswithin each of the chiefly districts. This conten-tious development has empowered the figure ofthe chief beyond his traditional role as keeper orcaretaker. The legal accreditation of chiefs by thegovernment’s judicial system has been de facto ex-tended to sea tenure (especially in Saikile). Finally,the pragmatic conceptual division between landand sea spheres bestows on chiefs the jurisdictionaltrusteeship of sea space.

From the standpoint of fisheries management,chiefly control of sea space gives rise to some in-ternal regulatory problems that are worth explor-ing. The inability of chiefs to regulate the fisheryrelates to a dialectical process between fishers andthe chief. Fishers expect the chief to make deci-sions concerning regulatory measures before anyrestraint is exercised. If no rules are instituted, thenfishers do not exercise any control. On the otherside, chiefs do not consider it urgent to establishany regulatory measure that could occasion hard-ships for members of their respective constituen-cies. This results in a sort of ‘free rider’ effect, asfishers do not feel the responsibility to control thelevel of their catch rates nor to enforce their prop-erty rights against interlopers, especially if theybelong to the Roviana Lagoon. In economic terms,the costs are externalised. Fishers obtain the ben-efits of their harvest but pass the environmental costof their actions to all the members of the group. Likecitizens of nation-states who do not generally partici-pate in the coastal protection delegated to the state,Roviana fishers do not take an active role in manag-ing the fishery, as chiefs are entrusted with that care.

These regulatory problems translate into the over-exploitation of various resources, including turtles,several species of parrot-fish, mullet, crayfish, mud-crabs, trochus, beche-de-mer, and other species. Infact, some species have almost disappeared fromthe lagoon, including dugong, aromoi shell(Ostreidae spp.) and milkfish (poqu, Chanos chanos),among others. A growing problem is habitat deg-radation in the inner lagoon. For instance, increas-ing collection of belangavi (Beguina semiorbiculata),a shell sold to Malaitans from the Langalanga La-goon for the manufacture of customary shellmoney, is leading to coral reef deterioration. Tocollect these shells, coral reefs are hacked away witha hammer and chisel8 , resulting in diminishingdesirable habitat for larval recruitment. Other prob-lems include the increased netting of mullet formarketing during spawning periods, and the con-tinual predation on juvenile reef fish in the anglingfishery. As in other parts of the Pacific, juvenilefish are regarded as ‘sweet’ (lomoso) and thereforeare targeted for this desirable ‘sweetness’. Al-though the eventual impact of these activities is notclear, increased commercialisation and an explod-ing human population are destined to make prob-lems even worse.

These adverse effects, however, are balanced tosome extent by the ability of traditional authoritiesto fend off the threat of large-scale development,such as industrial baitfishing9 , in the lagoon wa-ters. It is worth mentioning, as far as resourcemanagement is concerned, that not all exogenousinfluences have a negative effect. For example, inthe Saikile chiefly district the increasing commer-cial value of the bangapodu shell (Nassarius camelus)led the chief to impose some rules an access to allSaikile territorial waters by non-members, even tothose individuals with Saikile kinship affiliationliving elsewhere (e.g. Kalikoqu). Besides dealingwith exogenous forces, local tenure institutions arepotentially well-equipped to deal with interlopers,because each individual fisher is a potential moni-tor. Moreover, local controls are not totally absent.Chiefs and important local leaders have sometimesimposed regulatory measures, such as gear restric-tions (e.g. dynamite fishing), and periodically clos-ing shell beds to permit recovery.

Despite some of the regulatory problems men-tioned here, the centralisation of chiefly power inconcert with each village’s localised administrativepatterns can offer an appropriate context to estab-lish co-management regulatory measures betweentraditional authorities and government and NGOs.

8 It should be noted that in 1993 logging began in the Roviana Lagoon. The impending damage created by river run-offsiltation will surely surpass any damage caused by divers.

9 This applies only to Kalikoqu and Saikile, as since 1973 the Munda area communities have opened their reefs to baitfishing.


area. Munda area hamlets have acquired entitlementrights to these reefs as a result of intermarriage withthe original controlling group and through bindingagreements between tribal chiefs. Although bounda-ries are locally defined among Nusa Roviana, Dunde,Kekehe and Kindu (all in the Munda area), they arenot recognised by the other reef-owning descend-ants living at Kalikoqu, Saikile, Parara10 , Rendovaand some at Nusa Roviana11. This lack of recogni-tion by surrounding communities renders thismodel of sea tenure very unstable, especially as itfaces increasing pressures from such outside forcesas fisheries development.

The present-day descendants of a coastal dwellinggroup named the Vuragare (lit. ‘where the wavesbreak’) reside throughout Southwestern New Geor

More troubling, however, are the difficulties whicharise when enclosure of the ‘commons’ is not rec-ognised by competing groups, and when tradi-tional leaders are unable to legitimise their author-ity in controlling resource use and access.

The ‘mosaic’ modelof sea tenure

The ‘mosaic’ model of sea tenure (Fig. 3) comprises acondition where entitlements to a large reef complex(in this case, stretching northward from Munda) aredecentralised and regionally scattered (See Map 1).The previous monolithic entitlement to these reefshas been carved into sectorised territories, a sort ofentitlements mosaic, by the villages bordering the

10 Large island which runs parallel to Kohinggo Island. These two islands form the Vonavona Lagoon. It should be noted thatthis area is also subjected to many of the aforementioned processes (but this is not discussed here).

11 Half of the village inhabitants are Vuragare descendants who have allied themselves with Kalikoqu.

Nusa Roviana Dunde Kekehe Lodu Maho Kindu

Munda AreaKazukuru-Vuragare-Other

(Founding tribal polities)

TERRITORIAL SEAS

Vuragare Claim

Kalikoqu-Parara-Nusa Roviana Communities. Rendova Community

Harero-Vuragare-OthersTaghosaghe-Lio Zuzuloqo-Kazukuru-Vuragare-Koloi-Others

Major Founding tribal polities =Claim =Movement between territorial waters =

Figure 3: 'Mosaic' model of sea tenure


gia and Rendova Island, and do not constitute a cen-tralised group. Rather they are a set of splinter groupsthat have been absorbed into the larger regionalgroupings. In the past, the Vuragare tribe dominateda reef complex which stretched from Nusa Rovianaisland all the way to Patu Parao, near Gizo. Today,however, identifying Vuragare as an autonomousgroup is a misnomer, as the descendants of theVuragare jointly with their mixed ‘bush’ ancestry12

are the constituting populations of the region. Eth-nic homogenisation, as mentioned above, does notentail the capitulation of ancestral rights. Within thismosaic of entitlements, not everyone descends fromVuragare, and differential entitlement scales existamongst descendants. By virtue of their cumulativefilial links along their descent line to Vuragare,some individuals have, stronger rights than oth-ers. To understand this complex situation it is nec-essary to grasp two opposing views, those of theMunda communities that reaffirm their control ofthe disputed reefs and those of Vuragare descend-ants living elsewhere who reaffirm their ancestralrights to control the reefs.

The Vuragare claim

In advancing their hegemonic control of land and seaterritories in South-western New Georgia, descend-ants of the Vuragare tribe living at Kalikoqu have es-tablished the ‘Vuragare Tribe Chiefs’ Committee’ andthe ‘Vuragare Tribal Association’ and have askedVuragare descendants living at Rendova, Parara, NusaRoviana and Munda to join their association. Theirobjective is to reclaim control of the Vuragare reefs.

This move is not intended to preclude Munda areafishers using the reefs for subsistence purposes, butto assure that any benefits reaped from economicdevelopment13 in the area will be evenly distributedamong all Vuragare descendants. Members of theChiefs’ Committee, which is dominated by Kalikoqu,argue that people who live at Munda have onlyusufructary rights to exploit the reefs, and cannotclaim permanent control to them. Further, they con-tend that even Munda inhabitants who descend fromthe Vuragare tribe cannot oppose the Chiefs’ Com-mittee because their rights are not as authoritative asthose of the committee’s chiefs and elders.

In the early 1990s the Kalikoqu Tribal Associationappointed a ‘Chief of Vuragare’ to show that it wasreclaiming control of the Vuragare reefs. The follow-ing account recounted by the Vuragare chief in 1994summarises their claim:

We are the rightful owners ofthe reefs, and the people ofNusa Roviana, Dunde,Kekehe, Lodu Maho and Kindu(Munda area) who do notdescend from the Vuragaretribe want to do away with usand our inherited birthright.Even those who are Vuragaredescendants among thesecommunities are not claimingthe reefs of their respectiveareas in the name of theVuragare tribe but in the nameof their communities. Peoplewho want to do away with theVuragare appellation arepeople who have long de-parted from the original birthplace of their ancestors andintegrated into other communi-ties. Islands in the Vuragarereef complex were never ‘cutoff’ (kumatia) from theiroriginal owners, as theKazukuru tribe never paidbakiha14 for these islands butonly ‘kokopa’, a sort of rent.Even if people at the Mundaarea could prove that they hadmade such payments, thatwould still not give themrights over the adjacent reefs.

12 Also genealogical links throughout the region including Marovo, Vella Lavella, Kolobangara, Simbo, Rendova, Lauru,Kusaghe, and other areas.

13 These include the royalties paid by Taiyo, an industrial fisheries conglomerate associated in a joint venture with theSolomon Island Government since 1973; also, in recent years ‘diving fees’ paid by some of the hotels that have sprung up inthe area. The prospect of tourist development in the area is well anticipated by the Central and Western Province Govern-ments, and the people of Roviana.

14 Traditional ring-shaped currency made from fossilised giant clam shell (Tridacna gigas).


Views from Mundaon the Vuragare reefs

The Munda area communities of Nusa Roviana,Dunde, Kekehe, Lodu Maho, and Kindu see thesteps taken by Kalikoqu and other self-claimingVuragare groups at Rendova and Parara as expan-sionist and dangerous. To Munda inhabitants, re-gardless of their kinship background, the disputedreefs are inalienable. Their views are best reflectedin the comments of an old Dunde man (who is alsoa Vuragare descendant):

The reefs that are at presentbeing verbally reclaimed by theVuragare Chiefs Committeehave long been left under thejurisdiction of the Dunde, LoduMaho, Kindu, Nusa Rovianaand Kekehe chiefs. These reefswere taken over by thesecommunities by previousagreements with Vuragarechiefs, and owing to directacquisition of rights throughintermarriage with Vuragaretribe members. People ofVuragare descent who do notlive here are trying to recreatethe Vuragare tribe for economicreasons (Taiyo and baitfishing).Vuragare claimants want toalienate people of our commu-nities from their rights forreason of greed only.

Instabilities in the ‘mosaic’ model of sea tenure ariseat both the micro and macro levels. At the micro level,disputes ensue from increasing transgressions of ter-ritorial seas by divergent tribal groups who claimhegemony over the Vuragare reef complex via therationalisation that their ancestral rights cannot bedenied. These disputes usually on increasing com-mercial use of resources rather than subsistence fish-ing. Commonly, people in the Roviana Lagoon do notexclude anyone when fishing for food, and both cus-tomary and church beliefs encourage sharing andaltruism among Roviana people. Disputes emergewhen fishing and diving for income, especially in theMunda area where inner lagoon reefs have beengreatly depleted of commercial shell stocks such astrochus and green snail and reef fish.

In the Munda area, boundary transgression occursat two levels internal to the Munda area communi-ties and external transgression by Rendova and

Kalikoqu fishers (Fig. 3). Within the Munda area, fish-ers range between each localised territory (e.g.Dunde, Kindu, Lodu Maho) either because they sharetenure rights by way of their kin relations to eachother, or because they can claim descent from theVuragare tribe. While the former is an acceptable ra-tionale for crossing traditional boundaries, the latteris not. To Munda communities, Vuragare affiliationdoes not constitute a licence to transgress localboundaries as, according to elders, ‘Vuragare tribechiefs forfeited their entitlement rights to these reefsover a hundred years ago’.

More contentious, however, is the use of the ‘Vuragarerationale’ by divers from Rendova and Kalikoqu whocome into the Munda bar area. To these individualstheir Vuragare ancestry warrants use of resources inthese reefs. Even though boundary infringements arenot too common, in recent years there has been anincreasing number of interlopers ranging beyondtheir fishing territories in search of valuable shellsand fish. The Roviana Lagoon Area Council, whichrepresents the government, has attempted to dealwith these problems but lacks the manpower to en-force either customary or government rules.

Traditional leaders at Munda have failed to sanctionyounger interlopers owing to the internal dynamicsof kinship relations. It is easy to identify the ‘other’,the outsider (e.g., Malaitans living at Noro tuna can-nery), and ask them to leave or pay their respects.However, it is harder to ask one’s own kin to leave,even if they have weak or non-recognised rights tofish or dive at a specific site. Because of a lack of acentral authority in the Vuragare reefs15, any Vuragaredescendant living anywhere can, theoretically, haveaccess to them. Interlopers can use the ‘kinship ra-tionale’ to transgress into areas where their rights maynot be recognised Younger fishers manipulate thesystem for their own benefit, abusing the privilegesconferred by traditional law and customary ethics.

At the macro level, disputes have been magnified bythe introduction of large development schemes whichhave brought tribal groups sharing entitlement to theVuragare reefs into direct conflict. With the intro-duction of industrial baitfishing in the Munda area,in 1973, an ongoing dispute between Munda areahamlets and Kalikoqu (and other communities) hasdeveloped. Descendants of the Vuragare tribe livingat Kalikoqu, Rendova, and Parara have called on allkin-related Vuragare members at Munda to defy theirlocalised alliances and join the ‘Vuragare Tribal As-sociation’ to claim the benefits from baitfish harvest-ing. Non-Vuragare descendants at Munda villagesdo not recognise the claims of the ‘reconstructed

15 Kalikoqu elders are trying to re-organize tribe descendants to administer this huge chain of reefs. In the Munda area - theopposing communities - no chiefs have been elected since the death of the last few, in the 1980’s and early-1990’s. Todaytraditional seas are administered by a committee of elders in each of the polities. Land tenure on the other hand is so widelycontested among Munda area communities that all kinds of splinter groups are claiming autonomy from each other. This,obviously, is eroding the tenure system.


coastal group,’ whereas those who are Vuragare de-scendants are caught in a dilemma between possi-ble economic benefits and challenging their kins-men. In recent years an agreement has been reachedamong all communities to share the profits gener-ated by the industry. But the discontent on bothsides is evident, as no single community profits froma larger share of the revenues.

As population pressure increases16 and commerciali-sation of the fishery develops, the Vuragare reef com-plex could be heading into a de facto ‘open access’regime if no steps are taken to provide local commu-nities with statutory entitlement to their adjacentreefs. On New Georgia, a fisher’s use of his or herkinship ties as a rationale to move between territo-rial waters is a permissible cultural practice whichallows individuals to increase the range of resource-harvesting opportunities. Because subsistence fish-eries are usually localised, the dynamic nature of thekinship system usually does not pose a serious prob-lem from the standpoint of inshore fisheries manage-ment. In the Vuragare case the decentralised powerbase and entitlements rights scattered throughout theregion bring forth conflict at the two mentioned lev-els. First, they permit different groups to exploit aresource without the prior consent of the others, andsecond they allow different parties to claim rights toan area to the detriment of others17.

Finding a formula to satisfy everyone, including thegovernment, is a major dilemma. If Munda area com-munities can enclose sections of the reef and legiti-mise their claims to them, Vuragare descendants else-where will be alienated from their ancestral birth-rights. On the other hand, if no action is taken toenclose the commons and provide Munda commu-nities with statutory stability, further ecological deg-radation and social disharmony will occur.

Conclusion andpolicy implications:

It is evident that micro-tragedies can occur. The casestudy presented here does not intended to polarisemarine tenure as an either/or situation. Rather itseeks to alert social scientists that the range in vari-ability and possible outcomes of human behaviourcannot be easily simplified by being placed into tidy,logical categories. The role of tradition-based systemsof resource management in modern inshore fisheriesmanagement is not questioned here. It makes littlesense for governments to nullify such systems by es-tablishing ‘open-access’ regimes when localised man-agement frameworks are already in place (Johannes,1978; Ruddle, 1988). From the standpoint of the gov-ernment it is cost-efficient to keep fisheries manage-

ment decentralised and to maintain control in thehands of local communities (Ruddle, 1996). It hasbeen my objective here to alert researchers that, whiledecentralisation of fisheries management can be eco-nomically and socially efficient, they should be cau-tious before pronouncing indigenous practices of re-source management to be a panacea for all the illsafflicting coastal fisheries.

A constructive approach to the role of corporate seatenure in modern fisheries management is to recog-nise that in some cases common property regimes canbe effective in regulating resource use and access; inothers they cannot. This dynamic approach to com-mon property regimes contrasts with the more or-thodox stand taken by numerous social scientistswho have accepted the notion that traditional sys-tems of resource management are self-regulatoryand that any breakdown in these regimes stemlargely from the encroachment of outside forces,such as capital markets. This a priori conclusion hasled researchers to suggest that where indigenoussystems of sea tenure are still viable, measures tocontrol inshore fisheries should be largely left tolocal traditional authorities and not to governmentcentral administrations (e.g., Cordell, 1989; Dahl,1988; Hyndman, 1993; Johannes, 1978).

The case study presented here suggests thatderegulatory processes not only originate from theinfluence of outside forces, but also from the struc-tural constituents of indigenous social institutionsthemselves. The two models presented here, the en-closed model and the mosaic model of sea tenure,indicate that ‘micro-tragedies’ can occur in the po-litical structure and in the dynamism of indigenoussocial institutions as they are faced by populationpressures and the increasing magnetisation of therural economy. In averting a foreseeable ‘tragedy’, Isuggest in this paper the statutory enclosure of thecommons as a policy measure. The Roviana Lagooncase indicates that where territorial boundaries are‘enclosed’, social and ecological stability are achiev-able goals. Conversely, the ‘mosaic’ model of sea ten-ure presents a situation where disputed territorialboundaries and the structural fluidity of propertyrelations lead to social and ecological instabilities.

Numerous researchers (e.g., Hviding, 1989; Johannes,1978; Ruddle et. al. 1992) caution that codifying thecommons could ‘fossilise’ traditional systems by theestablishment of statutory law. But it is the adapt-ability and plasticity of marine tenure institutionsthat, in some cases, led to resource use de-regularisa-tion and social conflict. To prevent the instabilitieswhich emerge from ‘exposed’ boundaries such asthose of the mosaic model, the formalisation and codi

16 Note that the Solomon Islands has a 3.7% annual population growth rate, among the highest in the world.17 This is more significant than it appears as a reef dispute could interfere with baitfishing in the area. This impending

development makes the government increasingly impatient. The key here is for local communities to maintain their controlvia a non-confrontational resolution.


fication of tenure institutions are suggested here as apossible venue. Any legislatory moves, however,should explicitly include provisions to incorporatethe flexibility of corporate institutions of sea tenure(see Ruddle, 1996) and to allow all competing groupsto participate in the formalisation process. Economicbenefit derived from development projects should beevenly distributed among all participating commu-nities. Further, statutory rules should be decentral-ised and locally administered.

A ‘middle down – middle-up’ approach is suggestedhere. The government’s role is to provide a ‘unit ofcoercion’ (Bromley, 1992) by empowering traditionalauthorities to punish free-riders and interlopers. Inlegitimising local coercive measures, the governmenthas to establish a ‘ unit of guarantee’ by furnishingthe legal means for indigenous people to formallyhold tenure to their land and sea territories. Statu-tory measures should be modelled after local pat-terns of resource utilisation and existing social in-stitutions. It is imperative, however, that any regu-latory steps are first understood and accepted bylocal peoples. Once accepted, the implementationand enforcement of rules are carried out conjointlyby local peoples and government agencies. In thisway a partnership between local peoples and out-side forces may be forged to achieve the commongoal of resource-use sustainability.

Acknowledgments

First, I am grateful to the people of Baraulu andRoviana and Vonavona Lagoons in general for al-lowing me to live with them and share their dailyexperiences for almost two years. Second, I want tothank Audrey Rusa at the Solomon Islands Minis-try of Education and the Roviana Lagoon AreaCouncil for their support. This research was fundedby the National Science Foundation (SBR-9320498)and Sea Grant, University of Hawaii (R/MA1, andNA36RG0507). Additional financial and logisticalsupport was provided by the World Wide Fund forNature (WWF-Pacific), International Centre for Liv-ing Aquatic Resources Management (ICLARM) andSIDT. Finally, I would like to thank Monika Kathuriafor comments on this paper.

References

BENNETT, J. (1987). Wealth of the Solomons: A Historyof a Pacific Archipelago, 1800-1978. Honolulu: Uni-versity of Hawaii Press.

BERKES, F. (1989). Common Property Resources: Ecol-ogy and Community-Based Sustainable Develop-ment. London: Belhaven Press.

BROMLEY, D.W. (1992). The Commons, Common Prop-erty, and Environmental Policy. Environmental andResource Economics 2: 1–17.

BROX, O. (1990). The Common Property Theory: Epis-temological Status and Analytical Utility. Human Or-ganisation 49(3): 227–235.

CARRIER, J. (1987). Marine Tenure and Conservation inPapua New Guinea. In: The Question of the Commons:The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources.Eds. McCay, B. J. and J. M. Acheson. Tucson: Univer-sity of Arizona Press. 142–167.

CIRIACY-WANTRUP, S. V. AND BISHOP, R. C. (1975 ). “Com-mon Property” as a Concept in Natural ResourcePolicy. Natural Resources Journal 15(4): 713–27

CORDELL, J. (1989). Sea Tenure. In: A Sea of SmallBoats. Cordell, J. ed. Cambridge. Cultural SurvivalReport no. 26.

DAHL, C. (1988). Traditional Marine Tenure: A Basisfor Artisanal Fisheries Management. Marine Policy12(1): 40–48.

FEENY, D., B. J. MCCAY, AND J. M. ACHESON (1990). TheTragedy of the Commons: Twenty-two Years Later.Human Ecology 18(1): 1–19.

FOSTER, K. AND J. POGGIE (1993). Customary Marine Ten-ure and Mariculture Management in Outlying Com-munities of Pohnpei State, Federated States of Micro-nesia. Ocean and Coastal Management 20: 1–21.

HARDIN, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Sci-ence 162: 1243–48.

HVIDING, E. (1989). All things in our sea: The Dynam-ics of Customary Marine Tenure, Marovo lagoon,Solomon Islands. Port Moresby, IASER Special Pub-lication no.13.

HVIDING, E. (1996). Guardians of Marovo Lagoon:Practice, Place, and Politics in Maritime Melanesia.Honolulu. University of Hawaii Press.

HYNDMAN, D. (1993). Sea Tenure and the Managementof Living Marine Resources in Papua New Guinea.Pacific Studies 16(4): 99–14.


in a rock pool is reported to have been used in thepast to stun fish trapped by receding tides.

Beche de mer is sometimes used in traditionalmedecine. However, for several reasons, the prac-tice of traditional medicine in the Cooks Islands is a

closely guarded secret among practitioners.Some fear that outsiders may abuse

the knowledge of traditionalmedicine for their own pur-poses. It is also thoughtthat the mana (strength) as-

sociated with this practicemight be lost were the knowl-

edge to be revealed. Therefore myinformant, a traditional practitioner, un-

derstandably would not reveal which species areused for what illness.

JOHANNES, R. S. (1978). Traditional Marine Conserva-tion in Oceania and their Demise. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics 9: 349–64.

KEESING, R. (1975). Kin Groups and Social Structure.New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

KEESING, R. (1972). Simple Models of Complexity: TheLure of Kinship. In: Kinship Studies in the MorganCentennial Year. Eds. Reining, P. Washington DC: An-thropological Society of Washington. 17–31.

KLEE, G. (1980). World Systems of Traditional Re-source Management. London: Edward Arnold andV. H. Winston & Sons.

MCCAY, B. J. & J. M. ACHESON. (1987). The Question ofthe Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Commu-nal Resources. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

MELLER, N., & R. H. HORWITZ. (1987). Hawaii: Themesin Land Monopoly. In: Land Tenure in the Pacific.Eds. Crocombe, R. Suva: University of the South Pa-cific. 25–44.

MELTZOFF, S., & E. LIPUMA. (1986). Hunting for Tunaand Cash in the Solomons: A Rebirth in ArtisanalFishing in Malaita. Human Organisation No.44

POLUNIN, N. (1984). Do Traditional Reserves Conserve?:A View of Indonesia and New Guinea Evidence. In:

Maritime Institutions in the Western Pacific. K. Ruddleand T. Akimichi, eds. Senri Ethnological Studies no. 17.Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.

QUIGGIN, J. (1988). Private and Common PropertyRights in the Economics of the Environment. Journalof Economic Issues 22(4): 1071–1087.

RAVUVU, A. (1983). Vaka i Taukei: The Fijian Way ofLife. Institute of Pacific Studies, Suva. Universityof South Pacific.

ROSS, H. M. (1973). Baegu: Social and Ecological Or-ganisation in Malaita, Solomon Islands. Urbana:University of Illinois Press.

RUDDLE, K. (1988). Social Principles UnderlyingTraditional Inshore Fisheries Management Sys-tems in the Pacific Basin. Marine Resource Eco-nomics 5(4): 351–363.

RUDDLE, K. (1996).Traditional Management of ReefFishing. In: Reef Fisheries. Eds. Polunin, N. V. C. andC. M. Roberts. Chapman and Hall. London. 315–335.

RUDDLE K., HVIDING E., & JOHANNES R. E. (1992). MarineResource Management in the Context of CustomaryMarine Tenure. Marine Resource Economics 7: 249–273.

SCHEFFLER, H.W. (1962). Kindred and Kin Groups inSimbo Island Social Structure. Ethnology 1: 135-157.

1 Takitumu Conservation Area, P.O. Box 817, Rarotonga, Cook Islands. Tel 682-22839email: [email protected]

In this article I look at the harvesting of rori (sea cu-cumbers) in the lagoon and reef flats of the island ofRarotonga, Cook Islands. Collection of rori is donemainly by women at low tide. Rori are a traditionalfood. Several species are harvested, either for theirmature gonads, locally called matu rori or their bodywall (Table 1). Other uses include traditionalmedicine and in fishing.

For fishing, rori toto is some-times used to draw an oc-topus from its hole in thereef flat. This is done by rub-bing the body of the rori on astick, which is then placed insidethe cavity of the reef flat. The bitterness of therori draws the octopus out of its hole (pers. comm.Teina Rongo). Similarly, rubbing the skin of rori toto

THE HARVESTING OF RORI (sea cucumbers)IN RAROTONGA, COOK ISLANDS

by Anna Tiraa-Passfield 1


In a 1989 population study, it was found that rori totoand rori tapou were the commonest species in the la-goon. Rori puakatoro are also reasonably abundant onthe reef-flat surf zone.

The species most commonly harvested is the roritapou, sought for its mature gonads (matu rori), whichappear as a mass of white strands. The matu rori sea-son is October to January. To remove the matu, thepointed tip of a knife or nail is inserted near the headof the animal. This is to avoid the white sticky sub-stance (cuverian tubules) ejected from the anus. Thematu is then removed from the incision. The rori isthen tossed back into the sea, since it is believed thatafter about 2 weeks, its gonads will have regeneratedand so it can be harvested again (More Rua, pers.comm.). Immature gonads are red, and are not nor-mally eaten. Matu rori can be eaten either raw or friedin butter.

One lady told me that when the tiare taina (Gardeniaaugusta) flowers it indicates that the matu rori is readyto harvest. Normally, matu rori is harvested from onearea of Rarotonga first, followed by other areas asthe matu rori becomes ripe elsewhere.

The matu is also removed from rori pua during thesame season as rori tapou, and from rori kanaenae allyear round (pers. comm. Linda Taramai).

The body wall of several rori species is also used toprepare a local delicacy, called mitiore. The basic dishis prepared by marinating the finely chopped bodywall with crushed koiti (Ocyboda lativs), a crab foundon the beach, and finely scraped coconut. The besttime to collect koiti is at night during new moon. How-ever, they can be collected during the day, but this in-volves digging them from the sand. This mixture is

then left to ferment. Other ingredients can be addedto this basic recipe to provide variety. Mitiore is usu-ally served as a side dish to accompany a main meal.

Glossary

Rori - Sea cucumber.Mitiore - A local delicacy. In the case of the rori, it isprepared by removing the bitter outer layer of thebody wall by scrapping with a knife or by rubbingthe animal in sand. The body wall is cut finely andmixed with lightly scraped coconut and crushed crabscalled Koiti (Ocyboda lativs). Other marine inverte-brates can be used instead of rori, such as trochusmeat, or turban snails.Matu rori - Mature gonads of the rori.

Acknowledgements

Most of the information reported here is from myaunties, Linda and Tai Taramai, uncle Tira Albert,Teina Rongo, More Rua. A small amount of my ownknowledge of the rori is also included. Thanks to IanKarika Wilmott for checking the Maori names andthe contents of this article.

Meitaki maata

Table 1. Names of Rori harvested and their uses

Rarotongan Name Scientific name Uses and comments

Rori toto Holothuria atra Food (Mitiore, see glossary); fishing.

Rori tapou H. leucospilota Mature gonads (Matu rori) eaten raw orcooked.

Rori pua H. cinerascens Mitiore, Matu rori

Rori puakatoro Actinopyga mauritiana Prepared in rukau (taro leaves) with coconutcream in the traditional earth oven. Tastes likepork.

Rori kanaenae H. hilla Matu rori. Animal emerges at night from undercoral rocks. Collection in daytime involvesturning rocks over.

Rori ngata Stichopus horrens? (not established)

Rori urari (not established) Mitiore


nesiahao(Beche-de-mer)

nahethe, nanie

nelom(Sea-weeds)

inriemu, nomurinman, nofowan

nesungamo(Shellfish, sea urchin)

nepek, inhopou, niriatongas, nifitingan, nirimi, nuris, nirintal, nuthain, nuwochew,nevai

numu dalenget(Crab, Lobster)

ninbet, indral, lethgei, nongosei nilom, nalubahou, ndriubat,nemtemei, ingelasu, nareldeje,ndrinbat, nichibain, nap

numu sungan(Fish)

*

nit(Octopus)

wameleu, nith, nithmot

nobechuw(Cuttlefish)

noni(Squid)

namu(Nautilus sp.)

nahou(Turtle)

nahou, nahou yaw, inungo wochi,umeya, nahou apeng, nahou lop

* : Includes generic/specific categories shown as follows :nepu geu, nar, nopom, nichilo, ndupumu, inuwaichi, waneneth, nouna, dadao, dageth, nekka, mayinbak, namataili, nipuchina mesei, nolai, nongon hat, naichi ngao, nekuro, nagaunet, nobon, nerop, nejeu, in-mobo, in-mathao, in-luwu, in-mokon, in-mal, in-mora, nowat, in-ieber, nem thaichi, nethom, mamoa, nupupou, nopuei, in-rekthania, nachaji, nagen dinevnev.

numu or muMarine life

Fieldnotes on some cultural aspectsof marine resource use in four coastalvillages of Vanuatu

by Akimichi Tomoya 1

Introduction

As a member of a JICA mission to severalSouth Pacific nations, I conducted a brief fieldsurvey in Vanuatu in April 1988, to examinethe development potential of inshore fisher-ies and aquaculture. Among the locations vis-ited in Vanuatu were Port Olry (EspirituSanto Island), Uripiv Island, Makatea Village(Emae Island), and Anelgowhat village(Aneityum Island). Although the main pur-pose of the mission was to describe the statusof local fisheries, opportunities were takento seek information in my own particular ar-eas of academic interest. Since relatively lit-tle is known of the cultural aspects of fishingcommunities in Vanuatu, some preliminaryinformation from that wider survey is repro-duced here.

Local ideas on marine re-sources

The general terms used to signify marine re-sources in Aneityum are numu or mu. Withinthese, different categories are distinguished.These include shellfish (nesungamo), sea crabs(numu dalenget, lit. ‘crawling numu’), finfish(numu sungan, (lit. ‘numu with meat’), seaweeds(nelom), octopus (nith), turtle (nahou), and theother categories shown in Fig. 1. Seaweeds,shellfish, crabs and lobster, finfish, octopus,and turtles are divided into named genericand specific categories. With the exception ofholothurians (nesiahao), most marine speciesare used as human food.

At Makatea village, Emae Island, the genericterm for marine organisms is nea tai (lit. ‘thingsof the sea’). It includes finfish (ika), shellfish,octopus (feke), spiny lobster (ula), sea urchin(sawaki and watuke), seaweeds (rimu), turtle(fonu) and holothurians (makasun), all of whichare consumed by humans.

In Uripiv the generic name for marine food-stuffs is mesal. It includes fish (nai) and all itemstaken from the reef (nal).

1 Professor, National Museum of Ethnology, Senri Expo Park, Suita, Osaka 565, Japan. Tel: 81-06-876-2151; Fax: 81-06-878-7503;e-mail: [email protected]. Note that the author’s name is written in conventional Japanese style, with familyname first.

Figure 1: Classification of marine life inAneityum


In all the societies surveyed, classification of marineresources is basically hierarchical. The classification isarranged first with unique life form, followed by ei-ther two or three generic or specific sub-categories. Forexample, at Aneityum numu (marine life), numu sungan(fish) and neju (tuna) form such a hierarchy (Fig. 1).

A second basic distinction is made between reef andoff-shore species. For finfish, for example, the prefixin indicates a reef (in) species, as exemplified by in-mora and in-ieber.

Local knowledge regardingciguatera poisoning

Ciguatera poisoning is widespread in Vanuatu2 . Inthe four villages surveyed four fish were identifiedas poisonous by informants. Of these, sea perch(Lutjanus sp.) and jacks (Caranx sp.) were the maingroups identified.

According to Emae villagers, ciguatera is associatedwith the growth of specific kinds of corals (tuputupufou), during the period April – December. Similarly,Aneityum Islanders recognise that fish become poi-sonous when feeding on those soft corals that alsocause a diver’s skin to itch.

The special useof marine resources

During ceremonies and feasting, certain species arereserved for consumption by specific persons orgroups. This is a widespread practice in Pacific Is-land cultures. For example, at Uripiv, at times of the

yam harvest, weddings and childbirth, Naso unicornis(natiw), blue parrotfish and Hemipteronotus pavo (bulbulwelum) are dedicated to village chiefs. On Aneityumthe heads of turtles as well as large fish are given tothe chiefs. And at Makatea, when large fish and tur-tles are caught, the head of the fish, or even the wholefish, and the forefins of the turtle are given to the chiefs.

Methods of cooking seafood

Traditionally, fish and other seafoods were cookedusing a variety of methods, including grilling, bak-ing, steaming in an earth oven in laplap, and smok-ing. Seafood is also consumed raw. The most com-mon methods are grilling or baking either on a fireor hot embers. Steaming in an earth oven is widelyused to prepare seafood for a large number of peo-ple on ceremonial occasions or for feasting. Usuallythe seafood is cooked along with grated banana andtaro, and meat, flavored with coconut milk andwrapped for cooking in Heliconia leaves. Bamboocontainers are used for roasting. Fish smoking isprobably not common. Cooking method by villageis shown in Table 1.

Acknowledgement

Information abstracted with permission from:AKIMICHI, T. (1990). Inshore fisheries and marine re-source management in Vanuatu: an anthropologicalstudy. In: Report of technical and socioeconomicbaseline study for fisheries development in oceania:with reference to reef and lagoon resources andaquaculture. 199–241. Tokyo: Japan InternationalCooperation Agency (JICA).

2 Ciguatera is known as kalo (Port Olry), aru-eci (Uripiv), ekona (Emae), and agen (Aneityum).

Method Port Olry Uripiv Emae Aneityum

Fire/embers NA NA NA OB

Stone OB OB OB OB

Earth oven OB OB OB OB

Raw NA OB OB NU

Bamboo NA NA NA OB

Laplap OB OB OB OB

Table Notes: NA = Not Ascertained; NU = Not Used; OB = Observed.

Table 1: Cooking Methods for Fish and Other Seafoods in the Four Locations


Tuvalu consists of a group of 9 islets and atolls situ-ated between 5 ̊ and 10 ̊ S and 175 ̊ and 180 ̊ E. Thenation has a population of about 9600 persons, ofwhom about half live on Funafuti, the capital island.

Fishing still plays a very large part in the lives ofTuvaluans, especially in the outer islands. For ex-ample, at a recent meeting to form a Fisher’s As-sociation, on Nukufetau Atoll, a total of 61 fish-ers were registered. This represents about 10 percent of the total atoll population of around 600people. Undoubtedly there were several otherswho did not attend the meeting.

Some of these fishers use plywood or aluminumskiffs powered by 15–40 hp motors. But many stilluse traditionally-constructed outrigger canoes pro-pelled by sails. It is locally believed that some fish,particularly the large yellowfin (takua), will morelikely be caught by a sail-powered trolling canoethan by an outboard-powered skiff. A 1996 surveyconducted on Nanumea (population around 1000)found some 80 such canoes still in use.

These outrigger canoes are made from local trees.In some islands of Tuvalu, notably Nanumea in thenorth, the fetau tree (Calophyllum inophyllum) is

mostly used for the main hull (vaka) and outriggerbeams (kiato), whereas the lighter-weight puka(Hernandia nymphaeifolia) is used for the outrigger(ama). In Nukufetau and Nui, in the central Tuvalugroup, the main hull and outrigger are constructedfrom puka, and the beams from fetau.

A suitable tree is selected, felled and trimmed. Atthe same time, a smaller tree from which to makethe outrigger is also felled and then debarked, sothat it will be dry by the time the main hull hasbeen finished. The trees usually come from landowned by the family of the person requiring thecanoe. Otherwise, compensation for the tree mightbe required by the land owner.

The main hull tree is then formed roughly along thesides into the shape of the canoe, using an axe andshort-handled hoe. A chainsaw, if available, can besubstituted for the axe, making the work easier andfaster. The inside of the canoe is then removed bymaking crisscross cuts with the chainsaw or axe, andthen chipping out the sections with the hoe. A metaladze is used for finishing.

The top plate of the canoe (oa) is cut from anothertree and shaped accordingly. It is attached to the

top of the main hull by stitch-ing with cord. (Nowadaysmonofilament fishing line isused.) The join is heavilycovered with tar or paint, toprevent leaking.

The whole process can take 2–3 months or longer to com-plete, depending on whetheror not the undertaking is re-garded as a full-time occupa-tion. There are still a numberof canoe-builders in the is-lands of Tuvalu, and old menstill pass their knowledgedown to their sons. A youngman may be assigned suchheavy work as chopping andrough shaping of the tree,while the older man offerstechnical advice and assists inthe lighter, finishing work.

1 P.O. Box 817, Rarotonga, Cook Islands. Tel 682-22839; email: [email protected]

Construction of traditional outrigger fishingcanoes in Tuvalu

by Kelvin Passfield 1


It is said that a canoe madefrom puka can last more than10 years if properly cared for.This involves protecting thetimber with paint, and keep-ing the canoe out of the sunwhen not in use. In recentyears in Nukufetau approxi-mately 15 puka canoes havebeen constructed annually.Canoes from fetau wood arereported to last much longerthan those made of puka. Thisis perhaps the reason that fewcanoes were observed beingbuilt in Nanumea, althougha large number are in usethere. Although most canoesare used locally, several maybe transported to the capital,Funafuti, where a shortage ofland and trees means canoes are no longer builtthere.

The sail (la) is a simple crab claw design, madelocally from synthetic fiber either tarpaulin or sailcloth. Canoes are skilfully steered by means of apaddling/steering paddle (foe).

With fuel on the outer islands of Tuvalu costingup to A$1.15 per litre, these locally-produced craftare an economical choice for local fishers.

Acknowledgements

Much of this information was obtained by watch-ing Moinga, a Nukufetau fisher and canoe-maker,construct a 6 m canoe. Additional information wasobtained from Teisio Faiaki in Nukufetau, andKatagi in Nanumea.

Welcome to the International Year Of theReef (IYOR) list-server

We encourage you to use this list to communicatewith others around the world who are interestedin the International Year of the Reef. You can usethis list to publicise your own IYOR activities, toshare information or ask questions about IYOR.Please do not use the list for personal communica-tions or promoting commercial ventures.

The International Year of the Reef (IYOR) 1997 is aglobal effort to increase public awareness aboutcoral reefs and to support research and conserva-tion projects. Scientists and conservation organi-sations are collaborating to produce a variety ofcourses, video tapes, brochures and other educa-tional materials. Individual coral reef areas are cre-ating or revising management plans for their coastalzones. With the involvement and financial sup-port of governments, foundations and individuals,these initiatives and more can be put in place to

ensure that the world’s coral reefs are preservedfor the future. Coral reefs around the world arebeing threatened by factors such as overfishing,coastal development, runoff from agriculture andlogging, untreated sewage and other pollutants.Concern about the state of the world’s reefs has in-spired scientists and conservation groups and gov-ernments around the world to accept the follow-ing challenges:

• executing a major programme of public educa-tion about coral reefs,

• assessing the conditions of coral reefs world-wide,

• collaborating with governments, local commu-nities and other reef managers to develop andimplement plans for the sustainable use of irre-placeable reef resources.


To subscribe to the list

If you wish to instruct others how to subscribeto the list, have them send e-mail [email protected], with the fol-lowing message (only!) in the body of the text:

subscribe iyor-list

To unsubscribe from the list

To unsubscribe from the list, send e-mail to:

[email protected]

with the following message (only!) in the bodyof the text:

unsubscribe iyor-list “Your Name” <[email protected]>

To post a comment or announce-ment of meeting

To post a message to the list, simply addressyour comments or announcements to [email protected]. The message will becirculated to all members of the list. The mem-bers may respond to you directly, or post theircomments to the list for all to read.

Help

To see a list of the functions and services avail-able from the list-server, send an e-mail messageto [email protected], with the fol-lowing message (only!) in the body of the text:

help

Other IYOR-related information

The lnternational Year of the Reef has a World-Wide Web Home Page at the following URL:

http://www.coral.org/IYOR/

Etiquette

1) When responding to a posting to the list, do notrespond *back* to the entire list unless you feel itis an answer everyone can benefit from. I thinkthis is usually the case, but responses such as“Yeah, tell me, too!’ to the entire list will makeyou unpopular in a hurry. Double-check your ‘To’:line before sending.

2) Do not ‘flame’ (i.e., scold) colleagues via iyor-list.If you feel compelled to chastise someone, pleasesend them mail directly and flame away.

3) If you have technical/scientific questions aboutcoral, please conduct as much preliminary researchinto a topic as possible before posting a query tothe list. (In other words, you shouldn’t expect oth-ers to do your research for you.) Please consider:

• Your librarian (an extremely valuableresource),

• The CHAMP Literature Abstracts areaat the CHAMP Web Site:hftp://coral.aoml.noaa.gov

• The CHAMP Online Researche@s Directory (i.e., search for your topic, ask theexperts directly),

• The CHAMP (and other) Web sites’ linkspage(s)

But please *do* avail yourself of the list whenyou’ve exhausted other sources.

5) Please carefully consider the purpose of iyor-listbefore posting a message. This is a forum com-prised of conservation groups, scientists, aquari-ums, government agencies and others interestedin sharing ideas about IYOR.

6) Succinct postings are greatly appreciated by all.


Guardians of Marovo Lagoon: Practice,Place and Politics in Maritime Melanesia.

TRADITIONAL MARINERESOURCE MANAGEMENT

AND KNOWLEDGE

RECENTPUBLICATIONS

HVIDING, E. (1996). Guardians of Marovo La-goon: Practice, Place and Politics in MaritimeMelanesia. Pacific Islands Monograph Series14, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu,Price USD 45.00 (cloth). 473 p.

Based on almost two and one half years offieldwork, Hviding examines the marine ten-ure system of the people of Marovo Lagoon,New Georgia, Western Solomon Islands. Theauthor examines in meticulous detail the com-plex inter-relationships between the people ofMarovo and their lagoon and marine environ-ments. He also carefully documents the his-

torical and contemporary external forces thatimpinge on the Marovo people and their strug-gle to remain in control of their own resourcesand destiny. This case study is a major contri-bution to the maritime anthropology. It is alsoan outstanding demonstration of how tobridge the social and natural sciences by weav-ing together concepts from cultural anthropol-ogy and cultural ecology with those from his-tory and marine biology.

(To obtain, contact: University of Hawaii Press,2840 Kolowalu Street, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA96822.)

Relationships between catch and effort inFijian multispecies reef fisheries subject todifferent levels of exploitation.

JENNINGS, S. & N.V.C. POLUNIN. (1995). Relation-ships between catch and effort in Fijianmultispecies reef fisheries subject to differentlevels of exploitation. Fisheries Managementand Ecology 2: 89–101.

The catch per unit effort (CPUE) and value ofcatch per unit effort (VPUE) of reef-associatedfish species from six Fijian traditional fishinggrounds (qoliqoli) subject to different fishingintensities were determined using records offishing activity from a voluntary logbookscheme. Line and spear fishing techniqueswere used during more than half the fishingtime in all qoliqoli, despite the favoured tech-nique being less efficient (lower CPUE) thanother methods. This implies that fishers do not

always attempt to maximise catches. Fishingeffort in the different qoliqoli was comparedby rescaling effort based on its recorded effi-ciency and expressed as hours equivalent toboat-based spear fishing over coral by day tocatch fish for sale. Total fishing intensity in thesix grounds studied ranged from 72 to 4310h km-2 reef year-1. Since the relationship be-tween catch and effort at all fishing intensitieswas linear, it suggests that the grounds arebeing fished sustainably.

(First author’s address: School of BiologicalSciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich,NR4 7JJ, UK; and Ministry of Agriculture,Fisheries and Food, Fisheries laboratory,Lowestoft, NR33 0HT, UK.)


Comparative size and composition of yieldfrom six Fijian reef fisheries.

JENNINGS, S. & N.V.C. POLUNIN. (1995). Compara-tive size and composition of yield from six Fijianreef fisheries. Journal of Fish Biology 46: 28–46.

The size and composition of finfish yield fromsix Fijian reef was determined using catchrecords from a voluntary logbook scheme. Atotal of 172 logbooks was issued for three 30-day periods. They provided information on 1369fishing trips. Catch records were weighed, us-ing the results of contemporaneous fishing ac-tivity and fleet sizes surveyed to provide yieldestimates for each fishing traditional ground(qoliqoli). Yields from all grounds were domi-nated by Serranids and Lethrinids, favored for

both consumption and sale. There was no evi-dence of the adoption of more powerful fishingtechniques or catching fishing from lowertrophic levels to maintain maximum yield. Theauthors suggest that the fisheries examinedcould sustain the reported yields of up to 3.4 t/km2 ground /year or 10.2 t/km2 coral reef/year, and that yields might be increased on othersites were smaller harvests were reported.

(First author’s address: School of Biological Sci-ences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR47JJ, UK; and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheriesand Food, Fisheries Laboratory, Lowestoft, NR330HT, UK.)

Fishing strategies, fishery developmentand socioeconomics in traditionally managedFijian fishing grounds.

JENNINGS, S. & N.V.C. POLUNIN. (1996). Fishing strat-egies, fishery development and socioeconomics intraditionally managed Fijian fishing grounds. Fish-eries Management and Ecology 3: 335-347.

An increasing rate of urbanisation together withmore Fijians in full-time employment has led toboth a greater demand for fish and higher prices.Traditionally-managed reef fisheries are nowexploited to meet existing subsistence needs andto supply large urban markets. The fishing strat-egies employed by fishers in the communitieswere compared at different stages of their de-velopment toward a market economy. It was

suggested that the fishing-rights owners haveexpanded their fisheries for economic gain, butthat so far such expansion has had only mini-mal impact on preferred fishing strategies andmanagement regimes. However, the socio-eco-nomic impact of the transition to a marketeconomy is profound, with increasing relianceon fishery incomes.

(First author’s address: School of Biological Sci-ences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR47JJ, UK; and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheriesand Food, Fisheries Laboratory, Lowestoft,NR33 0HT, UK.)


Comparative size and composition of yieldfrom six Fijian reef fisheries.

MATTHEWS, ELIZABETH (ed.) (1995). Fishing for An-swers: Women and Fisheries in the Pacific Is-lands. Women and Fisheries Network, Univer-sity of the South Pacific. 177 p. (No price given).

This volume of 15 papers highlights and ad-dresses the major concerns that face women in-volved in fisheries. It is a valuable contributionto a growing yet still relatively meager litera-ture, and provides important lessons to fisher-ies planners and all involved in the sustainableuse of tropical fisheries. The contents are:

• ‘Women in fisheries in the Pacific islands:a retrospective analysis’ (P. Schoeffel)

• ‘Roviana women in traditional fishing’(L.Gina-Whewell)

• ‘Notes from Kiribati (August 1992)’(T.T aniera and J. Mitchell)

• ‘Fishing activities of women of the SuvaPony Club squatter settlement, Fiji’(A.T iraa-Passfield)

• ‘Edible seaweeds: an important source offood and income to indigenous Fijians’(G.R.South)

• ‘Women workers in the Taiyo cannery,Noro, Solomon Islands’ (M. Sasabe)

• ‘Teach a woman to process fish and ...’(P.Fairbairn-Dunlop)

• ‘Changes to women’s roles in fisheries de-velopment in Fiji’ (V. Ram-Bidesi)

• ‘Security, women and tuna: a look at Fiji(R.Alexander)

• ‘Subsistence fishing, women and mod-ernisation in Fiji (A. Vunisea)

• ‘Linking population, environment, and gen-der: the case of Suva harbour’ (M.Chung)

• ‘The need for invertebrate conservation inthe Pacific islands’ (E.Matthews)

• ‘For food or foreign exchange? Subsist-ence fisheries and the commercial har-vesting of marine resources in the Pacific’(C.Slatter)

• ‘Women in Pacific island fisheries: anannotated bibliography’ (C. Whippy-Morris)

• ‘Not just talk: the discussions thatspawned the Women and Fisheries Net-work’ (The Women and Fisheries Net-work).

(Editor’s address: c/o The Women and Fisher-ies Network, Private Mail Bag, Suva, Fiji.)

The Roles of Women in Fisheries:A Selected Annotated Bibliography.

WHIPPY-MORRIS, C. (compiler) (1995). The Rolesof Women in Fisheries: A Selected AnnotatedBibliography. Technical Report 1995 No. 1. TheUniversity of the South Pacific Marine Studies.USP, Suva. 45 p. (no price given). (Reprinted inMatthews, E. (ed.), above).

This publication is the beginning of a databaseof recent publications (1979–1994) on women infisheries. It contains 143 entries of publicationswith world-wide coverage, with an emphasis on

the Pacific Islands. Annotations are provided ofthose publications that were examined by thecompiler. The bibliography can also be accessedat the International Oceanographic InstituteOperational Centre, at the University of theSouth Pacific.

(Compiler’s address: c/o The Women and Fish-eries Network, Private Mail Bag, Suva, Fiji.)


17–19 March Fourth International Conference on Re-mote Sensing for Marine & Coastal Environments: Tech-nology & Applications.Venue: Orlando, Florida.Contacts: Tel: +1-313-994-1200 x 3453; FAX: +1-313-994-5123e-mail: [email protected]: http://www.erim.org/CONF/conf.html

24–27 March California and the World Ocean ’97ConferenceVenue: San Diego, California.Contacts: Tel. +1-707-987-2385 x 208; e-mail:[email protected]: http://ceres.ca.gov/cra/ocean/

4–9 May MARTINIQUE ’97: Island & TropicalAquacultureVenue: Les Trois-Ilets, Martinique, West IndiesContacts: European Aquaculture Society,MARTINIQUE ’97, Slijkenseteenweg 4, B-8400Oostende, Belgium. Tel: +32-59-32-38-59; Fax +3259 32 10 05; e-mail: [email protected]: http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~jdcaiuwe/easho.htm

May 12-14 Oceanology International Pacific Rim97Venue: SingaporeContacts: Angela Paderzolli, Conference Execu-tive, Spearhead Exhibitions Ltd., Ocean House,Kingston Rd., New Malden, Surrey KT3 3LZ, UK.FAX: +44-181-949-8186;e-mail: [email protected]

23–25 June COASTAL 97: Computer Modeling ofSeas & Coastal RegionsVenue: La Coruna, Spain.Contacts: Sue Owen, COASTAL 97, WessexInstitute of Technology, Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst,Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK.Tel: +44-(0) 1703-293223; FAX: +44-(0)1703-292853; e-mail: [email protected]

1997 CONFERENCES

TRADITIONAL MARINERESOURCE MANAGEMENT

AND KNOWLEDGE

MisCELLANEOUS

20–26 July The International Coastal Zone Manage-ment Conference, CZ97Venue: Boston, Mass.Contacts: Dr. Martin C, Miller, USAE WaterwaysExperiment Station, Attn.: CEWES-CR-O, 3909Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180.Tel: +1-601-634-3999; e-mail:[email protected]

7–11 September Pacific Coasts & PortsVenue: Christchurch, New ZealandContacts: John Lumsden, Conference Chairman,Centre for Advanced Engineering, University ofCanterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, NewZealand.Tel: +64-3-364-2219; FAX: +64-3-364-2069; e-mail:[email protected]: http://www.cae.canterbury.ac.nz/coastal/pacific.html

8–11 September First International Symposium onStock Enhancement & Sea RanchingVenue: Bergen, Norway.Contacts: PUSH, Bontelabo 2, N-5003, Bergen,Norway. Tel: +47-55-317395;e-mail: [email protected]; Website: http://www.irm.no./sear.hav97.html


1 Contributed by Dr. Robin Mahon, 48 Sunset Crest, St. James, Barbados ([email protected]).

Traditional knowledge of Caribbean fishers 1

Because fishers in most Caribbean islands arerelative newcomers to the region (in the last 300years), having come from distant and often in-land areas, traditional knowledge and manage-ment systems for Caribbean marine resources arenot likely to be as well developed as in other partsof the world, such as the Pacific Islands. Indig-enous peoples are more common in the Carib-bean countries of the South and Central Ameri-can mainland. However, I know of no studiesof traditional knowledge or management prac-tices among these people. Nonetheless, it is nowbecoming apparent that there is a valuable ac-cumulation of knowledge among Caribbeanfishers which should be tapped. Only recentlyhave there been explicit attempts to acquire anddocument this knowledge. The abstracts pro-vided here represent some of the studies whichhave been carried out.

One area in which fisher knowledge has the po-tential to be particularly useful in the short termis the identification of spawning aggregations ofreef fishes, mainly snappers and groupers. Thesehave been fished out in many places (e.g., AUIL-MARSHALLECK, S. 1993. A review of the occur-rence of spawning aggregations in the Carib-bean and the implications for fisheries manage-ment. CARICOM Fisheries Resource Assessmentand Management Program LPRSF AssessmentSSW/WP/24: 44 p.). Fisher knowledge is theonly way that the original extent, timing and lo-cation of now extinct or very depleted spawn-ing aggregations can be determined. This infor-mation is essential if there is to be successful re-habilitation of the populations of these fishes tolevels where they can re-establish viable spawn-ing aggregations.

Another potentially valuable area is in the identi-fication of areas and species known for their highincidence of ciguatoxicity. A study in progress bythe CARICOM Fisheries Program (contact SusanSingh-Renton e-mail [email protected])

has shown that fishers know and can identify suchareas. These areas may be best used for non-con-sumption purposes, such as SCUBA diving. Theycould be closed to protect consumers, while stillserving as a spawning stock biomass to enhancerecruitment to adjacent areas.

GOMES, C., R. MAHON, S. SINGH-RENTON & W.HUNTE. (1995). The role of drifting objects in pe-lagic fisheries in the southeastern Caribbean.CARICOM Fishery Research Document No. 13:45 p. Marine Resource Environment and Man-agement Program (MAREMP), University of theWest Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados ([email protected])

To determine whether information acquired di-rectly from fishers can be valuable in investigat-ing the role of drifting objects in fisheries forpelagic species in the southeastern Caribbean, aquestionnaire survey was conducted of 253 fish-ers from St. Lucia, Barbados, Grenada, Tobagoand St. Vincent. Results indicate that driftingobjects play an important role in large pelagicfisheries in the south-eastern Caribbean, by at-tracting fish and thereby increasing the availabil-ity of fish to fishers. This effect is seasonal, beinggreatest between January and March in all is-lands, but having a more extended seasonal du-ration in Grenada and Tobago. Drifting objectsare prevalent in water which is green or brownin colour, and fish associate with both naturaland anthropogenic drifting objects, with no ap-parent preference within or between thesegroups. Fishers actively seek and fish arounddrifting objects. Fishers from St. Lucia, Barbados,Grenada, and Tobago target flying fish by de-ploying drifting objects which they construct ofnaturally-occurring material. However, no fish-ers deploy drifting objects to target large pelagics.In this study, the fisheries and biological –oceanographic information obtained from fish-ers was largely consistent with relevant informa-tion reported in the literature.


MARTINEZ, J. E.& M. VALDES PIZZINI. (1996). Cultureand development: historical distortions of conser-vation efforts in the fisheries of southwesternPuerto Rico. Presented to the 49th Annual Meet-ing of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute,Barbados.

Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 02115, andUniversity of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus,P.O. Box 5000, Mayaguez, PR, 00681-5000 ([email protected])

An historical analysis of the fisheries in south-western Puerto Rico suggests that government de-velopment efforts (both local and federal) havecontributed to the depletion of marine resources,despite officiall advocacy for conservation prac-tices. Through years of daily contact with re-sources, local fishers have also developed per-ceptions and cultural constructions of conserva-tion and unsustainable practices. It is argued thatproductive and social processes in the fisheriesare heavily influenced by market forces. Thus,the practices of small-scale fishers, as well as theircultural perceptions on conservation issues areoften ‘distorted’ by such forces, fitting into theirlogic of production and reproduction of daily life.It is this logic and cultural construction that tendsto influence their decisions related to the technol-ogy they use and the fishing grounds that theyexploit. This paper explores the many instancesin which the fishers in southwestern Puerto Ricoexpress through their discourses about produc-tion the importance of conservation practices. Italso takes a critical look at the actual conserva-tion practices and those circumstances that pre-vent full sustainability on their behalf. Perhapsthe most crucial speech and praxis event relatedto conservation is the action movement towardsthe development of a Marine Fishery Reserve(MFR). The fishers from La Parguera chose a reef

area for designation as a MFR, thus counteringthe local and government view of them asnon-conservationist. Using data collected by eth-nographic methods and in-depth interviews, theauthors discuss and analyse the historical patternsof resource use in the area, the conservation prac-tices and discourses of the fishermen, and the ar-ray of socio-economic pressures that ‘distort’ thelocal efforts towards conservation.

PIMRIS is a joint project of 5 internationalorganisations concerned with fisheriesand marine resource development in thePacific Islands region. The project is ex-ecuted by the South Pacific Commission(SPC), the South Pacific Forum FisheriesAgency (FFA), the University of the SouthPacific (USP), the South Pacific AppliedGeoscience Commission (SOPAC), andthe South Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme (SPREP). Funding is pro-vided by the Canadian International De-velopment Agency (CIDA) and the Gov-ernment of France. This bulletin is pro-duced by SPC as part of its commitment

to PIMRIS. The aim of PIMRIS is to im-prove the availability of information onmarine resources to users in the region,so as to support their rational develop-ment and management. PIMRIS activi-ties include: the active collection, cata-loguing and archiving of technicaldocuments, especially ephemera (‘greyliterature’); evaluation, repackagingand dissemination of information; pro-vision of literature searches, question-and-answer services and bibliographicsupport; and assistance with the devel-opment of in-country reference collec-tions and databases on marine resources.Pacific Islands Marine Resources Information System

S O U T H P A C I F I C C O M M I S S I O N

VALDES PIZZINI, M., J. POSADA, M. ROSADO, I. LOPEZ

& D. CABAN. (1996). Cognitive constructions offishery resources among the fishers of Southwest-ern Puerto Rico. Presented to the 49th AnnualMeeting of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries In-stitute, Barbados.

University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez Campus,P.O. Box 5000, Mayaguez, PR, 00681-5000 ([email protected])

Fishery and marine resources exist in two differ-ent dimensions: in the environment and habitats,and in the cognitive (cultural) constructions of thefishers. Popular (folk) knowledge of marine re-sources and their spatial distribution is the resultof years of observation, formal / informal learn-ing through information transfer, and experimen-tation. More important, it is based on the formula-tion and articulation of a schema, or cognitivemodel, developed over time. This paper discussesthe results of an interdisciplinary project (anthro-pology, popular knowledge and fisheries biology)that explores the schema and local system of clas-sification and understanding of fishery resources.Data used were derived from ethnographic obser-vations, informal interviews, and various in-depthinterviews that included free-listing and pile-sort-ing procedures. Preliminary analysis shows thatspecies are grouped by habitat and behaviourwhich correlates to fishers’ productive behaviour.

marine resources division information section … · 2 spc traditional marine resource management...

Documents