Evolution of Village-based Marine Resource Management in Vanuatu between l993 and 2001

Back to the Table of Contents

RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS

Tables

Part 1

Part 2

PART 1

Enforcement

The punishment for breaking village-based MRM rules ranges from simple admonition to fines in the form of money and/or food and kava[6]. The largest fine we heard of was in Pelongk - two pigs, two - 25 kg bags of rice, six kava roots, some other food, plus 30,000 vt (about US$200). This is a very high price to pay for the average rural villager. Some villagers also mentioned the shame and embarrassment involved in being caught and fined in village court. The comment applies mainly to villages where respect for traditional authority it still high. As discussed below this respect tends to be weaker in peri-urban villages.

Trochus (and Green Snail)

Trochus is probably the most easily managed of all reef resources. The species moves only short distances during its adult life and its populations are relatively easy to census. It is also the single most profitable commercial marine product in rural Vanuatu.

The enthusiasm of villagers for the results of their trochus management is often based on easily measurable results (e.g. sales receipts). Fisheries Department surveys, or surveys made by villagers trained by them, can readily demonstrate when a trochus ground is ready to be harvested.

Green snails, another species whose shell is exported, for inlay, are generally subject to the same village-based regulations as trochus in Vanuatu. They had been heavily overfished in most areas in the l980s. They reach maturity at about the same age as trochus and one individual can produce millions of eggs with larvae that, like trochus larvae, settle soon after they are released (Yamaguchi, 1993). Under the circumstances one might expect green snail stocks to respond well to the same closure periods as trochus, but this does not seem to be the case. Yamaguchi (l993, p. 497) refers to "the rapid depletion of green snail in actively fished areas and the slow rate at which populations re-establish after termination of fishing". Green snails have become so depleted throughout most of the area surveyed that some teenagers have never seen one.

Sea turtles

A sign used by the Turtle Monitors to promote turtle conservation translates; "Help to increase the number of turtles - Don't kill female turtles"

Tabus on taking of sea turtles constituted the largest fraction of the new regulations (11 out of 51) and involved the most villages (11 out of 21). Clearly there has been an unprecedented enthusiasm for turtle conservation in many villages since 1993.

Whereas it is against national law to dig turtle eggs, there is no national law in Vanuatu prohibiting the taking of adult turtles. Until recently in most coastal communities they were killed whenever the opportunity arose. In l993 no villages surveyed mentioned tabuing the taking of turtles. Now more than half the communities interviewed did so. The reason for this striking change is unusual and instructive.

Many Vanuatu villages are visited periodically by a locally celebrated travelling theatre group called Wan Smolbag (WSB)[7]. Operating since 1989, this group has made many village tours, putting on plays that simultaneously entertain and inform villagers about important issues such as HIV/AIDS, malaria-reduction through mosquito-control, etc.

In 1995 the theme of the main play they presented in the villages was the plight of sea turtles and the need to conserve them. The villagers were apparently receptive to this message in part because, as many informants told us, they were already aware of a marked decline in turtle numbers in their waters over the last few decades.

Not only did WSB suggest that turtles should not be killed, but also that each village should select a 'turtle monitor' in order to help encourage turtle conservation and to tag nesting turtles and turtles caught in nets before they are released. There are now 150 turtle monitors in roughly 80 Vanuatu coastal villages. In 11 of the 21 villages where we interviewed, turtle monitors had been appointed. Two of these villages appointed two turtle monitors. Turtle monitors also report anyone who is found taking turtles or turtle eggs to the village leaders. Some turtle monitors have taken it upon themselves, in addition, to post signs at nesting beaches during the egg-laying season to remind people that it is illegal to take the eggs.

Some villages we surveyed now tabu the killing of turtles outright[8]. In general only communities with turtle monitors have recently put tabus on their harvesting and in such villages compliance with the government prohibition on disturbing turtle nests has also generally increased in these communities.

In some other villages people are allowed by their leaders to kill one or more turtles only on special occasions. In villages where such regulations were in effect, a number of informants reported seeing many more turtles in their waters than they had seen for many years[9].

Experience in many other Pacific Islands has been that protecting sea turtles is one of the hardest conservation measures to persuade islanders to observe. The World Bank (1999, p. 19) found, for example, that "the perceived compliance with turtle regulations was very low" and (p. 7) "was perceived (during a survey of attitude in Pacific Island communities) to be quite poor." Communities felt such rules conflicted with cultural obligations, such as the custom at some sites of giving turtles to chiefs, and that "turtle meat was just too tempting to resist." Wan Smolbag's accomplishments in this regard thus seem to be setting a new standard.

With World Wildlife Fund and European Union funding and Department of Fisheries participation, WSB now runs workshops to train turtle monitors. At their meeting in June 2001 the turtle monitors voted to broaden their mandate to coastal resources in general and to change their name to Vanua-tai Resource Managers (Vanua=land; tai=sea). In addition, Wan Smolbag's latest play, in the planning stages, concerns a wider range of issues of coastal resource management. WSB are shaping up to become an important conservation force in Vanuatu.

Finfish

The traditional net used on the reef flats of southeast Tanna.

The costs of getting statistically sound information on fisheries and fish stocks in so many villages would doubtless greatly outweigh the potential benefits (e.g. Johannes, l998b). Mees et. al. (1999) were unable to demonstrate differences in abundance of finfishes in open and closed reefs in five Vanuatu villages. However, the data consisted of an average of only two underwater visual censuses per fishing ground, each of which consisted of counting fishes within a 7m radius of a stationary diver. The statistical power of the consequent analyses were thus very low.

However, Russ and Alcala (l996, p.958) present more persuasive data from the Philippines (and cite other studies) that support their statement that gains in biomass of finfishes "of a magnitude potentially useful in fisheries management are likely to occur in reserves on scales of 5-10 yr, rather than just a few years." With one exception, total finfishing closures reported to us in 2001 in Vanuatu villages lasted from six months to three years[10], with a mean of about 1.5 years. According to Russ and Alcala (l996) even the longest of these bans would be too short to be of much value as a conservation measure for large predatory reef fish[11] (although obviously they benefit trochus and perhaps other species).

Even short closures, properly timed, could facilitate greater spawning. However, the consequent potential for improved reef fish production would take even longer to manifest itself. In addition, much of it would generally occur outside the fishing grounds where the spawning occurred because of the small size of most of these tenured fishing grounds and the prolonged pelagic larval stage of most reef fishes.

Short closures of fishing grounds to destructive fishing methods, such as using small mesh nets or night spearfishing for bumphead parrotfish (see below) could reduce their effects on stocks. This is only relevant where such destructive fishing practices occur.

Why, then, do Vanuatu villagers persist with relatively short closures for finfishing? One answer to this question came up repeatedly in our interviews. When constantly pursued by fishers, reef fish tend to get 'wild' i.e., harder to approach in order to spear them, and harder to scare into nets. 'Resting' the fish for a period causes them to lose their caution and they become easier to catch[12].

Tabus on specific fishing methods such as night spearfishing and netting can be useful. There is increasing evidence that the tabuing of night spearfishing helps conserve parrotfish, (especially the prized bumphead parrotfish, Bolbometapon muricatus) which, when undisturbed, sleep in shallow water during part of the lunar month and are then very easy targets for night spearfishers (Johannes, l981). Fishers in many Pacific Islands are critical of the impact that night spearfishing has on these highly prized fish. For this reason banning night spearfishing is one of the most common marine resource management measures that have been implemented in the Pacific Islands villages in the past 25 years (Johannes, l978; Sims, 1989; Hviding, 1996; Fa'asili and Kelokolo l999; Dulvy and Polunin, submitted; Johannes unpublished).

Dulvy and Polunin (submitted) have demonstrated that this species is probably extinct around at least six islands and rare around the six others they surveyed in an area of Fiji where it was once reportedly abundant. In some Vanuatu villages night spearfishing is tabued for part of the year; in others it is tabued throughout the year. Obviously the second alternative is preferable although seasonal banning of night spearfishing in spawning aggregations would clearly help protect various spawning species.

The use of bow & arrow is still commonly used on Tanna to catch fish.

Over the past 25 years the regulation of banning of gillnets and other nets has been another management measure often initiated in Pacific Island villages (Johannes, 1981 and unpublished; Sims, 1989; Fa'asili and Kelokolo l999; Hviding l998) including seven of those in the present survey. This undoubtedly helps protect against catching undersized fish, unwanted species and more fish than are needed. In Vanuatu it also protects against overharvesting mullet and rabbitfish on their spawning migrations and in their spawning aggregations; the locations and timing of these are sometimes well known to village fishers. Johannes (1981 and unpublished) has been told by villagers of mullet migrations/aggregations no longer forming, because of their elimination by gillnetting during these vulnerable periods in Papua New Guinea, Palau, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

One argument for allowing gillnet fishing at certain times and places is that it facilitates the capture of some species that are not readily caught by other methods, including mullet, Selar spp. and some species of rabbitfish.

Bêche-de-mer

In recent years interest in harvesting bêche-de-mer has decreased in many of the villages we surveyed. This was due, at least in part, to some unusual beliefs that have recently emerged concerning the roles of bêche-de-mer in the ecology of local waters. Because bêche-de-mer are sediment deposit feeders, the belief has apparently been fostered by some conservation personnel that they "clean up the reef". Many villagers have taken this comment to heart. In several villages informants said that their waters had become cloudier since the bêche-de-mer populations had been overharvested, or that their waters had become clearer since ceasing to fish for bêche-de-mer had allowed their numbers to increase. In some villages there was a belief that if bêche-de-mer were overharvested this was likely to cause ciguatera (the development of toxicity of reef fish to humans as a result of consumption of a toxic dinoflagellate directly or via the food chain. Ciguatera is not uncommon in Vanuatu). In several other villages, it was said that when bêche-de-mer were fished out, the white sand turned yellow with algae, and that slimy green algae also proliferated.

Many sea cucumbers feed by using their tentacles to gather and ingest particles in the top few millimetres of sediment and digest the microbial coatings on them. Perhaps this reduces microbial growth that might otherwise turn some sediments yellow. Other species feed on hard substrates such as dead coral or coralline-algal pavements by ingesting the thin dusting of sediment and associated microbiota on them. This activity may prevent green algal slimes from proliferating. It is not clear why the absence of either of these activities due to the harvesting of the bêche-de-mer would result in greater turbidity of the overlying water[13] although claims to this effect by Pacific islanders are not limited to Vanuatu (Garry Preston, personal communication). This is a subject that seems worthy of scientific investigation.

In one village the belief was expressed that bêche-de-mer give birth to certain reef fish and shellfish and it was good to protect them for this reason. This belief may have arisen from the fact that sea cucumbers provide shelter to various species of small crustaceans, gastropods, worm and fish, which live on their surface or in their coelom or respiratory trees (e.g. Hamel et. al. 2001).

Previous page (Tables)
Next page (Part 2)