Fiji is presently self-sufficient in fish and earns F$66.54 million (representing 2.8 per cent of GDP in 1995) through its export of fishery products (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests 1995). The estimated value of the inshore commodities during the same period was around F$58.32 million. The Fisheries Division has the responsibility for the exploitation and management of all fishery resources, formulating plans for the development of all the various sectors, and monitoring on-going programs. The development of infrastructure and capacity is resulting in a continued increase in the exploitation of inshore resources.
Of the different fishery sectors in Fiji, the industrial sector and the recreational fisheries are predominantly conducted offshore and are associated with high capital inputs. These two sectors are adequately managed and are sufficiently covered in the literature. The development of offshore industrial fishing is beneficial both for the exports that it generates, and the relief that it gives to inshore resources. The inshore fisheries consist of subsistence, artisanal, commercial sectors and aquaculture that are mostly small-scale and operated cheaply by local people. Variations within the inshore fisheries are evident in spite of the use of the same resource base.
Since the establishment of the Fiji Fisheries Division in 1968, the national five year plans have emphasised the development of small-scale artisanal fishery through the introduction of new, motorised fishing boats, improved fishing gear and methods, the processing of traditional export items, the establishment of marketing and transportation systems, ice-making and cold storage plants, and the improvement of landing and berthing facilities in the main fishing centres.
The developments taking place in the management of inshore resources illustrate the incorporation of traditional practices into contemporary resource-use arrangements. The government, for instance, has recorded, surveyed and registered customary fishing ground boundaries that were previously based on oral claims. Some 406 customary fishing grounds have already been established. The government has involved the customary owners in the award of commercial fishing licenses within their areas (Kunatuba 1983; Cavuilati 1994), and is planning to return to the communities the ownership of their traditional fishing grounds, which currently rest with the state, a direct result of Fiji’s colonial experience (Waqairatu 1994).
Commercial fishers operating within customary fishing areas in Fiji are required by law to have a licence which is renewable every year (Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Forests 1994; 1995). The licences are not transferable and are issued by the Fisheries Division on receipt of the approval of the head of the customary units owning the fishing area. Fishers seeking fishing licenses within the customary fishing areas are expected to pay goodwill money. Though open to abuse, this system effectively restricts the number of users in any customary fishing area and removes open access conditions. Fishing licenses offered in this way, although not rationally decided upon (as the traditional owners offer their consent to nearly everyone who asks and pays for them), can be improved if some scientific basis for permit allocation is used.
It is government policy that the customary fishing areas (inside demarcated area—IDA) be reserved as much as possible for local owners and other residents. The Fisheries Division is thus encouraging commercial fishing operators to go to outside demarcated areas (ODA) and exploit resources in those areas that are not traditionally important to people. The government’s intention to develop specific ODA sectors are well illustrated by the placement of Fish Aggregation Devices (FADs) and the promotion of half cabin FAO-designed fishing boats; both of which enhance the movement away from the exploitation of inshore fisheries.
There are other examples that illustrate the incorporation of traditional and community-based marine resources management systems in Fiji. In Kaba Point the people, who were fed up with poorly planned fishery projects that they had been part of, decided that any future marine-based development, involving the use of their coastal resources within their customary fishing areas, required thorough evaluation (Veitayaki et al. 1996). They invited researchers from the local university and government to scientifically assess the viability of their proposed fisheries project. The study findings indicated that local fishery resources were extensively used and that further intensification of current fishing practices could not be viable. As a result of the study the villagers are redefining their goals and options for using and managing their coastal resources.
In a related development, the people approached their paramount chief and briefed her on the disturbed natural situation. The chief responded by initiating a six month ban on gillnet fishing within the Kaba Point areas. In 1995, the chief decided not to renew the seventeen permits for the commercial fishers within their customary fishing grounds and to restrict fishing to only the people of Kaba Point for a year. In May 1996, the villagers hosted a marine awareness workshop where they invited government representatives, non-government organisations and researchers to discuss the management of their coastal resources. The villagers are now pursing other alternatives such as aquaculture and deep-sea fishing to allow for the recovery of their fishing grounds. The people of Kaba Point are aware of the issues facing them and are using the opportunities available through traditional management arrangements to address them.
Similar developments are taking place in other parts of Fiji as customary fishing ground owners determine the exploitation of their resources. In Lau, the paramount chief of the province in the late 1980s banned the commercial exploitation of fisheries in his domain. According to the chief, commercial fishing makes a mockery of customary fishing tenure and therefore promotes a system of marine resource use that is detrimental to people and the proper utilisation of fishery resources (Veitayaki 1990).
In Verata, Tailevu, the people have banned the use of driftnets in their customary fishing grounds for about two years now. This decision was taken by the owners of the customary fishing area after observing the deteriorating status of their fisheries. A year after the moratorium on gillnet fishing, there was much celebration when the big fish that the people claimed to have missed for years returned to the fishing grounds. The chief and the people of Verata have decided to extend the moratorium and are thinking of making the ban a permanent management arrangement. A similar arrangement is being observed within Macuata in Vanua Levu, where the chiefs have testified to the value of a moratorium on gillnet fishing, huka gear use and Sunday fishing (Fong 1994).
In some other parts of Fiji, customary fishing ground owners have refused the building of roads and the use of coastal resources by tourists because of the pressure on fishery resources. The chief and people of Kiuva, Tailevu, for instance, have repeatedly opposed the construction of a road to their village because it would involve clearing and draining extensive mangrove areas on their land. The mangrove areas provide the people’s main fishery resources. According to the chief and the people of Kiuva, it is better to travel by punts and have a good productive fishery than to travel by road and be left with badly destroyed resources.
On many occasions the owners of customary fishing areas have confronted fishers and tourist operators they believed were abusing their coastal resources. Although this situation is not conducive to the economic reputation of the country, it shows that the owners of customary fishing areas are serious about the proper use of their coastal resources. In some instances, fishing gear has been destroyed and lives threatened as customary owners exert control within their areas.
In some parts of Fiji, owners of customary fishing areas have employed fish wardens to patrol their territory. These people undertake surveillance work within their customary areas on behalf of the owners of customary fishing areas and the Fisheries Division. Although fish wardens are not paid, their involvement illustrates the commitment of coastal communities to the proper use of their customary fishing areas.
There is an increasing interest throughout Fiji in the declaration and development of marine reserves and protected areas. This is a direct result of the deteriorating state of fisheries, public education initiatives, and the realisation that a great deal of money can be earned through the display of properly managed marine environments and fishery resources. The development of protected marine areas and reserves in Fiji will be easy, as the ownership of the customary fishing areas is already held by the people, who only need to agree as a group to have a portion of their fishing ground declared a marine reserve or protected area. In some districts such as Tacilevu in Savusavu on Vanua Levu, the people have decided to prohibit fishing at all times in some portion of their fishing grounds. Fish do not respect human-drawn boundaries and so the effects of the fishing ban on a portion of the fishery is expected to have a positive influence on the whole fishery. The lifting of the prohibition period on a given portion of the fishing ground is decided on by the people depending on the feedback received by the fishers. Once a prohibited area is opened another portion is closed to all fishing. According to the people, they are enjoying good catches and are happy with their arrangements.
In collaboration with government departments and some non-government organisations, such as the Fiji Dive Operators Association, the International Ocean Institute, the World Wide Fund and the University of the South Pacific, some owners of customary fishing areas are participating in marine public education workshops to educate people who use the fisheries to consider the impact of their activities and to appreciate the importance of having a healthy, productive and vibrant marine environment. Judging from the current interest in these workshops the message appears to be getting through and is being well received by people.