Microsoft Word - ~$MR report _Final_pus roadshow_7 Nov

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 5
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................ 9
2.

WorldFish Center sites............................................................................................................. 11

2.1. Methods/Approach........................................................................................................... 11

2.1.1.

Development of approach ........................................................................................ 11

2.1.2. Pre-survey

preparation ............................................................................................. 13

2.1.3. Group

Discussion..................................................................................................... 14

2.1.4. Fisher

surveys .......................................................................................................... 16

2.1.5. Reef

surveys............................................................................................................. 16

2.2.

Results and Discussion .................................................................................................... 18

2.2.1.

Background and general information on the study communities ............................ 18

2.2.2.

Reliance on the marine environment for food ......................................................... 21

2.2.3.

Reliance on the marine environment for cash.......................................................... 23

2.2.4.

Details of fishing activities as a community ............................................................ 23

2.2.5.

Fishing patterns amongst individual fishers ............................................................ 28

2.2.6.

Earthquake and tsunami damage to marine resources ............................................. 29

2.2.7.

Changes in fishing since the disaster ....................................................................... 35

2.2.8.

Women and children ................................................................................................ 36

2.2.9.

Management of marine resources ............................................................................ 37

2.2.10.

Ranking sites for priority and future needs.............................................................. 42

2.2.11.

Longer term management issues.............................................................................. 46

2.3. Recommendations............................................................................................................ 48
2.4.

Presentation of findings to the community ...................................................................... 49

2.4.1. Community

needs .................................................................................................... 50

2.4.2. What

next? ............................................................................................................... 52

WWF-SI rapid assessment data ............................................................................................... 52

3.1. Methods............................................................................................................................ 52
3.2. Results.............................................................................................................................. 52

3.2.1.

Fishing patterns among individual fishers ............................................................... 54

3.2.2.

Changes in fishing since the disaster ....................................................................... 54

3.2.3.

Management of marine resources ............................................................................ 57

3.3.

WWF-SI rapid assessment summary ............................................................................... 60

WWF-SI reef survey data ........................................................................................................ 60

4.1. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 60
4.2. Methods............................................................................................................................ 60
4.3. Results.............................................................................................................................. 61

4.3.1.

Gizo Marine Conservation Area .............................................................................. 61

4.3.2.

Darwin initiative project sites .................................................................................. 68

4.4.

WWF-SI reef summary.................................................................................................... 71

5. Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................. 71
Appendix 1. Commonly caught marine taxa ................................................................................... 72
Appendix 2. Questionnaires............................................................................................................. 74

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

List of Figures

Figure 1.

Location of study sites in Western Province, Solomon Islands...................................12

Figure 2.

WorldFish team and villagers surveying reefs at Gaomai, Shortland Island...............14

Figure 3. WorldFish staff conduct group discussions with men, women and children from

A and B. Leona on Vella Lavella, C Iriqila on Vella Lavella and D. Tapurai on
Simbo. ..........................................................................................................................15

Figure 4. WorldFish staff conduct individual fisher surveys with men and women from A)

Tapurai Village on Simbo, B) Lambulambu on Vella Lavella. ...................................16

Figure 5.

Pre- and post-disaster maps of the reef resources of Lengana on Simbo. These
maps were used to gauge the impact of the disaster on reef structure and
resources, and to identify key places of interest for the reef survey............................17

Figure 6.

From left to right, damaged homes in Iriqila, Leona and Liangai on Vella
Lavella..........................................................................................................................20

Figure 7.

The number of village groups that stated that all or some men and women were
involved in fishing and /or gardening. No village stated that there were no men
or women involved in either of these activities. ..........................................................23

Figure 8. Left: Taumoa village on Fauro Island where traditional leaders retain a strong

role in reef access and rules; middle: Valapata community on the eastern side of
Vella Lavella markets produce within the village, to nearby logging companies
and in Gizo; right: in Lambulambu canoe making is an economic activity as it is
for most communities on Vella Lavella.......................................................................25

Figure 9. Examples of A, uplifted reefs, B, rolled massive coral and C, broken corals. ............30
Figure 10. Western Province Islands showing estimated reef damage at all 17 villages

visited. Plots indicate the relative proportion of different degrees of damage to
live coral within the 1500 m of surveyed reef. Buri and Lale on Ranonga Island
and Rarumana, south east of Kolombangara and Falamai on Mono Island all
have extensive areas of near-shore reef that are now exposed to the air. The reef
survey values presented here refer to damage to the remaining submerged reefs
at depths of 2-5m. ........................................................................................................31

Figure 11. (Left) Emperor, snapper and barracuda caught by fishermen at Iriqila on 31 May

2007 and (right) broken corals that are still alive with fish congregating around
them..............................................................................................................................32

Figure 12. Percentage of respondents (men n=120, women n=40) who have found that

fishing, gleaning has either been harder, the same or easier since the disaster. ..........35

Figure 13. Respondents who have found fishing to be the same, easier, or harder since the

disaster by village (bars) and by island (boxes)...........................................................36

Figure 14. Young girls in Iriqila (left) assisting with seaweed collecting from storage in the

lagoon in front of Iriqila and (right) teaching the language names of shells to
WorldFish staff. ...........................................................................................................37

Figure 15. Group discussions at Maleai, Shortland Island and Falamai, Treasury Islands...........38
Figure 16. Response all 160 individual fishers to the question “Do you think you and your

community are looking after your marine resources well?”........................................39

Figure 17. Response by village of individual fishers to the question “Do you think you and

your community are looking after your marine resources well?”................................39

Figure 18. Percentage of respondents (men n=60, women n=38) who have found that

fishing, gleaning has either been harder, the same or easier since the disaster. ..........56

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Figure 19. Respondents who have found fishing to be the same, easier or harder since the

disaster by village (bars). .............................................................................................56

Figure 20. Response of all 98 individual fishers to the question “Do you think you and

your community are looking after your marine resources well?”................................58

Figure 21. Response by village of individual fishers to the question “Do you think you and

your community are looking after your marine resources well?”................................58

Figure 22. Representative stations from the five regular monitoring sites within the Gizo

Marine Conservation Area...........................................................................................62

Figure 23. Substrate composition at three sites in the Gizo Marine Conservation Area. Data

are averages of all stations and depths.........................................................................63

Figure 24.  Fish families at the five sites in the Gizo Marine Conservation Area. ........................66
Figure 25.  Intact reef on Titiana and Paelonge reef area...............................................................66
Figure 26.  Some of the damages around the Saeraghi reef area caused by the earthquake. .........67
Figure 27.   (Left) branching corals at Saeraghi reef area pre-earthquake and (right) the

impact of the earthquake. .............................................................................................67

Figure 28. Overall reef site summary of Darwin Initiative Project Sites at Pienuna

(Ranonga), Karaka (Vella Lavella), Nusa Tuva (Kolombangara) and Boboe
(Vona Vona Lagoon). Two stations were surveyed at each site..................................69

Figure 29. Coastal uplift and reef damage on Ranonga. The pictures were taken at Pienuna. .....70
Figure 30. Mean abundance of fish from all depths and stations at Darwin project sites.............70

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

List of Tables

Table 1.

List of WorldFish sites and dates of village visits. ......................................................13

Table 2.

Summary of household numbers, population, number of tribes, languages
spoken and denominations in each of the villages visited by WorldFish Center.
All communities speak pidgin as well as the languages listed below. [Seventh
Day Adventist (SDA), Church of Melanesia (COM), South Seas Evangelical
Church (SSEC), Church of Christ (COC), Christian Fellowship Church (CFC)]. ......19

Table 3.

Damage to homes caused by the earthquake and / or the tsunami and the
estimated number of paddle canoes swept away or damaged by the tsunami. The
location of damaged homes is marked on maps drawn by the villagers and held
by WorldFish Center....................................................................................................20

Table 4.

Fishing gear owned by fishers individually interviewed (men, n=120; women,
n=40) and lost or destroyed in the tsunami. Data by each individual village is
held by WorldFish Center............................................................................................22

Table 5.

List of all the means the villages had for obtaining money. ........................................24

Table 6.

Fishing access and local management rules related to reefs.......................................26

Table 7.

Summary table of the primary fishing methods employed by the 160 fishers
interviewed in a one on one situation. .........................................................................28

Table 8.

Percent of individual fishers who stated that their fishing or collecting of marine
commodities was primarily for sale, by village. Villages are listed in order of
increasing proportion of resource used for sale along with the place where the
resource is sold.............................................................................................................29

Table 9.

Villages with formal or informal marine management groups ....................................38

Table 10.

Villages listed in alphabetical order. The number of lost canoes, damaged
houses, degree of reef damage and proportion of fish used for consumption is
shown. The highlighted cells are the five highest villages in each category. At
this stage the proportion of men and women involved in fishing has not been
included in the ranking but is shown for context.........................................................44

Table 11.

Priority groups of villages included in the rapid assessment for assistance with
ensuring food security, based on data collected in the survey. ....................................45

Table 12.

List of sites and the dates of village re-visited.............................................................50

Table 13.

Topics of discussion related to fisheries rehabilitation and recovery efforts
following presentations in the communities. ...............................................................51

Table 14.

Summary of household numbers, population, number of tribes, languages
spoken and denominations in each village by WWF-SI. [Seventh Day Adventist
(SDA), South Seas Evangelical Church (SSEC), Christian Fellowship Church
(CFC)]. All communities speak pidgin as well as the languages listed below. ..........53

Table 15.

Summary table of the primary fishing methods employed by the 88 fishers
interviewed in a one on one situation. .........................................................................54

Table 16.

Fishing gear owned by fishers (men, n=60; women, n=38) and lost or destroyed
in the tsunami...............................................................................................................55

Table 17.

Fishing access and local management rules related to reefs........................................57

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Executive Summary

On 2 April 2007 a large earthquake and tsunami hit the western Solomon Islands causing varying

degrees of damage and disruption to coastal communities. In order to assist with prioritisation of

assistance to affected communities, the WorldFish Center and WWF-Solomon Islands (WWF-SI)

combined to carry out an immediate assessment of impacts on selected villages within the affected

area. This assessment was focussed on immediate damage to and needs of the coastal fisheries,

including environment and infrastructure, though the opportunity was taken to assess more general

damage and threats to the long term, sustainable recovery of coastal fisheries.

The objectives were to determine:

(1) the extent of damage to habitats important to coastal fisheries

(2) direct impacts on the ability of the communities to access marine resources

(3) how best to guide post-tsunami relief for rehabilitation of fisheries, development of

sustainable fishery-based livelihoods and resource management planning.

The objectives were achieved through habitat surveys (up to four sites at each location), group

discussions and one-on-one fisher interviews. A total of 29 locations were visited, 12 by WWF-SI

and 17 by WorldFish Center. Geographically these locations ranged across a broad range of the

affected area, including locations on Simbo, Ranonga, Vella Lavella, Treasury Islands, Shortland

Islands, Kolombangara, Gizo and Vona Vona Lagoon; the region within the earthquake zone that

was not included was Choiseul, where TNC were to undertake marine-resource related damage

assessments. Assessments were carried out between 25 May and 12 June 2007, approximately two

months after the event. WWF-SI sites were those where they had previously undertaken

underwater surveys; there is no pre-event reef survey data available for the sites WorldFish

surveyed.

Impacts on communities

The amount of damage to marine habitats varied from location to location and island to island.

Shallow reefs at some locations had experienced almost no damage while at other locations on the

same island broken or rolled corals were found at every site that was examined. The most dramatic

effects were at sites where the earthquake had uplifted islands and previously immersed areas are

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

now emerged. This last has impacted on mangroves, seagrass and coral reef habitat. Around Gizo,

WWF-SI recorded a number of underwater landslides that had removed corals from reef slopes.

Uplifting occurred at Mono, Ranonga and Rarumana and this has the potential to adversely affect

fisheries productivity through a reduction in the quantity and quality of habitat available for marine

plants and animals. Fishers reported loss of gleaning areas at these sites but overall fishing was

reportedly easier than before the event at most sites. We suggest that it may take some time for the

full effects of habitat loss to be felt. Uplifting has also compromised canoe routes at Ranonga and

Buri. Flushing of the Rarumana lagoon has been reduced, potentially leading to water degradation

arising from reduced water exchange with the open sea.

Two months after the tsunami fish were still present at all locations. Where WWF-SI divers were

familiar with their survey sites, observers concluded that there were no obvious reductions in fish

abundance. However, since impacts are expected to be mediated via habitat change, rather than

direct loss of fish, it is not yet clear what the longer-term impacts on fish resources will be in the

impacted area.

All study locations experienced some damage to land-based infrastructure, but this varied from

village to village and was not specifically clustered by region (island). Villagers noted that loss of

houses meant loss of fishing equipment stored there. A significant loss of fishing infrastructure

was of paddle canoes and fishing lines (line fishing is the dominant method in Western Province).

At some locations almost all canoes had been lost while at others very few had been lost. Because

of the interaction between earthquake and tsunami impacts, there was no clear relationship

between damage to reef and damage to village, or between damage to houses and loss of canoes.

The survey showed line fishing to be the most commonly used technique, with very little use of

nets. Divers primarily used goggles and few had access to mask and fins. These fishing

techniques provided sufficient fish to meet personal needs prior to the event and we recommend

that similar tools should be provided to replace these lost items rather than increasing the fish-

catching capacity of villagers with improved gear.

Between 27 August and 27 September WorldFish Center conducted a repeat visit to all 17

communities surveyed in May / June. In each community a PowerPoint presentation was given

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

outlining the findings from the first survey, to explain the mechanism behind the earthquake and

tsunami and what people might expect in the future. Communities were shown how damage to

their community and reefs compared with that experienced by others in the region. Each

community received an abridged version of this report (minus the findings from WWF

communities).

Ranking of community needs

Every community in the affected area has needs to enable them to return to normal life but the

urgency and magnitude of these needs differ. On the basis of data collected in the rapid assessment

the villages surveyed by WorldFish were ranked according to damage sustained, using four

variables describing the most affected communities or those with the greatest reliance on the

marine environment for food security. WWF-SI sites may be included in the ranking when those

data have been fully analysed.

The ranking divided the villages into four groups that reflect risk to food security arising from the

disaster. These were group 1: Tapurai, Leona; group 2: Falamai, Iriqila, Liangai, Lale; group 3:

Buri, Gaomai, Lengana, Maleai, Rarumana, Taumoa and group 4: Pirumeri, Valapata,

Lambulambu, Iriri, Kuzi. We noted no geographical clustering within the ranking. Impacts differ

amongst the villages and tailored aid approaches are likely to be most effective. No weighting has

been applied for raised reefs; but an additional overlapping group 5: Rarumana, Buri, Lale, and

Falamai has been identified to encompass the villages with uplifted reefs as these require special

attention; these sites have an unknown, but likely high, risk of long-term reduced fisheries

productivity.

Longer term management issues not necessarily linked to the earthquake / tsunami

In the course of the survey, a number of fishery features that have potential to cause problems for

communities in the longer term were identified. These include:

• Low stocks of commercially important invertebrates (trochus and bêche-de-mer)
• A need for money to rebuild after the disaster and the attendant risk of pressure to harvest fish

and other marine commodities to obtain this money.

• The collapse of traditional tambu systems in some places and a poor understanding of

fisheries/resource management issues or national regulations.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

• Loss of community control of fisheries.
• Loss of mangrove or shallow reef habitat, with potential long-term effects on reef fish

recruitment.

• Destruction of marine livelihood projects by the tsunami and a varying ability to recover those

projects.

The design of short-term assistance programmes to assist recovery of pre-disaster fishing activity

should not compromise efforts to deal with the coastal fisheries management issues that will

remain once the immediate assistance period is over. In particular, promotion of exploitative

livelihood options that offer short-term gain at the risk of losing long-term sustainability needs to

be very carefully considered. To that end we recommend that equipment replacement is limited to

paddle canoes, lines and goggles rather than nets and fins which, experience from other coral reef

areas shows, promote unsustainable fishing practices for commercial gain. Where they exist,

liaison with village resource management systems would be wise.

Recommendations

1. Immediate fishing equipment needs be met by replacing like with like but not distributing nets

and fins that most fishers did not have pre-disaster and that have the potential to contribute to

over-fishing.

2. Proposals be developed to address the different needs of the five identified groups.

Components of these might include:

• ascertaining the extent of habitat loss at communities with uplifted reefs, the ecological

consequences of this and an assessment of possible mitigation options (opening channels,

alternative livelihoods, mangrove replanting etc.).

• more detailed analysis of the full survey data set (including WWF-SI sites) to develop tailored

programmes for the most vulnerable communities, evaluating a full range of land and marine-

based livelihood options.

• assessment of small-scale fishery status to determine the need for assistance with community-

based marine management plans.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Introduction

Almost 90% of rural communities in the Western Province, Solomon Islands are coastal-based

(FAO fisheries database) and are heavily dependent on natural resources for their livelihood.

Coastal fisheries provide cash and are a critical source of food to many thousands of people in this

region. The earthquake and tsunami of 2 April 2007 devastated many villages in the north-western

provinces of Solomon Islands. Because of their dependence on coastal marine ecosystems, any

disaster-related impacts to reefs, and to infrastructure that supports the utilisation of the marine

environment, have the potential to detrimentally affect food security and livelihoods of affected

communities both immediately and into the future.

In the first weeks after the disaster summaries of the pre-disaster status of fisheries and aquaculture

in Solomon Islands, and the potential for the disaster to affect these sectors were compiled by

various agencies, largely from internet sources

. In general these identified that the nearshore

marine resources and associated fisheries infrastructure were likely to be severely affected. The

Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) also carried out a brief

assessment in the weeks immediately following the disaster. The resulting Director of Fisheries’

report

recommended a detailed assessment of the disaster’s impact on marine life and

communities in Western and Choiseul Provinces.

The WorldFish Center (WorldFish) has community-based projects in progress in some of the

villages in the affected area, local staff with extensive experience in conducting socio-economic

and marine resource assessments and international staff who are currently involved in the tsunami

recovery in Aceh Province, Indonesia. In looking to Aceh for lessons in the recovery and

rehabilitation process, it is pertinent to consider the views of the national coordinating agency in

Indonesia one year after the disaster; (1) pressure to quickly restore the fishing industry led to an

inappropriate mix of fishing vessels of poor quality; (2) the distribution of boats across districts

was uneven and supply-driven; (3) there is a growing concern that the current level of coastal

fishing is unsustainable; and (4) the focus on boats has left major gaps elsewhere in the fisheries

sector. In Aceh a timely and representative assessment of the needs of affected communities, of

Anon 2007. FAO draft progress report on Solomon tsunami disaster.

Oreihaka, E. 2007. Brief preliminary marine resource impact assessment report. Report on the tsunami-affected

Western and Choiseul Provinces. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. 5 pp.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

the kind recommended by Oreihaka (2007) would have resulted in more effective investments in

both short-term assistance and in the long-term rehabilitation of fishery-dependent livelihoods.

In accordance with the recommendation by Oreihaka (2007) and lessons from Aceh, the

WorldFish Center and WWF-Solomon Islands (WWF-SI) undertook to assess the impact of the

disaster on affected communities. A rapid assessment was planned to determine the needs of a

range of communities located within the disaster zone and the status of coastal fisheries and

associated coral reef resources. Prior to the assessment objectives were discussed with the MFMR

and modifications to the approach were made accordingly. Specifically a semi-quantitative

assessment of reef condition was included as a component of the survey.

The affected region was split between WorldFish Center and WWF-SI. WWF-SI focussed on the

Gizo area where they have existing village contacts and survey data. WorldFish sites were spread

across the Western Province from Simbo to Shortland Islands (Fig. 1).

WWF-SI reef-status assessments (led by Ms Nelly Kere) used different methods to the reef-status

assessments of WorldFish as the WWF-SI survey sites were already embedded within an existing

monitoring programme. For ease of data comparison, WWF-Solomon Islands (WWF-SI) (led by

Mr Bruno Manele) agreed to use the WorldFish template for village assessments. Although the

intent is to eventually analyse the data set as whole, at this stage the data collected by the two

organisations is presented separately. Cooperation between the two organisations has enabled 29

Western Province communities to be targeted (17 by WorldFish and 12 by WWF-SI).

The objectives of the assessments were to:

1. provide the communities, the MFMR, the Government of the Western Province and donor agencies

with an assessment of coral reef and fishery resource status, impacts of the disaster on the

community and their needs; and

2. provide appropriate information to guide WorldFish and WWF-SI’s ongoing work in Solomon

Islands and to use in determining how tsunami recovery needs would best interact with long term

plans for rehabilitation and enhancement of fisheries, marine-based livelihoods and community

resource management planning.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Immediately following completion of the field work, a brief summary of immediate needs that

were identified by the communities but were not necessarily related to the marine environment,

was sent to all disaster relief organisations, including the provincial government, operating from

Gizo. WorldFish was informed that this list of needs had been included in the area summary

‘matrix’ held by the National Disaster Council in Gizo, of organisations covering water, sanitation,

shelter, health, education, and livelihood etc. That information is not repeated here and this report

describes the key findings from the marine resource status assessment.

WorldFish Center sites

2.1.

Methods/Approach

Communities visited by WorldFish were chosen according to four main criteria: (1) affected

villages where WorldFish have existing projects; (2) villages that had a reef system (3) villages

expected to have marine resources and village infrastructure significantly affected by the disaster

(according to unpublished information of the National Disaster Council (NDC), Red Cross and

Kastom Gaden (Custom Garden)); and (4) villages that did not have an existing relationship with

another Solomon Islands marine-related NGO as far as we knew. Accordingly we did not target

Choiseul Province because The Nature Conservancy (TNC) advised that they would be conducting

surveys of their existing project communities there. In total 17 villages on the islands of Parara

(Vona Vona lagoon), Kolombangara, Simbo, Vella Lavella, Ranonga, Treasury, Shortland and

Fauro were visited by WorldFish (Fig. 1).

2.1.1.

Development of approach

There were three components to each community visit. The first was a group discussion, the

second a one-on-one interview with individual fishers (men and women when appropriate), and the

third involved a reef survey.

Rapid assessment formats for the group discussion and the fisher’s survey were developed using

approaches outlined in SocMon SEA (2003)

. The questionnaires that formed the basis of these

Bunce L. and Pomeroy B. (2003) Socioeconomic monitoring guidelines for coastal managers in southeast Asia:

SocMon SEA. World Commission on Protected Areas and Australian Institute of Marine Science.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Table 1.

List of WorldFish sites and dates of village visits.

2.1.2.

Pre-survey preparation

Three of the 17 villages targeted by WorldFish (Table 1) have families or community groups

involved in a WorldFish Center project: Rarumana (NZAID livelihoods project: post-larval fish

capture and culture and clam farming), Buri (NZAID livelihoods project: clam farming) and Iriqila

(ACIAR sea cucumber fishery management project). The remaining 14 communities were new to

WorldFish (and WorldFish to them). Following letters of introduction, efforts were made to ensure

that the communities knew who we were, what our intentions were and that they would be happy

to receive us. A letter of introduction from the WorldFish Center manager (Solomon Islands) was

taken to the chief or village representative of each identified target village between 21 and 24 May

2007. With the exception of the remote Treasury, Shortland and Fauro Islands where the letters

were distributed on behalf of WorldFish by staff contacts, each letter was hand delivered.

Community representatives were then asked to contact WorldFish by HF radio or any other means

if they were interested in participating. Initially 18 villages were approached and all responded

favourably. However we were unable to visit one of these villages in Fauro which had agreed to

Village name

Island

Date of visit

Rarumana

Parara Island Vona Vona Lagoon

25 May 2007

Kuzi

Kolombangara

25 May 2007

Lengana

Simbo

27-28 May 2007

Tapurai

Simbo

27-28 May 2007

Leona

Vella Lavella

29-30 May 2007

Iriqila

Vella Lavella

30-31 May 2007

Liangai

Vella Lavella

31 May – 1 June 2007

Valapata

Vella Lavella

1-2 June 2007

Lambulambu

Vella Lavella

2-3 June 2007

Buri

Ranonga

5-6 June 2007

Lale

Ranonga

6-7 June 2007

Falamai

Mono (Treasury)

30-31 May 2007

Gaomai

Shortland

1 June 2007

Pirumeri

Shortland

2 June 2007

Maleai

Shortland

3-4 June 2007

Toumoa

Fauro

5 June 2007

Iriri

Kolombangara

12 June 2007

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

the visit because of weather and transport constraints. A letter of support and introduction was

obtained from the Western Province Government on 23 May 2007 to carry with the teams to each

village.

The usual approach was to stay the night in the village. If possible, group discussions and fishers’

surveys were conducted in the evenings and then reef assessments were carried out the following

day, but this varied from place to place depending on the preference of the community leaders and

whether or not people were living in remote camps. Fishers were invited to join the teams on the

reef surveys and they enjoyed the opportunity to get back into the sea if they hadn’t done so since

the tsunami (Fig. 2). This ensured that the community was left with feedback on the post-disaster

state of their reefs as well as having had the opportunity in discussions to ask any questions they

had related to the marine environment.

Figure 2. WorldFish team and villagers surveying reefs at Gaomai, Shortland Island.

2.1.3.

Group Discussion

The group discussion comprised a series of questions that were asked of the village group by a

facilitator (Appendix 2). There were 34 questions in all, but three of these were mapping/ drawing

exercises (Fig. 3) that were carried out by small groups, usually youth, off to the side of the

discussion. In Tapurai and Iriqila discussions with women and men were held separately. In all

other villages the discussions were held as a mixed group with answers for questions related to

resource use recorded separately for men and women when possible. The original intent was for

the group discussion to be with 10 key informants but in almost every case the community

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

preferred to have open attendance and with the exception of Kuzi, from 11-57 people attended the

meetings. Names of attendees were recorded. Each group discussion took from two to three hours.

The aim of the group discussion was to place the utilisation and reliance on the marine

environment of the study sites in context of other livelihood options, before and after disaster. This

will assist in targeting communities, and groups within communities, to maximise the effectiveness

of any future initiatives related to community-based management of small scale fisheries.

Prior to group discussions in Shortland Islands a general overview on coral reef resources, and

issues about sustainable management of these resources for food security, was presented by the

team.

The effect of this on the subsequent discussion is not known, though team leaders felt that

the prior-group discussion talk encouraged those attending to provide more comprehensive,

accurate and honest answers to the questions. The talks helped stimulate interest and emphasised

that the team was there to talk about issues affecting their daily lives and was therefore worthy of

their attention.

Figure 3. WorldFish staff conduct group discussions with men, women and children from A and B.

Leona on Vella Lavella, C. Iriqila on Vella Lavella and D. Tapurai on Simbo.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

2.1.4.

Fisher surveys

The fisher survey was a one-on-one interview with people who regularly used the sea to gather

marine resources for food or cash. The aim was to target experienced fishers, both men and

women. When possible six men and four women were interviewed but in some places (Shortlands

in particular) the interviewees were almost exclusively men. Fisher surveys were completed at

times that suited the fishers, either straight after the group discussion or at any time that suited

each individual while the group was in the village (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. WorldFish staff conduct individual fisher surveys with men and women from A) Tapurai

Village on Simbo, B) Lambulambu on Vella Lavella.

2.1.5.

Reef surveys

The primary goals of the reef surveys were to describe the predominant coral types, assess the

degree of damage that had had been caused by the earthquake and/or tsunami, and give the

villagers confidence in going back into and on to the water. Since none of the sites that WorldFish

planned to visit had any pre-disaster reef survey data available, WorldFish chose to use a

modification of a rapid survey technique developed during assessments of the Indonesian disaster

The rapid survey technique was by snorkel (not SCUBA), and therefore could be carried out by

any member of the WorldFish technical team with previous experience of reef assessment. The

sites for survey were chosen after the group discussions with villagers when they were asked to

identify reefs which they fished or dived regularly, and that they had an interest in the team

Tsunami Damage to Coral Reefs. Guidelines for Rapid Assessment and Monitoring. ICRI/ISRS (Version 1, January

2005)

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

assessing (Fig. 5). At a maximum of four different reef sites for each community, depending on the

size of the community’s fishing area, 15 transects, each 100 m x 2 m, were assessed using manta

tow techniques. The distance and speed of the tow were standardised using GPS and GPS co-

ordinates were recorded at the start of each transect. At the end of each 100 m tow, the boat

stopped to allow the recorder to complete the data sheet for that section. Reef surveys took about

two hours per site to complete.

Figure 5. Pre- and post-disaster maps of the reef resources of Lengana on Simbo. These maps were used

to gauge the impact of the disaster on reef structure and resources, and to identify key places of

interest for the reef survey.

The relative abundance of various coral morphotypes (massive, branching, plate, soft) and

associated habitats (e.g. coral rubble) was noted. Earthquake/tsunami reef damage was recorded as,

over-turned, broken or smothered coral and scored using a four-point scale:

0: no visible damage

1: very low (<10% of living corals damaged),

2: medium (10 – 50% of living corals damaged)

3: very high (>50% of living corals damaged)

The survey was carried out sufficiently soon after the event that such damage could be

differentiated from older damage.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Only the type of coral and other substrate, and damage to coral, were scored in a semi-quantitative

manner so that the single diver could maintain focus on one task. Nevertheless at the end of each

transect the divers also noted the relative abundance of other habitat types (algae, seagrass), large

commercially important invertebrates (e.g., sea cucumbers, trochus) and fish. Fish presence was

recorded under core groups: butterflyfish, parrotfish, other coral-associated fish, snapper, grouper,

pelagics and ‘other’, the latter including favoured targets of fishers such as topa, surgeonfish,

unicornfish, bream, emperor fish, sweetlips etc.

The primary purpose of the additional observations was to be able to provide feedback to the

community on what could be seen on the reef at that time. These observations have also provided a

snapshot of which groups of invertebrates and fish were abundant at which sites at that time and

will assist in determining relevant reef / marine livelihood research questions in future studies.

2.2.

Results and Discussion

2.2.1.

Background and general information on the study communities

The 17 villages visited by WorldFish ranged in size from a population of 250 at Tapurai to 1600 in

Iriqila. More than six different primary languages were spoken across all villages and from one to

eight religious denominations were present within any one village (Table 2).

Homes were damaged by both the earthquake and the tsunami (Fig. 6). Loss of paddle canoes was

due to the tsunami wave breaking canoes or washing them away. The highest degree of home and

canoe loss in the communities listed in Table 3 was in Tapurai where all houses were destroyed and

almost every canoe lost or destroyed.

Except for Lale on Ranonga, where not every family owned a canoe before the disaster, it was

normal for each household to have between one and three paddle canoes. In most villages, affected

families lost on average 1 canoe or less, but from the 40 households (Table 2) in Tapurai pre-

disaster, it was estimated that more than 58 canoes were lost (Table 3).

rldFish Cen

t
er

and W

-SI R

e
por

t o

f
a Rap

i
d As

s
e
ssmen

t o

f
Coas

tal F

i
sh

a
b

l
e

Sum

ary

of household

ers, popul

ion, num

ber

of t

r
ib

es,

lang

uag

e
s spok

and den

i
natio

in ea

of th

e v

i
l
l
ag

e
s v

i
si

ted

Wor

l
dF

i
s
h C

e
n

t
e
r
. A

l
l com

unities

speak

in as w

e
ll

the

lang

e
s l

i
s
t
ed b

e
low

enth D

a
y

e
ntis

t (S

), C

hur

ch o

Mel

a
nes

i
a

(COM)

,
Sout

h S

eas Ev

ang

e
li

cal Ch

urc

(SS

C), Chur

c
h

of C

), C

r
i
st

ian F

e
l
l
ow

ip C

urch

)]

Pre-

t
s
un

a
m

i
num

ber es

t
i
m

a
t
e
d

e co

i
t
y

e g

r
ou

p di

s
c
u

s
s
i
on

Num

er of

s
e
s
i

e i

mmediate v

i
cinit

f
th

e j

e
tt

.
T

ere

are oth

e
r h

s
eh

olds

at c

s
ider th

e
m

s
e
l
v

part of

i
a
n

a
i c

i
t
y

e
r
e
n

is v

a
l
u

illa

nam

Isla

f
v

i
sit

Num

r
o

tion

Num

r
i
b

e
(d

i
a

lect)

Relig

s
deno

i
n

Raru

a
n

a
rara Islan

(

a Vo

a
g

oon)

153

710

i
a
n

ite

d C

hur

c
h

, SD

postolic

, COM,

SSEC,

tho

lic

COC, CFC

z
i
K

lom

a
n

a
r
a

400+

lom

a
n

a
r
a

(
D

i
al

ect

)

,
Ba

e
ng

a
n

Sim

27-

105

455

Sim

ite

d C

hur

c
h

, SD

,
Me

tho

SSEC

a
pur

a
i

Sim

27-

250

Sim

ite

d C

c
h

, A

pos

tolic

e
ona

lla

a
v

e
lla

29-

585

lla

ite

hur

c
h

I
r
i
qila

lla

a
v

e
lla

30-

183

160

lla

ite

d C

hur

c
h

, SD

i
a
n

a
i

lla

a
v

e
lla

– 1 J

une

168

lla

a
v

e
lla

2 J

une

103

400

lla

ite

d C

hur

c
h

a
m

bu L

a
m

lla

a
v

e
lla

3 J

une

468

lla

ite

d C

hur

c
h

, SD

,
C

,
Me

odis

r
i

a
nong

6 J

une

160

-
1

600+

a
nong

a
le

a
nong

7 J

une

160

600

a
nong

ite

d C

hur

c
h

, Me

t, SD

Jeh

’s W

i
t
n

ess,

Cat

l
i
c
,

SSEC

a
i

Mon

, T

r
e
a
s
ur

30-

158

565

l
u dia

l
e
c
t

ite

d C

hur

c
h

, A

s
s
e
m

l
y

od,

COC, SDA

a
o

a
i

Shor

t
l
a
nd

1 J

400

l
u dia

l
e
c
t
Eng

lis

a
tholic

i
r
u

e
r
i

Shor

t
l
a
nd

2 J

~26

l
u dia

l
e
c
t
Eng

lis

a
tholic

a
i

Shor

t
l
a
nd

4 J

une

142

637

l
u dia

l
e
c
t
Eng

lis

a
tholic

oum

5 J

450

l
u dia

l
e
c
t

a
tholic

I
r
i
r
i

lom

a
n

a
r
a

12 J

une

300

lom

a
n

a
r
a
(

i
al

ect

)

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Table 3.

Damage to homes caused by the earthquake and / or the tsunami and the estimated number of
paddle canoes swept away or damaged by the tsunami. The location of damaged homes is
marked on maps drawn by the villagers and held by WorldFish Center.

Village name

Dwelling damage

(% of homes)

Estimate of

lost paddle

canoes

Places to purchase replacement

canoes

Rarumana 31

Within

the

lagoon

Kuzi

0 a

Main canoe providers on

Kolombangara

Iriri

Main canoe providers on

Kolombangara

Lengana 8 10

Vella

Lavella,

Kolombangara

Tapurai 100

58+

Vella

Lavella,

Kolombangara

Leona

50+

Canoe makers in village

Iriqila

100+

Canoe makers in village

Liangai

<20 a

Canoe makers in village

Valapata

Canoe makers in village

Lambulambu

Canoe makers in village

Buri

Canoe makers in village need

logs from Kolombangara

Lale

>10

Canoe makers in village need

logs from Kolombangara

Falamai

High amount of earthquake

damage

<30

Canoe makers in village

Gaomai

High amount of earthquake

damage

Canoe makers in village

Pirumeri

<10

Canoe makers in village

Maleai

<10 a

Canoe makers in village

Toumoa

<20 a

Canoe makers in village

Data obtained from group discussion except in these villages this information was estimated from visual

assessments and general talking with fishers rather than being asked directly at the group discussion.

Figure 6. From left to right, damaged homes in Iriqila, Leona and Liangai on Vella Lavella.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

At the time of the village visits, approximately two months after the earthquake and tsunami,

there was still a degree of fear in all the communities that were visited. When asked within the

group discussion what they were afraid of, the most common response was the worry of another

earthquake and tsunami occurring. Many people were hesitant to go back into the water, and

voiced the need for reassurances by responsible authorities. The majority of those who had

returned to the sea were the full-time fishermen, as the need to feed and provide for their families

was paramount.

Villagers explained that losses of fishing gear were related to the destruction of houses. Fishing

gear (lines, goggles, spears etc.) was stored within houses and if a house was washed away by

the wave then all gear was lost. An indication of the types of gear that were lost or damaged in

the tsunami is given in Table 4, based on individual interviews with fishers. For both men and

women, fishing lines and hooks were the most common equipment that was reported lost. While

there is a risk that some villagers will have reported equipment lost that they never owned, in the

hope that it would be “replaced”, the correlation between house and content loss suggests that

this risk may be small.

2.2.2.

Reliance on the marine environment for food

During group discussions the communities were asked to estimate the actual number of people

involved in gathering food from gardens and the sea. Some villages were able to do this with a

degree of accuracy but usually the answer was ‘most’, ‘some’ or ‘everyone’. Almost all the

villages (16 of 17) stated that all women were involved in gardening compared with 11 of 17 for

men (Fig. 7). Similarly almost all villages stated that all men were involved in fishing (including

any marine harvesting) (16 of 17) while this was true for women in 12 of 17 villages. Naturally

not everyone goes fishing at once, nor do they necessarily go every day. While we have some

estimates of frequency and numbers of canoes per day from some villages this would require

more detailed questioning to quantify accurately.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Table 4.

Fishing gear owned by fishers individually interviewed (men, n=120; women, n=40) and lost
or destroyed in the tsunami. Data by each individual village is held by WorldFish Center.

Fishing Gear

(Men Only)

Number before tsunami

Damaged during Tsunami

Fishing line/ hook

Wooden canoe

Gillnet

Speargun 56

Spear

Diving knife

Goggles

Mask and snorkel

Fins or flippers

Boat & OBM

Fishing Gear

(Women Only)

Number before tsunami

Damaged during Tsunami

Fishing line/ hook

Wooden canoe

Gillnet

Speargun 2

Spear

Diving knife

Goggles

Mask and snorkel

Fins or flippers

Boat & OBM

In addition to fishing, women harvest mangrove fruit and seaweed (where available), mangrove

shells, sea shells and mud crab in non-SDA communities. Although marine and garden resources

were the dominant food sources from the environment, other ways of taking food that were

available to some but not all communities included:

1. Hunting pigs and possums

2. Collecting food from rivers, e.g. shells, fish and eels

3. Digging for megapod eggs

4. Harvesting land crabs when in season

5. Sago palm harvesting.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

all garden

all fish

some garden

some fish

ber

i
l
l
ages

Men

Women

Figure 7. The number of village groups that stated that all or some men and women were involved in

fishing and /or gardening. No village stated that there were no men or women involved in

either of these activities.

2.2.3.

Reliance on the marine environment for cash

The high involvement of community members in gardening and fishing (any marine harvesting)

for food supply is also reflected in the most common means that the communities have for

obtaining money. Although 27 different ways to obtain cash were listed by the 17 communities

(Table 5) the most commonly listed were marketing garden and food produce (14 villages),

copra (14), marketing fish (13), trochus (9) and bêche-de-mer (8). Women and children’s

involvement in marketing garden products and cooked food was high; however the selling of

marine commodities for cash (fish market, trochus and bêche-de-mer) was largely the preserve of

men (Table 5).

2.2.4.

Details of fishing activities as a community

In every community the reefs are owned by the community or the tribe (Table 6). Fishers from

the community have full and free access to their reefs while people from other villages must ask

permission to fish on the reefs. Fishers can fish any day of the week, except Saturdays for SDA

communities and Sundays for others. Fishing is strongly weather-dependent, by paddle canoe

and generally it is the men who fish offshore.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Fishers explained that the weather pattern has a strong influence on fishing activities. The

months of November to April are considered to be the cyclone season by fishers and not a good

time to go fishing (strong wind, rough sea). The southeast wind dominates during May to

August. For some communities their fishing grounds are sheltered and favourable during the

south-easterly period, others view this period as bad weather and not a good time to fish. The

north winds blow occasionally and can be strong. Although they usually doesn’t last long it can

be dangerous to be out in the open sea at this time.

Table 5.

List of all the means the villages had for obtaining money.

Economic activity

Number of
villages involved

Women & children.
High, medium, low

Men.
High, medium, low

1. Marketing garden produce

and cooked food

14 High

Low

2. Copra 14

High

3. Fish market

Medium

High

4. Trochus 9

Low

High

5. Bêche-de-mer 8

Low

High

6. Baking scones, ring-cakes

High

None

7. Mats, baskets

High

None

8. Betel nut/leaf/lime market

Low

9. Casual labour

Low

High

10. Canoe-making 6

None

High

11. Timber 4

None

High

12. Paid labour

Medium

High

13. Retail shop/canteen

Medium

14. Sewing 3

High

None

15. Dried ngali nuts

High

None

16. Sea weed farms

Medium

High

17. Sand/gravel 1 None High
18. Cigarette market

High

None

19. Chainsaw hire

None

High

20. Live fish (cultured and wild)

Medium

High

21. Selling pigs

None

High

22. Remittance 1 High Low
23. Furniture making

None

High

24. Carving

None

High

25. Firewood 1

None High

26. Honey 1

None

High

27. Coconut oil

Medium

In about half of the villages (8 of 17) traditional leaders still have a strong role in determining

fishing access and rules (Fig. 8, Table 6). In seven of the remaining nine villages, not only was

there no longer a strong role for traditional leaders but no alternative regulatory structures were

rldFish Cen

t
er

and W

-SI R

e
por

t o

f
a Rap

i
d As

s
e
ssmen

t o

f
Coas

tal F

i
sh

a
b

l
e

Fish

ing

acce

ss an

d lo

l m

a
nag

e
m

e
nt rul

e
s r

e
l
a
te

d to

r
eefs.

Village na

Full reef acces

s
?

Any ta

u’s

practis

e
d?

Who ow

reefs

r
aditional

leader’s

role

s
t
ron

icipa

t
ed in a

ne related

sse

e
nt

Rar

a
n

Yes to

cal v

illa

e
r
s
; o

t
s
id

s to

e
t

e
r
m

i
ssio

i
t
y

e
d

a
n

a
r

a
n

i
’s

r
ou

Worl

i
s
h

–

Baby

f
i
sh

proj

ect

Yes to

cal v

illa

e
r
s
; o

t
s
id

s to

e
t

e
r
m

i
ssio

r
i
b

e
n

a
n

Yes

,
open

acces

r
i
b

a
p

r
a
i

Yes to

cal v

illa

e
r
s
, o

t
h

e
r
Si

illa

e
r
s
an

t
h

e
r
i

s
lan

r
i
b

e
o

Yes to

cal v

illa

e
r
s
, th

s
e

f
r
o

t
h

e
r
islan

s g

e
t p

e
r
m

i
ssio

e
m

porary

ree

f
clos

r
es

e
n

port

a
nt

pers

i
r
u);

f
o

r
m

a
n

r
o

e
sh

ell

ild

;

d f

r t

r
och

s
bu

i
l
d

r
i
b

Yes

– can

i
m

pos

res

t
ri

i
o

e
s –

nka

a
n

i
’s

r
o

r
a
m

e (

s
ti

ll to

sta

r
t)

I
r
i
q

ila

Yes to

cal v

illa

e
r
s
, th

s
e

f
r
o

t
h

e
r
islan

s g

e
t p

e
r
m

i
ssio

r
ev

iou

s
l
y

, ree

f
clos

r
e
s
f

c
h

s
b

ild

, co

i
t
y

a
r
v

t
i
n

r
ch

celebration

mmu

t
y

(reg

i
s
t
ered reef

)

r
o

com

uni

t
y

c
o

mmi

t
t
e
e

leaders

Yes W

rld

ish

ê
ch

de-m

Man

e
m

e
n

r
o

j
ect

i
a
n

a
i

Yes to

cal v

illa

e
r
s
, th

s
e

f
r
o

t
h

e
r
islan

s g

e
t p

e
r
m

i
ssio

tribes

d reef

ners

f
o

rce te

porar

clos

r
es

r
i
b

es Yes

Valap

a
ta

Yes to

cal v

illa

e
r
s
, th

s
e

f
r
o

t
h

e
r
islan

s g

e
t p

e
r
m

i
ssio

e
m

porary

ree

f
clos

r
e is

i
m

pos

ed w

e
n

s
o

e
on

i
m

port

a
n

t
di

r
i
b

e No

a
m

l
a
m

Yes to

cal v

illa

e
r
s
, th

s
e

f
r
o

t
h

e
r
islan

s g

e
t p

e
r
m

i
ssio

tribes

d/or ch

i
m

pos

e t

e
m

porar

reef

osu

r
e
s

e
n

a ch

f
dies

r
i
b

e No

r
i

mmu

t
y

e
r
s fr

e
e
a

c
c
e
ss;

s
e

f
r
o

t
h

e
r
isla

s to

e
t

e
r
m

i
ssio

r
i
b

Yes-

rld

i
v

e
l
i
h

ood pr

ect

rldFish Cen

t
er

and W

-SI R

e
por

t o

f
a Rap

i
d As

s
e
ssmen

t o

f
Coas

tal F

i
sh

Village na

Full reef acces

s
?

Any ta

u’s

practis

e
d?

Who ow

reefs

r
aditional

leader’s

r
o

role?

icipa

t
ed in

y m

related

sse

e
nt

a
le

Yes to

a
le

illa

e
r
s
an

t
h

e
r

illa

e
s; o

t
h

e
r
isla

s to

e
t

e
r
m

i
ssio

r
i
b

Fala

a
i

Open

acces

ree

f
is

clos

e
n

a ch

r
i
b

e
rsh

i
p bu

f
h

a
s

lti

a
te

con

t
rol

Yes No

Gao

Open

acces

s
e

cept on

cus

t
o

ary

e
d reef

s
i

.
e. open

acces

s

un

der

f
’
s r

e
s
,
on

cus

t
o

ned reefs

r
i
b

e
rsh

i
p bu

f
h

a
s

lti

a
te

con

t
rol

Yes No

i
rum

e
ri

Open

acces

e ch

f
clos

e
s
f

i
s
h

ing

und

r
i
b

e
rsh

i
p bu

f
h

a
s

lti

a
te

con

t
rol

Yes No

Maleai

Open

acces

chief

clos

e
s
reefs

r
i
b

al ow

e
rs

i
p bu

f
h

a
s

lti

a
te

con

t
rol

Yes n

Open

acces

s
e

cept

e
n

f
clos

reef

s
an

d t

e th

a
t
are priv

atel

e
d

e
s
,
ch

i
e
f
h

a
s
cl

ed t

o ree

f
s

r
i
b

e
rsh

i
p bu

f
h

a
s

lti

a
te

con

t
rol

Yes No

Iriri

access to

Iriri v

illa

e
rs;

Oth

e
rs

s
k

e
ru-

t
a
m

e pas

t
–

a
rk

ed area

ith

s
tic

– bu

does

’
t
h

a
ppen

r
i
b

e
rsh

i
p, an

l
ook

ed af

t
e
r by

illa

a
rum

a
n

a

w

a
s
al

s
o

i
s
i
t
e
d i

2006

part

’
s
PR

i
sh

proj

ect

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

2.2.5.

Fishing patterns amongst individual fishers

160 fishers in 17 villages were interviewed in a one-on-one situation. Of the 160

interviewees, 120 were men and 40 were women (Table 7). The primary fishing method

(where fishing was defined as collection of all marine resources) used by the 160

interviewees was line fishing (61%), followed by diving with spears (24%). Only 2%

used nets as their primary fishing method and a further 13% collected shells and/ or

seaweed. Women dominated the shell and seaweed collecting although they also engaged

in line fishing and other activities.

Dominant fishing methods that emerged from individual interviews were consistent with

those from group discussions at each village. Line fishing methods included trolling, drop

line and strike line techniques. Appendix 1 lists the top five marine taxa fished by men

and women in each village and the fishing methods used.

Table 7. Summary table of the primary fishing methods employed by the 160 fishers

interviewed in a one on one situation.

Summary statistics

Number

Number of Fishers

160

# men

120

# women

Percent

% primary line fishers

% primary divers

% primary net fishers

% primary gleaners/seaweed harvest

% fishing for consumption

% fishing for sale

% sale and consumption

Almost half of respondents in individual interviews stated that fishing was primarily for

consumption while 25% stated that their catch was primarily for sale (Table 7). It was not

necessarily just the communities that fished bêche-de-mer and trochus that reported a

high proportion of marine resources being harvested for sale. For example Buri

community on Ranonga is an SDA community and so nominally does not fish bêche-de-

mer; yet 40% of fishers stated fishing was primarily for sale (Table 8). Proximity to

external markets was also not a guarantee of a high proportion of fish being sold.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Table 8.

Village Island

Sold

Where

Tapurai Simbo

Leona

Vella Lavella

Lale Ranonga

Lengana

Simbo

10 Local market, Gizo

Iriqila

Vella Lavella

10 Local market, Logging company, JAC school

Valapata

Vella Lavella

10 Logging company, local market,

Rarumana

Parara

20 Gizo, local market and BDM buyer

Kuzi

Kolombangara

20 Ringgi, Noro, Gizo, local market

Iriri

Kolombangara

20 Local copra Buyer, Kukudu market, Gizo

Liangai

Vella Lavella

20 Local market

Lambulambu

Vella Lavella

30 Logging company, local market

Falamai

Mono, Treasury

30 Local Market, local BDM buyer

Maleai

Shortland

30 Buin ( Bougainville), local buyer

Buri Ranonga

Local

Market,

Gizo

Pirumeri

Shortland

40 Buin (Bougainville), local BDM & trochus buyer

Gaomai

Shortland

60 Buin (Bougainville), local buyer, local market

Toumoa

Fauro

80 Buin, Local BDM buyer, local market

2.2.6.

Earthquake and tsunami damage to marine resources

Community members who had been back out on the sea reported being able to see rolled

corals (a common earthquake and tsunami effect that was noted for massive corals) and

new cracks in the reef, an earthquake effect. Places that were previously shallow were

reported as being deep, and vice versa. Divers reported some deep holes (erosion)

beneath remaining large coral rocks. Villagers queried whether land-slides could happen

underwater and on being assured they could, were able to identify places on steep

sections of reef where this appeared to have happened.

The four main types of damage recorded on the surveyed reefs were uplifting which has

exposed previously submerged reefs to the air; rolling; breaking or cracking, and

smothering by sediments (Fig. 9).

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Figure 9. Examples of A, uplifted reefs, B, rolled massive coral and C, broken corals.

The degree of damage to reefs was not uniform over the whole study area (Fig. 10).

Excluding uplifted reefs, the villages with the greatest proportion of damage were

Falamai (Treasury Island), Pirumeri, Maleai and Taumoa (Shortland Islands), Buri

(Ranonga), Leona (Vella Lavella) and Rarumana (Vona Vona lagoon). Reefs at Lengana

on Simbo, and Valapata and Lambulambu on Vella Lavella, showed the least disaster-

related damage. Despite extensive structural damage on land to Tapurai on Simbo (Table

3) almost half of the reef showed no apparent disaster-related damage.

The type of reef and the degree of exposure to the tsunami following damage caused by

the earthquake helped to determine the extent of reef damage. Reefs that are exposed on a

regular basis to strong cyclonic (W/NW) winds were already pre-adapted to physical

disturbance (robust growth forms) and tended to suffer less damage than those from more

sheltered sites, where more fragile branching corals prevailed.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Figure 10. Western Province Islands showing estimated reef damage at all 17 villages visited.

Plots indicate the relative proportion of different degrees of damage to live coral

within the 1500 m of surveyed reef. Buri and Lale on Ranonga Island and Rarumana,

south east of Kolombangara and Falamai on Mono Island all have extensive areas of

near-shore reef that are now exposed to the air. The reef survey values presented here

refer to damage to the remaining submerged reefs at depths of 2-5 m.

As described in the Methods, the manta-tow survey was not designed to provide a

rigorous quantitative assessment of invertebrates or fish, nor was it designed to test

habitat / abundance relationships in a rigorous scientific way, i.e., at a given site, different

types of habitat were surveyed according to where the community interest was strongest.

Accordingly the data collected from this survey allows no general correlation between the

frequency of occurrence of fish at a site and overall reef damage. One striking feature

was that, without exception, very low numbers of commercially important invertebrates

were seen in the 2-5 m depth zone of the 17 WorldFish sites. At only two sites, Tapurai

and Taumoa, were more than one trochus or sea cucumber seen per transect (200 m

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Fish abundance varied from place to place but as there is no pre-tsunami data for these

sites it is not possible to assess the effect of the disaster on fish abundance from these

surveys. At best our fish observations provide a baseline of what groups occurred at the

time of the survey and serve as independent data to place alongside fishers observations.

Our expectation was that the primary effect of the disaster on fish would be through the

destruction of habitat, i.e., broken corals, inaccessible mangroves and raised reefs that are

all used for breeding and shelter for many different species. Over time, we would expect

populations to decline if suitable habitat no longer exists. There were patterns that

supported this expectation at the scale of an individual transect. Coral-associated fish

were absent from parts of the transects where coral had been destroyed. If isolated

patches of intact coral remained, coral-associated fish had congregated around these areas

(Fig. 11).

Figure 11. (Left) Emperor, snapper and barracuda caught by fishermen at Iriqila on 31 May

2007 and (right) broken corals that are still alive with fish congregating around them.

The abundance of pelagic fish and other food fish that are not directly associated with

corals for habitat varied greatly from site to site. This is due in part to the fact that some

surveyed reefs were inside lagoons or other habitat types where we would not expect to

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Uplifted reefs present special fisheries-related challenges

A distinctive and widely publicised effect of the earthquake has been the uplifting of

coral reefs clear of the water. Sites within the assessment group that experienced this
effect were Rarumana on Parara Island, Lale and Buri on Ranonga and Falamai on

Mono Island. The potential effect of uplifting on food security differs between villages.

In Lale the fringing reef has been lifted clear of the water. A narrow shelf of relatively
undamaged reef remains submerged, showing large horizontal cracks. Beyond this the

reef drops off into deep water. The net effect is a loss of shallow gleaning area, and
breeding and fishing grounds for reef fish. As the Lale community has a higher

reliance on gardening and copra than on fishing compared to other study villages, the
loss of reef habitat is likely to impact a smaller proportion of the population than might

otherwise be the case. Nevertheless for those who do rely on the sea for food, they may
expect to see some changes in the abundance of some species in the future. For

example a Lale fisher asked “Do you think that crayfish numbers will go down now
that those shallow places for juvenile crayfish are no longer available?”. The answer depends on how important

this particular place was in determining the number of adult lobster found on the reef before the uplifting. If there
were a lot of juveniles living and sheltering in this area before the uplifting, then it is reasonable to expect the

numbers of adults to decline in the future.

In Buri the loss of the majority of shallow reef habitat has the same implications
as for Lale. However as an SDA village where shellfish are not collected for

consumption, the shallow reef habitat and mangroves are less important as
gleaning areas as they are in non-SDA villages. The main effect on food

security is likely to be via habitat loss for fish. An important additional habitat
loss in Buri results from stranded mangroves. Mangroves are important

breeding and nursery grounds for a number of fish and are not a common habitat type on Ranonga because the
shoreline is steep. The forest at Buri is the largest on the island and most trees are eventually expected to die.

Mangrove replanting in suitable places is an option that has been used in similarly affected areas elsewhere in the
world. In Buri, community members have already started replanting on their own initiative and could be further
assisted with experience and advice on the most effective approach to take. During the group discussion the Buri

community identified the creation of a passage through the newly uplifted reef to enable canoe access to gardens

as their number one priority for returning life to normal.

In Rarumana yet another consequence of reef uplifting presents itself. Not

only has shallow reef habitat been lost but water exchange between the
lagoon and the open sea is now reduced, with the potential to create water

quality problems in the lagoon owing to restricted flushing. This is
significant to livelihoods not only for subsistence fishing/gathering but also

because this is where seaweed farming occurred prior to the disaster. The
Rarumana community has been involved in a number of marine livelihood

initiatives. Faced with the possibility of no longer being able to utilise the lagoon for pre-disaster marine
livelihood activities they have called for assistance with improving their capacity for gardening.

Raised reefs at
Mono (top), and
Lale (bottom).

Stranded mangroves at Buri

Newly uplifted reef
creating a barrier to water
exchange at Rarumana

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

2.2.7.

Changes in fishing since the disaster

A similar number of respondents thought fishing had become more difficult (49% of men

and 43% of women) since the disaster as those who thought it had become easier (40% of

men and 38% of women) (Fig. 12). The remainder did not think there had been a change.

Figure 12. Percentage of respondents (men n=120, women n=40) who have found that fishing,

gleaning has either been harder, the same or easier since the disaster.

The perception that fishing had become more difficult was prevalent in eight villages

spread over all islands except Simbo (Fig. 13). Fishers said this was either because the

fish just weren’t biting or because the fishers had to look for new places to fish as the fish

appeared to have moved, or to be behaving differently. Whatever the reason this meant

that it took longer to catch the same amount of fish as before the disaster. In a further

seven villages spread over all islands except Kolombangara and Parara (Rarumana) the

majority of interviewees thought that fishing had become easier (Fig. 13). Fishers

suggested that they thought this was because the fish had nowhere to live/hide, an

observation which is supported by the reef surveys (section 2.2.6).

Men

Same, 9%

Easier, 40%

Harder, 49%

Not sure, 2%

Same

Easier

Harder

Not sure

Women

Same, 20%

Easier, 38%

Harder, 43%

Same

Easier

Harder

Not sure

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Irir

uzi

iru

eri

ana

Irig

ila

bul

er of

t
s

Same

Easier

Harder

Figure 13. Respondents who have found fishing to be the same, easier, or harder since the

disaster by village (bars) and by island (boxes).

2.2.8.

Women and children

Children in the study villages follow their parents to the gardens and the sea and often

have an extensive knowledge of the marine environment (Fig. 14). Specific post-disaster

marine related effects noted by the women were that where reefs have been uplifted

shallow fishing areas (or areas for gleaning shells for non-SDA communities) are no

longer available as they are now exposed to the air (Lale and Buri). In some places

seaweed harvesting areas have been flushed out by the wave and so there is currently

very little seaweed available (Iriri, Liangai). In Lale, some women and children noted that

fishing was easier now as they could stand on the edge of the uplifted reef and cast

directly into deep water without requiring a canoe.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Figure 14. Young girls in Iriqila (left) assisting with seaweed collecting from storage in the

lagoon in front of Iriqila and (right) teaching the language names of shells to

WorldFish staff.

2.2.9.

Management of marine resources

Of the 17 villages visited only two villages, Rarumana and Leona, said that they had a

group to manage their marine resources (Table 9). In three cases, Pirumeri, Maleai and

Toumoa, chiefly management of resources is practised. In Rarumana, the Seaweed

Farming Association formed after the EU-funded Seaweed Farming Project began. The

Association is currently inactive as the seaweed farms have been greatly affected by the

tsunami. The existing management group in Leona is an informal management system for

all village issues whereby the chief and/or elders, or anyone with knowledge on that

matter, can share their knowledge with the rest of the community. There is no formal

system for handling enforcement and regulatory matters related to the marine

environment. In Buri, the formation of a marine management committee to handle

projects was being discussed at the time of our visit.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Figure 15. Group discussions at Maleai, Shortland Island and Falamai, Treasury Islands.

Table 9.

Villages with formal or informal marine management groups

Village

Any formal/informal management

group?

If no, would you like one?

Kuzi

yes, recognise a need to try and control
fishing activities due to population increase

Rarumana

yes, they have a Seaweed Farming
Association, but is currently inactive

people do want one to manage their marine
resources

Lengana

yes, for sustainable use as population
increases

Tapurai

yes, as this committee might make rules to
make sure rules are in place for the future

Leona

yes, an informal group where
chief/elders or anyone with knowledge
can share with the community

they are happy with this current
arrangement

Iriqila

no (but one such informal group could
be the community committee)

no, except for WorldFish bêche-de-mer
project which is underway

Liangai

yes, they do need one such management
group

Valapata

none

no one has been to give advice

Lambulambu none

yes, especially now after the tsunami, as
they want alternative livelihood options

Buri

the formation of a marine project
committee was being discussed.

Lale

none

not as yet

Falamai none

yes

Gaomai

none

yes, need one but disobedience is currently
a problem

Pirumeri

none, but chief is in control

no, leave it to the chiefs to decide =
traditional authority

Maleai

none

yes, but under the authority of the chief

Toumoa

none, cultural/traditional authority
invested in the chief

no, don't need one, but support for
chief/elders important

Iriri

none

yes, interested in assistance in setting up
something related to managing fishing

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Forty-three percent of the individual fishers thought that they and their community were

looking after their reefs well, while just over half did not think the reefs were well looked

after (Fig. 16). This proportion differed from place to place, with nine villages recording

more “no” answers and seven recording more “yes” answers (Fig. 17). The views of the

respondents at Taumoa were split down the middle (Fig. 17). Perceptions of guardianship

vary greatly between communities from a predominantly ‘yes’ answer (left hand side of

Fig. 17) to a predominantly ‘no’ answer (right hand side of Fig. 17).

Are you and your community looking after your reefs well?

53%

43%

Yes

Not Sure

Figure 16. Response all 160 individual fishers to the question “Do you think you and your

community are looking after your marine resources well?”

rum

uzi

ang

Iri

Leon

aru

pur

Toum

Iri

Lam

aom

apat

Lal

Len

gana

Yes

Not sure

Figure 17. Response by village of individual fishers to the question “Do you think you and your

community are looking after your marine resources well?”

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

The reasons given by those who answered yes included the following:

There are still plenty of fish in the sea.

Fish is taken for consumption only.

Nothing in particular, no reason to think otherwise.

Reef is in good condition, there is still a lot of fish. Don’t use any destructive

methods like dynamite.

Chiefs/ community leaders inform villagers on what not to take, to fish for a reason,

to not spoil resources.

Practise temporary closure on some reefs e.g., trochus.

In the Holy book of Bible it spells out that the fish will multiply therefore let the

future generation worry about what will happen in the future.

Do not allow outsiders to fish in their area.

Community people are asked not to kill undersize fish in the reef/ there are also

times when reefs are closed to fishing/diving.

10. Still uphold the chief system and respect elders’ decisions.

11. Practise traditional management.

12. Custom poison leaves are not allowed.

13. Fishermen/women don't collect/harvest juvenile animals, e.g., trochus, sea

cucumber and clams.

Those who thought that the reefs were not being looked after well were asked “What do

you think needs to be done to ensure your children and their children enjoy the same

resources you now enjoy today?”. The fishers gave the following suggestions for

improving the way their communities reefs were looked after.

Community should hold a meeting to discuss marine resource management and

suggest to the chief to implement recommendation such as seasonal reef closure.

Chiefs should form management committee, empower management rules to

safeguard the resources. No night diving and sustainable harvesting of resources are

some examples of such rules.

Set up Marine Protected Areas on reefs of the village.

Seek advice and assistance from organisations such as WorldFish Center and

WWF-SI on reef closures, and marine resources awareness programs on over

harvesting, e.g., coral for betel nut lime.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Family planning (reduce population).

Community to be asked to respect their village chief and to revive traditional

management practices.

Seek assistance from the provincial government and national government

(management and financial support).

Introduce marine concepts in school syllabus.

Do not permit logging or gold mining operations as they cause a lot of erosion and

sedimentation to the coast.

Finally, within the community group discussions, the group were asked to list any threats

and issues they were concerned about that were related to the marine environment. The

list has been grouped under six broad headings. Notably most of these issues existed prior

to the disaster and haven’t changed as a result.

1. Weather/climate

• Cyclone, Rough weather
• Sea level rise

2. Population related

•  Population increase
•  Unsustainable harvest
•  Scarcity of resources
•  Reef area is small, there needs to be control on how it is used

3. Community issues

•  Careless attitude
•  Free access to reefs
•  Customary authority of chiefs has dwindled

4. Land issues affecting livelihood

• Infertile soils
• Climate change/change of weather – taro not growing

5. Environmental issues

• Water quality
• Logging – marine pollution/sedimentation/erosion

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

•  coral/gravel extraction
•  Nets - taking of undersized fish, over fishing
•  Outside divers using compressors, night diving, masks etc to harvest marine

commodities

• Crocodile population increased

6. Disaster-related issues

• Destroyed mangroves – breeding grounds no longer exist
• Unfamiliarity with changes in the sea – new deep and shallow patches, changed

currents

•  Fear of fish poisoning (have heard rumours)
•  Had a tilapia lake but now no water so tilapia are dying
•  High mortality of resources because of uplift.

2.2.10.

Ranking sites for priority and future needs

The amount of damage to land-based infrastructure and livelihood capacity from the

earthquake and the tsunami varies from village to village (Table 10) and is not

specifically clustered by region (island). For example the five villages that experienced

the highest proportion of damaged houses were on Mono Island (Treasury Islands),

Shortland Island, Vella Lavella and Simbo. Nevertheless all study villages have sustained

some damage with, at the very least, wharves broken and houses on a lean.

On 18 June 2007 a brief summary of immediate needs that were identified by the

communities in this assessment, but were not necessarily related to the marine

environment, was sent to all disaster relief organisations and NGOs, including the

Western Province provincial government, that were operating from Gizo at the time

(OXFAM, World Vision, Red Cross, Save the Children Fund, UNICEF, CSP, PDC,

NDC), and to NZAID and MFMR in Honiara.

Every community in the affected area has needs to enable them to return to normal life

but the urgency and magnitude of these needs differ. After discussions with NZAID and

MFMR, and with Gizo NGOs at the newly formed “livelihoods cluster” group, it

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

transpired that it would be useful to attempt to prioritise communities with respect to

fisheries-related needs to ensure food security in the short to medium term.

It is possible to order communities on the basis of a number of variables such as reef

damage, home damage or canoes lost but there is not necessarily any obvious correlation

between them. The main reason is that, while the earthquake appears to have been the

primary cause of damage to the reefs, and dependent on the nature of the reefs before the

disaster, the tsunami exacerbated earthquake damage on shore. It is the effects of the

tsunami that have most affected villagers’ ability to return to the sea because of lost

canoes and/or fishing gear, but it was the earthquake which removed some of the marine

habitats altogether.

The surveyed villages were ranked in Table 10 using four variables collected in this

study. The five highest-scoring villages for each variable (most affected or greatest

reliance on the marine environment for food security) have been highlighted. All villages

utilise the marine environment to a high degree as shown by the two right hand columns

which show the extent of involvement of adult men and women in fishing. When the

number of people involved was estimated by the community to be “everyone” (which

should probably be viewed as everyone capable of fishing) this is represented by a score

of 1 in Table 10. We are using this as a relative estimate between villages rather than an

absolute value.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Table 10. Villages listed in alphabetical order. The number of lost canoes, damaged houses,

degree of reef damage and proportion of fish used for consumption is shown. The
highlighted cells are the five highest villages in each category. At this stage the
proportion of men and women involved in fishing has not been included in the
ranking but is shown for context.

Lost canoes

per

household

Damaged

houses

(%)

Reef

damage

score

Proportion of

fish used for

consumption

rather than sale

Proportion

of women

involved in

fishing

Proportion

of men

involved in

fishing

Buri 0.04

16 60

1.0 1.0

Falamai 0.19

15 70

0.9 1.0

Gaomai 0.09

7 40

0.9 1.0

Iriqila

0.55 26 3

1.0 1.0

Iriri 0.00

1.0 1.0

Kuzi 0.00

1.0 1.0

Lale 0.06

100

0.5 0.8

Lambulambu 0.02 16

1.0 1.0

Lengana 0.10

8 1

0.5 1.0

Leona

0.65

79 8

100

0.9 1.0

Liangai

0.51

41 10

1.0 1.0

Maleai 0.07

15 70

1.0 1.0

Pirumeri 0.25

13 60

1.0 1.0

Rarumana 0.01

31 15 80

1.0 1.0

Tapurai

1.45

100 4

100

0.5 1.0

Toumoa

0.32

14 20

1.0 1.0

Valapata 0.03

16 9

90 1.0 1.0

Loss of fishing gear was closely related to loss of houses. See section 3.1

The reef damage score weights Buri, Lale, Rarumana and Falamai higher than submerged reef damage

would indicate owing to the fact shallow reefs are uplifted.

From this ranking table we have divided the villages into four groups that reflect risk to

food security arising from the disaster through an inability to utilise the marine

environment to the extent they were able to before the disaster (Table 11). Those in

group 1 (highest risk to food security) are those that fall within the top five of three of

the four variables in Table 10. Group 2 villages fall within the top five of two of the four

variables. Group 3 villages fall within the top five of one of the four variables and group

4 villages did not fall within the top 5. This is not to suggest that group 4 villages do not

have fisheries-related needs, or that they do not have other more immediate needs

regarding land-based activities. Rather, it suggests that their marine resource management

needs are more long term in nature rather than related to immediate food security.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

Table 11. Priority groups of villages included in the rapid assessment for assistance with

ensuring food security, based on data collected in the survey.

Group 1

Tapurai

Leona

Group 2

Falamai

Iriqila

Liangai

Lale

Group 3

Buri

Gaomai

Lengana

Maleai

Rarumana

Taumoa

Group 4

Pirumeri

Valapata

Lambulambu

Iriri

Kuzi

In this initial ranking no weighting has been applied for raised reefs and it is

recommended that an additional overlapping group 5, Rarumana, Buri, Lale and Falamai

encompass the villages with uplifted reefs as these require special attention. These sites

have an unknown, but likely high, risk of reduced fisheries productivity.

We acknowledge that prioritisation will differ for different aid agencies and donors and

that the type of help needed will vary. We stress that this grouping is based only on data

collected as part of the rapid assessment and is intended to assist, in the first instance,

with ensuring food security, specifically with reference to the marine environment, rather

than increased income at this stage of disaster recovery.

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

2.2.11.

Longer term management issues

In the course of the survey, a number of fishery features that have potential to cause

problems for communities in the medium to long term emerged. These include:

• Fish harder/easier to catch since the disaster, suggesting continued potential for

impacts on the fishery associated with habitat loss.

• A need for money to rebuild after the disaster and the associated pressure to harvest

fish and other marine commodities to obtain this money.

• The collapse of traditional tambu systems in some places and a poor understanding of

fisheries/resource management issues or national regulations.

• Loss of community control of fisheries (vulnerable to outsiders depleting resources

with efficient catching gear).

• Loss of mangrove habitat and loss of shallow reef habitat, with potential long-term

effects on fish productivity and the potential for target species to change i.e. pelagic

species rather than reef species.

• Destruction of pre-tsunami marine livelihood projects and a varying ability to recover

those projects.

Finding solutions to such broad-scale and often weakly defined threats is consistent with

key goals of the WorldFish Center in the Pacific such as:

work with communities and government agencies to sustainably manage their

inshore fish resources.

work with communities to identify and develop appropriate alternative livelihood

options for generating income.

At a higher level, the WorldFish Center’s Resilient Small-Scale Fisheries campaign aims

to:

manage for resilience and adaptive capacity to reduce the vulnerability of poor

communities to over-harvesting and external shocks.

diversify livelihoods, particularly by increasing the sustainable production of fish

through aquaculture.

The earthquake and tsunami of 2 April 2007 is an example of an external shock referred

to above. The rapid assessment has identified that many communities were indeed

WorldFish Center and WWF-SI Report of a Rapid Assessment of Coastal Fisheries

vulnerable to such a shock and some are now struggling to put the same amount of food

on the table as before the disaster (lost fishing gear, reduced ease of fishing, fear of

returning to the sea, etc.).

Not all of the study communities are equally dependent on the marine environment; in 7

of the 17 villages the majority of interviewed fishers stated they had no concerns about

the state of their marine environment. Thus there may be little incentive (or need) for

these communities to participate in longer term management initiatives. We recognise

that to manage marine resources effectively the community must have a desire to support

such an initiative. Amongst other things, future work should address the matching of

perception with reality (in communities with and without concerns for the marine

environment) using techniques such as biological reef surveys and catch data to assist in

identifying communities that are likely to experience problems in the future.

In prioritising the study villages, we have worked on the premise that the overriding issue

is food security and this is to be the primary criterion for deciding which communities to

assist first, and how. Focusing on income generation as a mechanism to support

community recovery is a secondary consideration. In particular, promotion of exploitative

livelihood options that offer short term gain at the risk of losing long-term sustainability

needs to be very carefully considered. The short-term recovery of pre-disaster fishing

activity and development of longer-term sustainable fisheries practices to ensure future

food security should not be separated, and work that addresses medium to long term

sustainable utilisation of marine resources in a wider range of communities will remain a

WorldFish priority.

Moving Solomon Island village fisheries from the post-tsunami condition to long-term

sustainability needs to be a staged process. The first stage is the immediate resourcing of

canoes and fishing equipment to levels that enable people to put fish on the table.

Replacing like with like (e.g. dugouts with dugouts, not motorised canoes) to the same

level as before the disaster is a useful guide. It is appropriate here to learn from vessel