Ocean & Coastal Management 39 (1998) 97—104

Consideration of customary marine tenure systemin the establishment of marine protected areas

in the South Pacific

Michelle Lam

Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, P.O. Box G13, Honiara, Solomon Islands

Abstract

The biodiversity of the South Pacific region is of global importance. Changes accompanyingeconomic development have undermined the Pacific’s traditional social systems, including theircapacity for resource management, and the environment has suffered as a result. The SouthPacific’s social and land/marine tenure systems require local ownership involvements andmanagement. Centralized administration and management systems which began in the colonialperiod had failed to promote marine resource management. Customary landowners need to beinvolved from the very beginning in decisions about the future of their resources. The need toestablish marine protected areas (MPA) is urgent. Population growth, urbanization and rapiddevelopment are causing overharvesting of finite marine resources as well as pollution of thecoastal zone. The success of MPA will depend on the customary right holders and their abilityto satisfy both their subsistence needs and their aspiration for economic development. Thispaper proposes the establishment of MPAs in the South Pacific by using a strategy ofcommunity based management that has been established in the customary marine tenure system.The use of some traditional conservation method could also be effectively incorporated intoMPA systems. ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Traditionally, the establishment of many national parks and other types of pro-tected areas resulted from the inspirational and aesthetic values of the beauty andbounty of nature that lay behind them. Globally, an increasing recognition of themany benefits offered by protected areas has contributed to the conservation of theworld’s natural resources.

Marine protected areas (MPA) offer tremendous potential in the struggle to save,study, and sustainably utilize the world’s marine biological diversity [1]. Despite this

0964-5691/98/$19.00 ( 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 9 6 4 - 5 6 9 1 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 1 7 - 9

potential, the development of MPA and their conceptual framework has trailed theirterrestrial counterparts by nearly a century. Only within the last 20 years has theconcept of protecting certain marine areas become widely accepted.

The South Pacific’s coastal zone contains some of the most biologically diverseecosystems in the world. With its estuaries, beaches, mangroves, coral reefs, seagrasses, algal beds and many small island ecosystems, these marine ecosystems andassociated habitats support a wealth of marine resources. Many economically impor-tant marine fish, invertebrates and seaweed are found within the ecosystems.

Long before the advent of the market economy, fishing was one of the majoractivities sustaining economic self-reliance in the South Pacific Island economies.Traditionally, South Pacific islanders have derived about 90% of their protein fromthe sea [2]. Today many continue to do so. Fishing and ‘‘gleaning off ’’ coral reefsprovide important sources of animal protein to widespread Pacific island communi-ties. People in Fiji, Solomon Islands and Micronesia derive between 80 and 98% oftheir animal protein intakes from the reefs [3].

The in-shore and near-shore fisheries of the South Pacific are considered to be themajor resource currently targeted by coastal fishing communities throughout theSouth Pacific [4]. These include various species of shallow water finfish, mollusks(pearl oysters, giant clams, trochus), crustaceans (lobster, crabs and shrimps), andmiscellaneous marine products (marine turtles, sea-cucumbers/beche-de-mer) thatcould be found in the estuaries, lagoons, reefs flats and outer reef slopes.

The introduction of centralized systems of administration which began in thecolonial period marked the decline on the reliance of traditional manage-ment measures. Fishers were not involved in decision making. Marine resourcesdevelopment and management schemes in developing countries have often beendesigned without significant consultation with or understanding of, the users of theseresources. They often fail in consequence [5]. It is now generally recognized that suchcentralized systems, scientifically based (contemporary management) have failed topromote inshore fisheries’ management in the region, despite efforts over the past 40years [6].

In the South Pacific, although the effectiveness of customary institutions and valueshave been eroded in the course of social change, community-based approaches tomanagement have merit [6]. Community-based approaches mean that fisheries man-agement would have the ‘‘bottom-up’’ or ‘‘grass-roots’’ approach.

Throughout the South Pacific, many inshore fisheries have reached full develop-ment. As a result of rapid progress of development, increased populations andincreased demand for fish, many countries now have strong needs for monitoring andcontinuous assessment of the status of their fishery resources [7].

The purpose of management is to impose forms of control on a fishery in ways thatensure that it will continue to yield net benefits to the community in accordance withnational goals [8]. Fisheries management is relatively new to most developingcountries and few governments have yet exercised significant measures of control onthe exploitation of their fisheries resources.

The need for in-shore fisheries management in the South Pacific has been recog-nised for a long time. Traditionally, dependence on in-shore fisheries resources as

98 M. Lam / Ocean & Coastal Management 39 (1998) 97—104

a primary food source meant that communities were acutely aware of the need toensure proper use of these resources.

2. The customary marine tenure system and inshore fisheries

Many South Pacific societies have developed cultures based on the use of marineresources. Of particular interest is the marine tenure system, sometimes known as‘‘customary rights’’ of Melanesia. Customary Law dictates that most near-shore areas,including the reefs, are ususally owned by clans or larger communal groups, and aretherefore not subjected to open access fisheries [4].

The last decade has seen a burgeoning interest in the traditional knowledge andmanagement of marine resources, in tandem with a growing recognition that standardwestern biological and economic models are inadequate for the management oftropical inshore and multi-species fisheries [9]. Problems with resource assessmentand the enforcement of and compliance with fisheries regulations have led manyfisheries officials to ask whether the widespread and increasingly well-documentedsystems of community-based traditional fisheries management, or customary marinetenure (CMT) can serve as a vehicle for locally adapted, decentralised fisheriesmanagement.

In traditional South Pacific societies the concept of fisheries management was wellknown and practised extensively. The customary marine tenure system, more com-monly understood as traditional rights or customary law, promotes management atthe community level. In CMT as used here, ‘‘customary’’ refers to a system thatemerges from firmly traditional roots, constitutes part of what is often termed‘‘customary law’’, and which has continuous links with local history as it adapts tochanging contemporary circumstances; ‘‘marine’’ refers to the system as dealing withreefs, lagoons, coasts, and open sea and including islands and islets contained in thisoverall seaspace; and ‘‘tenure’’ refers to a social process of interacting activitiesconcerning control over territory and access to resources [10].

A community’s property rights usually extend from the beach to the outer extremityof reefs. CMT embraces far more than just fishing rights, and their functions rangebeyond the organisation of economic activities [9]. In the South Pacific islands, CMTforms part of the framework that regulates social and political relationships anddefines cultural identities.

3. The application of CMT in South Pacific’s contemporary fisheries management

The management of very complex coral reef systems requires detailed knowledge ofmany aspects (e.g. relating to the lunar spawning cycle of reef fish) which are containedin the oral tradition of fishing peoples.

There is genuine interest among many fisheries officers in taking into accounttraditional knowledge and management practices in government fishery planning, butthis maybe somewhat inhibited or curtailed by several factors: (1) the belief that

M. Lam / Ocean & Coastal Management 39 (1998) 97—104 99

traditional environmental knowledge is neither accurate nor ‘‘scientific’’ enough forincorporation into, for example, Western-biological or economic models for stockassessment; (2) the belief that customary management measures are so locally specificas to be of little use on the national level; and (3) a tendency (though less widespreadthan in many other parts of the tropics) to consider rural people and their institutionas unsophisticated and ‘‘problematic’’ [9].

Much of this is clearly a reflection of strongly Western-biased training curriculathat focus exclusively on quantitative science and formalised management programs.It was pointed out by some fisheries officers that although traditional knowledgemight be accurate as far as predicting the seasonal abundance of fish or shells(particularly trochus) was concerned, it must often be supplemented by Westernscience to convince local people of the need for minimum-size regulations. A numberof fisheries officers also pointed out the inherent flexibility of unwritten CMT systems,noting that they allow for adaptations to shifting circumstances on the local micro-level, and that this flexibility should be promoted as a valuable element of CMT [4].

In a number of Melanesian countries, namely Fiji, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu,the existence of viable CMT systems with a background of strong traditions andexplicit legislative support simply dictates that fisheries officers take customary rightsand privileges for granted, sometimes to the point of seeking active assistance fromtraditional resource managers. In a trochus re-seeding project in Vanuatu forexample, the leader pointed out with regards to newly established trials on reefs thatwere simultaneously tabooed for the duration of the trial, through customary law:‘‘only custom gives us the guarantee that we need’’ [4].

Conflicts between CMT holders and external development agents have beenrecorded. The former assessing their rights partly with reference to provisionsin national legislation, have in many cases led to a modification of the activities ofthe latter. In some cases, local resistance to large scale commercial resourceextraction has led to the cancellation or long-term suspension of such activitiesaltogether [9].

Although CMT in the South Pacific may be referred to as systems of ‘‘traditionalresource management’’ based on ‘‘customary law’’, this does not mean that tradition isstatic, rigid and non-changing. Rather tradition is a system of knowledge and ruleswhich has, on the one hand strong roots in local history and experience, and which ison the other unwritten and uncodified, thereby allowing for flexibility in adapting tochanging social, political, economic or ecological circumstances. Thus far from beingoverwhelmed by commercialization and resource scarcity, many CMT systems inOceania appear to have considerable capacity for handling and adapting to newcircumstances, therefore becoming potentially important tools in the contemporarymanagement of fisheries.

4. Community-based management

The prevalence of reef habitats throughout the South Pacific and the fact thatmost coastal people have access to reef environment supporting resources meant

100 M. Lam / Ocean & Coastal Management 39 (1998) 97—104

that communities acknowledge the need to preserve the in-shore environment.Communities make choices concerning resource use within sustainable limits,with popular participation in the consideration and adoption of managementmeasures being common. The right to use in-shore fisheries resources and communaldecision making about their management engendered a natural concern for theirproper use [6].

Today many traditional subsistence and commercial artisanal fishers in theSouth Pacific are locked into economic systems that result in relative poverty.As settlements grew and cash economies developed, many island communities foundthemselves displaced by the very development that promised a better life. Formany South Pacific island societies which had evolved practical and sustainableway to utilize their resources, Western style development proved their downfall [2].More and more coasts have been subjected to damage by human activities. Hardin’s[11]. ¹he ¹ragedy of the Commons, pointed out that the tradition of commonproperty rights in the sea has led to a positive incentive for individuals to maxi-mize their exploitation of resources, even if destruction of the resource is an evitableresult.

Obligations associated with individual user-rights usually involved a committmentbeyond simple judicious resource use, including: (1) participation in decisions con-cerning resource allocation and management, (2) agreement to abide by communallyimposed measures designed to protect the resource, (3) committment to reportinfringement of agreed conservation and management measures, and (4) participationin the performance of rituals designed to enhance resource productivity and longevity[12].

The conventional approach to fisheries management usually pits the manager andthe managed against each other in an adversarial-type relationship [6]. Excludedfrom decision-making process and often not appreciating the need for particularmanagement measures, fishers will attempt to circumvent them in order to maximisecatches, and in turn, revenue. Indeed, consultation between the managers and thefishers is often limited to an explanation by the managing authority as to the nature ofmanagement measures after they have been adopted and are in the process of beingimplemented.

Community-based management could lead to welfare improvements if it is possibleto rehabilitate, or build on, traditional fishery management systems. When fishers areinvolved in attempting to solve problems associated with fisheries overexploitation,they become active agents for change in the process. They are likely to betterunderstand the rationale and need for management, even though measures proposedmight appear to disadvantage them. Such regimes will be more cost-effective becausethrough participation, fishers will ensure that measures are observed and surveillanceand enforcement costs will therefore be lower.

Community-based approaches to management essentially involve ‘‘bottom-up’’or ‘‘grass-root’’ planning. This means that communities would be involved indetermining fisheries management measures, supervising their implemen-tation and invoking penalties when managment measures and guidelines are ignored[6].

M. Lam / Ocean & Coastal Management 39 (1998) 97—104 101

5. Marine protected areas

In the last century, there have been three principal approaches to marine manage-ment:1. Regulation and management of individual marine activities, such as commercial

fishing, shipping and waste disposal was done by specialists agencies, usually withlittle or no coordination between management of adjacent coastal land.

2. Creation of small MPAs which provided special protection for particular valuableareas within the broad areas which were subjected to regulation of the first type.

3. Establishing large, multiple use protected areas with an integrated managementsystem [13].The term MPA is defined as ‘‘any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together

with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features,which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all ofthe enclosed environment’’ [14]. A Marine Reserve, on the other hand, consti-tutes a defined space within the MPA to which specific forms of management areapplied which normally include limited entry [15] or more likely ‘‘no-take zones’’.In the context of this paper, MPA will generally include marine reserves unlessspecified.

Marine protected areas provide a component of marine conservation by preventingthe exploitation of some areas of the marine environment, and by providing ‘‘re-charge’’ areas for marine life.

As a result of the differences between the marine and terrestrial environments, theprotected area concept as it applies on land cannot be directly applied to the marineenvironment. Protection of entire species and their habitat is not usually possiblewithin a defined marine protected area due to the mobile nature of many marinespecies. MPAs therefore are limited in terms of conservation ability because of thehighly mobile nature of the marine environment.

Marine protected areas and reserves have specific roles within coastal zone man-agement, and have been successfully used as a fisheries management tool in the GreatBarrier Reef area. Careful design of multiple-use zones will ensure continued benefitsfrom these protected areas. MPA can play a powerful role in preserving special marineareas, increasing public awareness and support for marine conservation, and provid-ing sites for research and monitoring [1].

A zoning plan provides the basis for management of an area sufficiently largefor sub-areas or zones to justify different forms of management and use. Byproviding a gradation of restriction, a zoned management scheme can be easier toestablish and police, since it can satisfy the requirements of a range of resource users[15].

Protecting the full range of marine resources in the South Pacific will requirethe establishment of both smaller, highly protected marine reserves andlarger, multiple-use management regimes. The two approaches are not mutu-ally exclusive but rather complementary. Ideally, smaller, highly protectedreserves should be located within and part of larger multiple-use managementregimes.

102 M. Lam / Ocean & Coastal Management 39 (1998) 97—104

6. Benefits

MPA and marine reserves offer many other benefits. They can protect biodiversityand provide areas in natural balance free from direct human disturbance. New useslike underwater photography, ecotourism and scientific studies, can be enhanced,which was not possible in harvested areas.

The economic benefits of MPA are often grossly under-estimated [16]. MPAcontain valuable resources important to local and national economies. Economicbenefits of MPA include job creation through harvest of renewable and non-renew-able resources such as fish and shells and through the use of MPA for nonconsum-ptive activities such as tourism and recreation. While some economical benefits aredifficult to express in monetary terms, e.g. biological resources and environmentalservices such as wave buffering by reefs. Other benefits are easier to calculate: directfinancial benefit to local economies from recreational and other activity on MPA.

The trade-offs between protection of rich ecological resources and the use of thesame resource for economical gain can be seen in the Caribbean MPA. Park-manage-ment costs are small compared to gross economic benefits associated with and directlydependent on the MPA. However, even with good management, there is a maximumlevel of both ecological and economical sustainable MPA use. This maximum sustain-able use may be lower than that desired by local governments or business interests,but must be respected for MPA to continue to meet both ecological and economicalmeans.

Marine reserves are designed to protect some fish from harvest to ensure anadequate quantity and genetic quality of offspring. The dispersal of eggs and larvaefrom reserves to surrounding areas can maintain and perhaps improve fisheries yield.Particularly vulnerable species will have an opportunity to rebuild their population inthe marine reserves. Fisheries could also benefit from fishes that occasionally wanderout of the reserve into surrounding areas.

7. Discussion and conclusion

Near-shore marine resources play a significant role in the lives of South Pacificislanders. In most if not all South Pacific countries, there is a long history of communaluse of marine areas close to the coast, often for subsistence. Attempts to exclude theseusers from traditional areas may jeopardize the physical or economical survival of thepeople. Community based management has the users controlling the resources.

Re-establishing the traditional rights or Customary Marine Tenure system withcompromises made to accommodate this ‘‘new’’ concept of MPA. Support andcooperation of the traditional resource owners must be obtained to guarantee thesuccess of conservation programs on their land.

Marine protected areas and permanent reserves could provide opportunities tohelp preserve valuable traditional fishing practices. The function of the MPA as anin-shore fisheries management tool can be successful if it is incorporated into com-munity-based fisheries management.

M. Lam / Ocean & Coastal Management 39 (1998) 97—104 103

References

[1] Sobel J. Conserving biological diversity through marine protected areas. Oceanus 1993:P19—26.[2] Hinrichsen D. The South Pacific. In: Our Common Seas. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd. (In

association with United Nations Environmental Program, Nairobi) 1990:63—81.[3] Wilkinson CR, Buddemeier RW. Global Climate Change and Coral Reefs: Implications for People

and Reefs. IUCN. Switzerland, 1994.[4] Wright A, Hill L, editors. Nearshore Marine Resources of the South Pacific - information for fisheries

development and management. Institute of Pacific Studies, Suva; Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara;International Centre for Ocean Development, Canada, 1993.

[5] Johannes RE. Working with fishermen to improve coastal tropical fisheries and resource manage-ment. Bulletin of Marine Science 1981;31:3673—3680.

[6] Doulman DJ. Community based fishery management: toward the restoration of traditional practicesin the South Pacific. In: FAO/Japan Expert Consultation on the Development of Community BasedCoastal Fishery Management Systems For Asia and the Pacific, FI:CCFM/92/Sp.4, 1992.

[7] Fakahau ST, Shepard MP. Fisheries research needs in the South Pacific: information required for theeffective management and development of the fisheries of the islands states of the South Pacific.Report to Forum Fisheries Agency and Canadian International Center for Ocean Development.1986: 94pp.

[8] Lawson RM. Economics of Fisheries Development. London: Frances Printer, 1984: 258pp.[9] Hviding E, Ruddle K. A regional assessment of the potential role of Customary Marine Tenure

(CMT) systems in contemporary fisheries management in the South Pacific. Report to the ForumFisheries Agency. FFA Report 91/71, 1991.

[10] Hviding E. All things in our sea: The dynamics of customary marine tenure, Marovo Lagoon,Solomon islands. Boroko, Papua New Guinea: National Research Institute, Special Publication No.13, 1989.

[11] Hardin G. Tragedy of the commons. Science 1968;162:1243—1248.[12] Teiwaki R. Management of marine resources in Kiribati. University of the South Pacific, Suva, 1988:

239pp.[13] SPREP. Action strategy for nature conservation in the South Pacific Region 1994—1998. South

Pacific Regional Environmental Program, Apia, Western Samoa, 1994.[14] Kelleher GG, Kenchington RA. Guidelines for establishing marine protected areas. Great Barrier

Reef Marine Park Authority, Australia.[15] White AT. Marine parks and reserves: management for coastal environments in Southeast Asia.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations/United States Coastal Resources Management Project.International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management Education Series 2. Manila, Philip-pines, 1988.

[16] Dixon JA, Sherman PB. Economics of Protected Areas. Ambio — A Journal of the Human Environ-ment. Vol XX/2. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, 1991.

104 M. Lam / Ocean & Coastal Management 39 (1998) 97—104