Abstract
Pacific Island states – sometimes classified as small island developing states, are among those most vulnerable to climate change and environmental degradation brought about by development initiatives such as logging, mining, commercial agriculture and tourism. While these may have economic benefits, many Fijians live in rural areas with limited or no opportunity for paid employment and rely on subsistence farming and natural resources for their livelihoods. The importance of the latter – particularly for many women – and increasing pressure on these resources, raise sustainability concerns. If natural resource environments are to be protected, restrictions – some of which are already in place – need to be not only enforced but possibly extended. This could, however, impact negatively on these dependent livelihoods. This article considers this dilemma in the context of two Fijian villages in the district of Ba, where women depend on the mangrove areas, primarily for catching crabs for sale in the local markets, using the money earned to meet basic needs.
Introduction
The Mauritius Strategy for the Further Implementation of the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) recognises the particular vulnerabilities of SIDS. Included among sustainable development challenges are climate change and sea-level rise; natural and environmental disasters; risks to coastal and marine resources; and loss of traditional knowledge and customary management for decision-making. 1 In the Pacific, these concerns are particularly relevant because more than 80 per cent of islanders live in or near coastal areas. 2 Moreover, marine resources are a mainstay of food security for Pacific Island countries 3 and provide 50–90 per cent of animal protein in rural areas. 4 Coastal fisheries are the primary source of this food, and customary marine tenure is one of the main forms of governance.
While there has been considerable scientific research and comment on commercial fishing in the Pacific, there has been far less attention paid to subsistence fishing and marine resource harvesting. Nevertheless, researchers engaged in marine studies have long recognised that indigenous communities have their own customary forms of marine resource management. The contemporary value of this as a sustainable development tool in the Pacific is clearly acknowledged. 5 The importance of local marine resource management is also being advocated by organisations such the Locally Managed Marine Areas Network (LMMA). The LMMA works in partnership with a range of non-governmental organisations, regional, national and international bodies. Similarly, the value of drawing on customary law in the context of fisheries and marine resources is recognised in regional reports and national policy. 6 At a regional level, the importance of asserting ‘Pacific’ control and governance of the ‘Blue Pacific’ – which suggests a specific Pacific way of doing things, has been articulated by people such as Dame Meg Taylor, former Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum. 7
At a global level, a better understanding of the significance and management of marine resources is also relevant to progress towards the United Nations’ ambitions for all countries to achieve sustainable development goals. These goals, which succeed the Millennium Development Goals, were drawn up by the international community to provide a road map geared towards achieving a better, more sustainable, future for everyone. There are four goals that are particularly relevant to this research. These are Goal 1 (No poverty), Goal 2 (Zero hunger), Goal 14 (Life below water) and Goal 5, which focusses on gender equality.
With respect to this last goal, it is broadly recognised that achieving gender equity in the Pacific is a struggle. For example, UNDP Pacific Office, Fiji reports that ‘pervasive gender inequality remains a barrier to progress, justice and social stability. It also hinders the achievement of development goals’. 8 Much of this gender inequality is socially and culturally entrenched. 9 Drawing on research across analogous areas such as land held under customary tenure, it is clear that women are frequently marginalised in terms of rights 10 and denied a voice in determining the governance of such resources. 11 If customary law is to be used to inform the sustainable management of marine resources essential to food security, then women’s voices need to be heard if gender equality and inclusion is to be achieved.
The research that was undertaken to inform this article was part of a wider project aimed at determining the nature of women’s experience of the management of marine resources in three Pacific Island states: Fiji, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. This research was funded by an AHRC/GCRF grant. In particular, the aim was to focus on marine resources which women relied on directly or indirectly for food security. It was envisaged that the governance of such resources would include formal and informal regulation. One of the objectives, therefore, was to understand how women experience this governance and to determine where policy regarding the management of the marine environment might be improved so as to take their experiences and concerns into account more effectively.
To do this, the article commences with a brief description of the country context and then the field work site. It goes on to outline the legal framework which is relevant to the marine resources under consideration. This legal framework is predominantly a patchwork of formal laws, but there are also less specific customary laws that inform local controls. The article then turns to the field work findings in respect of the experience of women in the villages, focussing on the contribution of marine resources to their livelihoods and the impact of the regulation of these. The article concludes with consideration of the tensions between securing the income resources for women in villages, such as those under consideration, and addressing environmental concerns.
FIJI
Fiji is a Pacific state located in the south west Pacific. It is made up of more than 330 islands (110 are inhabited) with a total land area of 18,333 square kilometres. The population in 2018 was 888,400 with a population growth rate of 0.4 per cent. 12 Around 56 per cent of the population live in urban areas, and 87 per cent of the population live on the two main islands of Vanua Levu and Viti Levu. 13 Indigenous Fijians (iTaukei) make up the majority of the population (57 per cent). Indo-Fijians are the second most populous group (38 per cent) and the rest consist of Rotumans, European, part-European, other Pacific Islanders and Chinese. The interior of both main islands is steep and forested, consequently more than 75 per cent of all Fijians live on or near the coast of Viti Levu or along river valleys.
Exceptionally, in the Pacific region, the 2013 Constitution of Fiji includes, within its extensive bill of rights, environmental rights. The relevant provision states that: Every person has the right to a clean and healthy environment, which includes the right to have the natural world protected for the benefit of present and future generations through legislative and other measures. (section 40(1)) [T]o the extent that it is necessary, a law or an administrative action taken under a law may limit, or may authorise the limitation of, the rights set out in this section. (section 40(2))
The field work site
The location of the field work was in the Ba district of Fiji, which is on the north western side of the largest island Viti Levu, and more specifically in the locality Vanua Votua which consists of three villages: Nawaqarua, Votua (which is the largest) and Natutu.
These villages have access to one of the largest wetland mangrove areas in Fiji, bisected by the Ba river and its estuary. Mangroves are an important coastal environmental resource providing not only considerable protection from erosion from the sea but breeding grounds for many marine species. They are also a local source of firewood and traditional house building materials. Some of the women participants in the field studies made use of young mangrove shoots for traditional medicinal purposes. Mangrove therefore represents a resource that links marine and terrestrial territories, appropriately representing the lack of boundary between land and sea in indigenous perceptions.
Field work took place in the villages of Natutu and Nawaqarua in the last 2 weeks of June 2020. The villages are 15- to 20-minute walking distance apart and there is a primary school in the nearby larger village of Votua. There are approximately 250 households in each village and there is road access to Ba town. These villages were chosen because they are river communities where women are significant contributors to household income through fishing and harvesting marine resources. Field work consisted of observation and interviews using a collaboratively designed questionnaire to elicit responses. 14 This was followed up by further reflection responses from the field workers. The questionnaire (which can be found in the Online Appendix to this article) was divided into three parts focussing on (1) the local context of marine harvesting; (2) the exercise of control over these resources; (3) the role of customary law in the governance of the marine area and its resources.
Consenting participants were all adult and were interviewed either individually or in small groups. Most were interviewed face to face, but because of the curfew in place in Fiji at the time due to Covid-19, some interviews were conducted by mobile phone as women returned from the mangroves too late for field workers to remain in the village. Two Fijian field workers with experience in working in this community previously were engaged to undertake the research under the supervision of the project partner, based in Fiji. A total of 20 women took part, the oldest of whom was 65 and the youngest 20. The age breakdown is given in Table 1.
Age breakdown of field work participants. 15
The legal framework
Formal legal control and governance in Fiji is centralised, 16 and while authority may be delegated, ministers have considerable authority to make specific regulations for particular areas or purposes within the powers given to them by legislation. The location of the field work site meant that a number of different laws were engaged.
QOLIQOLI
In Fiji, the foreshore area adjacent to villages is called a qoliqoli and the traditionally managed fishing grounds here are passed on by custom to succeeding generations. The term broadly embraces waterways, coasts and springs, 17 and together with land rights constitute the kanakana of every individual, that is, the source from which sustenance is derived. 18 The qoliqoli are under the control of clan or tribe chiefs, 19 with often a single chief making management decisions. 20
In 2006, legislation was proposed to transfer the formal state ownership of qoliqoli to the iTaukei (Fijian) customary owners. 21 The proposal was strongly opposed, especially by the tourism industry. A key objection was that it would have taken all control of the fishing areas between the foreshore and the high water mark out of the hands of the state and vested it in a diversity of qoliqoli owners. 22 There was also considerable political opposition to the Bill and concerns were raised by the Fiji Law Society that such legislation would be in breach of the constitution because it would remove sovereignty over the coastal areas from the state and vest it in private hands. In the event matters – notably the 2006 coup – overtook the proposed legislation and it never materialised. 23 Consequently, coastal areas in Fiji remain formally under the control of the state, 24 but informally under the control of traditional leaders in communities, with rights determined by residence and membership of the yavusa or ‘tribe’.
Traditional fishing grounds are mapped in accordance with the Fisheries Act 1942 reference to inshore waters and extend from the high tide mark to the outer fringes of the reefs that surround most islands. These fishing grounds are within Fiji’s territorial waters and mostly within its archipelagic waters. The Act recognises usufructuary rights over the qoliqoli to harvest marine resources for subsistence purposes, which are exercised by the community. The Act created the Native Lands and Fisheries Commission (section 13, now the iTaukei Lands and Fisheries Commission) 25 tasked with recording and mapping the boundaries of the qoliqoli areas. Permits for fishing and harvesting marine resources are attached to a specific qoliqoli area.
Land
In the case of land, the state exercises its authority through the iTaukei Lands Trust Board, established under the iTaukei Lands Trust Act (formally the Native Land Trust Act 1940). Apart from a very small percentage of freehold land and public land, all land in Fiji belongs to indigenous Fijians (iTaukei). All other races can only hold leaseholds or licences of some sort. 26 This land, however, is not held directly by Fijian individuals or families but is held in trust and managed by the Board, for the benefit of iTaukei owners. These may be mataqali – to whom land may be granted, 27 or other divisions or subdivision of groups recognised as having the customary right to occupy and use land. The board also has the power to grant leases or licences over land (except where it is designated as a native reserve). Rents and receipts generated by land grants are held on trust and distributed to all Fijian registered as members of a recognised mataqali.
Mining
A further Act which is relevant to the area considered in this article is the Mining Act 1975 (Cap 146). 28 In line with the common law introduced into Fiji, all minerals of every description (including crude oil) ‘in or under all lands of whatsoever ownership or tenure and in whosesoever possession or enjoyment they maybe’ (section 3) belong to the state. Powers to convey rights of access and mining right to minerals are exercised by a Director of Mines appointed under the Act. They thus fall outside the control of the iTaukei Land Trust and its various safeguards against alienation, and the relevant minister can grant the exclusive right to prospect for any minerals by way of ministerial order. 29 Certain lands are safeguarded from mining but these do not include mangrove areas unless these are declared to be reserved forests under the Forest Act 1953 – repealed and replaced by the Forest Decree 1992. 30 Indeed, the Mining (Amendment) Decree 2010 (Decree No 39 of 2010) extends the meaning of land in the original Act – which includes land covered by water (section 2(1)), to encompass ‘inland waters including the bed of any river, stream, estuary, lake or swamp’ (section 2(1)(b). Mangrove areas are thereby included in the amended Act. This is relevant to this research because mining companies are particularly interested in exploiting the Ba river delta’s rich mineral deposits of magnetite (commonly known as ‘black sands’).
The mining activity at the mouth of the Ba River is being undertaken by MBA Delta iron sands mine, a primary mining project of Amex Resources.
31
Amex has a 21-year special mining lease which it obtained in 2012.
32
The Environmental Impact Assessment for the mining was undertaken by an Australian company in 2012. There is some evidence to suggest that local people were not fully consulted or informed of the extent or consequences of the proposed mine.
33
Indeed, human rights activists have claimed that the processes used to inform local people were not clear.
34
Section 30 of the Constitution of Fiji clearly establishes state ownership of all minerals ‘in or under any land or water’ and provides for the owners of that land or ‘any particular registered customary fishing rights’ to be entitled to receive a fair share of royalties or other money paid to the State in respect of the grant by the State of rights to extract minerals from that land or the seabed in the area of those fishing rights.
Mangroves
In some respects, mangrove areas epitomise the uncertain boundary between land and sea and the legislation that applies. Recognised as wetlands that grow in intertidal zones, they need both soil and saltwater and have been described as ‘the bridge between the ocean and the earth’. 35
The virtues of mangroves have long been acknowledged,
36
increasingly so by those concerned with climate change.
37
The ‘Mangroves for Fiji’ initiative explains that They are vital habitats that not only protect the coasts against tsunamis, hurricanes and sea level change, but directly benefit the adjacent reefs by exporting life-building carbon, and above all, by being the nursery areas of countless marine organisms from crustaceans all the way to sharks.
38
The consolidated 2014 and 2015 report of the Department of Forestry in Fiji, published in 2018, noted that there was a total of 54,189 hectares of mangrove in 2014, which had shrunk to 42,601 hectares by the following year (2015). Most of the harvesting of mangrove has occurred in the Western Division, which includes the area of field work. 41
The Ministry of Fisheries and Forests is guided by a ‘Vision and Mission’, 42 which includes guiding principles and key words such as ‘sustainability for future generations’, ‘livelihoods, sustainable management of forest resources and SMART policies’. 43 However, with mangrove making up only around 5 per cent of Fiji’s total forestry resource, it appears to feature very little in forestry discussions. 44 Moreover, the Forestry Department is only one of several that has some responsibility for mangroves. The Forestry Department is responsible for the issuing of licences for mangrove felling and clearing, while the Ministry of Fisheries and Forests can declare forest reserves over mangrove areas. More generally, however, mangroves fall under the Lands and Survey Department, 45 but it is the Department of Environment (which falls under the Ministry of Local Government, Housing and Environment) which is responsible for protecting mangroves and the biodiversity associated with them. The Department does this by means of environmental impact assessments for any foreshore developments (Environment Management Act 2005). 46 The Department of the Environment has published guidelines for environmental impact assessments, 47 but one problem, that is pertinent to the areas in the field work, is that no EIA is made until a mining licence is applied for. This means that initial prospecting may take place without a full EIA. It is also the case that any compensation that may be payable to landowners 48 may not be distributed to those most affected – particularly if they do not have the status of owners. Here, it is the women who rely on the mangrove areas for their livelihoods, but who do not have the status of owners.
The plurality of government departments that share responsibility for mangroves has been noted. An undated ‘Review of Policy and Legislation Relating to the Use and Management of Mangroves in Fiji’ 49 identified a number of key challenges for the management and administration of mangroves. These included the lack of specific legislation and policy on mangroves; the absence of any clear demarcation regarding which aspects of mangroves fell under which department or ministry; fragmented policy and legislation across different parts of government; and the uncoordinated administration of approvals and decisions affecting mangroves. This is turn led to an incomplete picture in terms of reporting, decision-making and data. There was, moreover, it was suggested, a ‘lack of awareness on the importance of mangroves at all levels – policy, decision-makers and communities’. 50 This last might be true in some respects but field work among the female members of communities in the village sites indicated that there was a very clear awareness of the importance of mangrove areas as far as their livelihoods were concerned.
Women’s livelihoods
To understand the significance of the mangrove areas to women’s livelihoods, the first part of the questionnaire used in the research was directed at establishing the nature of the use which was made of these resources. The field work showed that all of the respondents relied on the mangroves for their livelihoods and were engaged in catching crabs in the mangrove area. 51 These were sold either via a middleman or directly at the local markets at Lautoka or Ba. Women accumulated their daily catch to take to market at the end of the week. Most women caught crabs by hand, the method and skill having been passed on to them by their mothers or other women of the village. A few used tools made from mangrove stems. The average daily catch was between 3 and 10 crabs, depending on the tide and time of day. If there is a cyclone or flooding, then no crabbing can be done for several weeks. Women set off very early in the morning and either walk, canoe or share a boat with an outboard motor, to get to the mangrove areas. They may be away from their villages for a number of hours, sometimes all day. When they return, they have other chores to do or subsistence gardening to attend to. In short, the harvesting of marine resources is both skilled and time-consuming.
The profit margin is slender. Crabs are sold in bundles of 5–6 crabs and the price per bundle is between FJD100-180 if sold directly to buyers at the market. 52 If they are sold to the middleman, then the price per kilo is FJD 8-25 and he adds on a few dollars for selling on. Money made is offset by the costs of getting to market and the cost of a licence to harvest crabs. The Ba market is approximately 10 km from the three villages and the cost of getting there by taxi is around FJD12-FJD15 while the bus fare is FJD1.60 one way or FJD3.20 return. Travel to the Lautoka market (which is slightly bigger than the Ba market) is FJD4.20 return by bus and or if shared transport, such as a taxi or truck is used, then the cost would be around FJD20 return fare per woman. The cost of a licence is FJD6.00 a month. 53 Where women travel to the mangroves by boat with an outboard motor then this costs FJD10 per return trip (unless a woman catches fewer than three crabs in which case she does not have to pay).
Most women are providing for between 5 and 10 people in a household and the money made from the sale of crabs goes towards essential groceries and basic family needs. All of the women interviewed indicated that the resources of the mangrove area were important for making ends meet. Many had also noticed that the size of catches had varied. Some said that the crabs were larger, being driven inland by disturbances to the water caused by mining, others said that catches were smaller. The price of crabs in market had also dropped from around FJD150-180 a bundle to FJD100 – possibly because of reduced size. Unsold crabs were either consumed by the family or kept alive until the next market day.
A feature related to Covid-19 was that people usually employed or living elsewhere had returned from the towns to the villages so that there were now more people harvesting marine resources. Indeed, two of the interviewees indicated they had only been crabbing since the lockdown and had sought the advice of older women as to where they could go and how to catch crabs. More people using the mangroves had also led to traditional boundaries between the areas of the villages being crossed to harvest from more bountiful areas. Although this was acknowledged to be a problem, it was also felt that not much could be done about it. Oversupply of crabs was also cited as another reason for the fall in the market price.
Regulating the local marine resources
Researching the control of the marine resources upon which the women depended indicated that there were three sources of regulation: the formal law, notably in the acknowledged need for a licence and restrictions on catching undersize crabs (although this was not always observed as there were buyers for these); customary law in the form of customary boundaries, certain codes of practice which had to be followed and reference to taboo areas; and finally restrictions imposed by the mining company which was prohibiting access to certain areas.
The formal law
Turning to the first of these, all of the interviewees appeared to be aware of the need for a licence to catch crabs or prawns and other marine resources. These licences are regulated by the Fisheries Act and provide a hybrid regulation of marine resource harvesting. The applicant has to obtain a consent to apply for a licence from the local Fisheries office and take this to the customary fishing ground owner (the qoliqoli owner who will either be the Turagani Yavusa or the Turagani Mataqali) 54 who must not only give consent but write a support letter. This then has to be taken back to the Provincial office to be verified and the fee has to be paid. It is the Commissioner for the division who issues the permit, and this will have to be collected from the main village of the area, in the case of the field work villages, from nearby Votua. Some participants described the process as difficult and time-consuming.
Customary law
As regards the second, knowledge of the customary controls on women engaged in crabbing and other marine resource practices had been acquired through the oral transmission of knowledge, from mother to daughter or older women of the village to younger ones. None of the women interviewed were aware of any written customary law. The restrictions imposed by customary law include approved ‘pathways’ through mangrove areas, customary boundaries between the areas women from each village could access and knowledge about various historical taboo areas. An example of the latter included prohibitions relating to the harvesting of bêche de mer (sea cucumbers) and an inland area of the mangrove which had been declared a protected area by a previous chief but was no longer maintained as such. There were also various customs which women were aware of, such as not making any noise in the mangroves, not changing your mind at the last minute about boarding the boat to go to the mangroves, as this would bring bad luck on the others, and not going into the mangroves when someone had got lost in them.
Regulation by the mining operator
The third control imposed on women’s activities were those enforced by the mining operator in the area which had closed off certain areas of the mangrove. Indirectly increased sedimentation caused by the mining was also impacting on their activities as crabs were relocating. Some participants also mentioned oil pollution and the impact of littering on the marine environment. While the negative impact of the mining activity was not yet presenting serious challenges to their activities, a number of women were apprehensive of future consequences. It was also evident that there had been no consultation with the women regarding the granting of the mining licence. As one participant indicated ‘Regarding the mining company, she is aware that AMEX will be closing down parts of the mangrove areas for their activity but no consultation process with the people was conducted’. 55 It would appear probable that any provision for an environmental impact assessment had not taken into account the social and economic impact on women using the mangrove areas. 56 This is despite the fact that the Fiji government has recently claimed, in respect of another area in Fiji, that ‘in terms of concern for future generations, it is focused on sustainable mineral exploration and mining practices that will ensure that any project achieves environmental, social and economic balance’. 57
It is apparent, therefore, that the livelihoods of these women were impacted by a plural legal regime. In this regime, state law operates alongside customary law and localised controls. These latter have been imposed by a private sector third party which is able to advance its commercial interests through various regulatory mechanisms sanctioned by the state.
Balancing livelihoods and environmental protection
Mangrove areas are an important resource both for their environmental role and because they provide rural women with a means of earning money to provide for their families. Achieving compatible sustainability for both, however, raises challenges. The current Covid-19 crisis has illustrated how increased numbers of women (and to a lesser extent men) competing to harvest the same marine resources can lead to tension, not only over the crossing of customary boundaries but also reduced availability of resources and related falling prices in the market. Even if this is only a temporary situation, longer term population increase in rural villages, disruption to harvesting due to climate change and regular cyclones, will have a similar long-term effect. At the same time, using the mangrove for firewood, unless accompanied by a sustained replanting, will gradually deplete resources. Fieldworkers reported that in the village of Natutu, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has organised workshops with the village to ensure that they replant mangroves and this had also been done in the other two villages but on a smaller scale. The issue is who is to undertake the replanting? The women engaged in marine harvesting are unlikely to have the time or energy to do so.
Currently, the requirement for licences and restrictions on the size of crabs that can be caught and sold may act as a sufficient safeguard for the sustainability for the species but where women depend on crabbing for their livelihoods and where there is a market for undersize crabs – which the field work found that there was, then undersize crabs will be caught and sold. In 2011, an Inshore Fisheries Decree was drafted and put out for consultation. It has not yet become law. 58 The objective of the proposed law is ‘the conservations, management and development of inshore fisheries to ensure their long-term sustainable use for the benefit of the people of Fiji Islands’ (section 4). This is underpinned by a number of principles including ‘recognition of customary fishing rights over areas and access for fishing (section 5(i)) and ‘ensuring that the interests of customary fishing rights owners’ and ‘the interests of artisanal and subsistence fishers are taken into account, including their participation in the management of their respective fisheries’ (sections 5(j) and (k). The definition section of the decree defines ‘artisanal fishing’ as ‘fish … taken in a manner that… is in accordance with their customary traditions…' and ‘fish…taken for household consumption, barter, or domestic market trade’ (section 2). This would include the marine harvesting covered in the field study. The decree envisages the establishment of Customary Fisheries Management and Development Plans for customary fishing rights owners (section 12). This would be a positive move but arguably more would have to be done to ensure that women were fully able to participate in the management of these resources to safeguard their particular interests. 59
A further concern identified by the field work is the potential longer-term negative impact of mining activity on the mangrove area. Already women in the villages are experiencing the consequences of the mining activity. This is largely because the magnetite-rich iron sands or ‘black sands’ are close to the surface and to the shoreline and are removed by dredging. The quantity and value of the mineral will probably see the operation expanded seawards and landwards, especially as the Chinese have constructed a handling facility at Lautoka. 60 There is provision under the Environmental Levy Act 2015 for a 6 per cent levy to be imposed on the profits of those providing services which might have an impact on the environment, notably leisure and tourism operators. 61 It does not include, however, mining operators, 62 and some criticism has been levelled at the mining company’s very high rate of return. 63 One of the upsides of the dredging of the Ba estuary for mining purposes may be a reduction of the likelihood of flooding which is regular event for the area. On the other hand, this advantage may be overstated as the process seems to replace the sand dredged once the iron has been extracted. The downside of any dredging is the potential adverse effect on fishing, which in turn impacts negatively on fishers and increases demand on other resources including crabs and the mangrove ecosystem. 64 There is also the concern that increasing restrictions imposed by the mining company in respect of access to areas will increase pressure on available harvesting areas and lead to more boundary incursions.
Conclusion
Clearly, there are different economic pressures at work here. On the one hand, there are the very modest earnings of women engaged in marine harvesting in the villages, which enables them to buy basic groceries in the stores, pay for utilities and meet the needs of their children. On the other hand, there are the significant financial advantages to the state of granting mining leases. The economic disparities are aggravated by the fragmented legal framework. This, as has already been indicated, hampers a coherent approach to assessing the environmental consequences of development projects, particularly for those whose voices may not be fully included in the discussions which lead to decisions affecting natural resources. It is already the case that the quoliqoli has usufructuary rights rather than ownership rights in the formal law, although these rights may well be seen as ownership rights in customary law. However, wherever there is reference to ‘owners’ – whether interpreted under the formal law or customary law – the marine harvesting rights of women are likely to fall outside the scope of these, forming if anything, a subgroup of usufructuary rights in custom, sanctioned formally by the imposition of licence requirements. There are therefore two challenges. The first is recognising that where there is reference to ‘the relationship of indigenous Fijians with their ancestral lands, waters, sites, sacred areas and other treasures’, which is a phrase used in the Environmental Management Act 2005 (section 3(d)), the relationship of women with these resources should be acknowledged and taken into account. Secondly, that women should be heard, and their experiences and concerns listened to. This may require separate meetings for women at times convenient to them – a point raised by field work participants. A realisation of the social restraints that prevent women from speaking out also needs to be taken into account. As one participant indicated She hasn’t attended any community meetings because she was not given an invitation to participate, but if given the opportunity, she would attend and be actively engaged in the meetings…If there were a meeting where women involvement was properly representative, she would willingly share her experiences with others.
65
Supplemental material
APPENDIX - Balancing livelihoods with environmental protection: A case study from Fiji
APPENDIX for Balancing livelihoods with environmental protection: A case study from Fiji by Sue Farran in Environmental Law Review
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the contributions of field workers Renata and Rufino Varea and the communities of the villages of Natutu and Nawaqarua. The author also acknowledges the contribution of other members of the project in shaping the questionnaire used for field work, notably Professor Jennifer Corrin (Co-I), Lysa Wini (field worker, Solomon Islands), Polly Walker-Dorra (field worker, Vanuatu) and Dr Hugh Govan, who also facilitated pathways to field work through his personal contacts. The content of this article and the views expressed remain those of the author except where indicated otherwise. Considerable thanks is given to the detailed feedback and constructive criticism of anonymous reviewers.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article draws on research supported by funding from the AHRC GCRF Network Fund (AH/T008385/T)
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Notes
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
