UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

What's the catch : uncovering the catch volume and value of Fiji's coral reef-based artisanal and subsistence.. Starkhouse, Benjamin A. 2009

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
ubc_2009_spring_starkhouse_benjamin.pdf [ 1.75MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0067110.json
JSON-LD: 1.0067110+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0067110.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0067110+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0067110+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0067110+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0067110 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0067110.txt
Citation
1.0067110.ris

Full Text

    What’s the Catch: Uncovering the Catch Volume and Value of Fiji’s Coral Ref-Based Artisanal and Subsistence Fisheries  by  Benjamin A. Starkhouse  B.A., The University of Washington, 203     A THESIS SUBMITED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGRE OF  Master of Science in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Resource Management and Environmental Studies)     The University of British Columbia (Vancouver) April 209    © Benjamin A. Starkhouse ii  Abstract  Coral ref-based fisheries, which have long provided fod, income and livelihods to milions of coastal inhabitants in tropical developing countries around the world, are regularly overloked and underapreciated in regard to their economic and social values. Despite their importance, there is limited formal information that can be used to help guide the sustainable development and management of these smal-scale fisheries.  In this thesis, I use Excel-based models to estimate catch volume, catch value, costs and benefits, and the number of fishers, middlemen and vendors, in regard to the coral ref-based artisanal and subsistence fisheries of the Republic of the Fiji Islands. For the artisanal fisheries, I conduct a more detailed economic analysis, which includes an in depth lok at individuals’ costs and benefits.  Results sugest that the artisanal and subsistence fisheries, together, deliver an anual catch of over 17,00 tones of ref-asociated finfish, invertebrates and marine plants, which have a gros value of aproximately US$ 54 milion per year. In addition, it is estimated that there are more than 28,00 fishers that rely on Fiji’s coral refs for fod and/or income. The results from this study wil help raise the profile of Fiji’s ref-fisheries, in the eyes of government decision-makers, and may contribute to the development and implementation of resource use strategies that are sustainable, profitable and equitable. Lastly, I make recomendations for the direction and content of future ref fisheries research and monitoring activities.  iii Table of Contents  Abstract..........................................................................................................................ii Table of Contents.........................................................................................................iii List of Tables................................................................................................................vi List of Figures..............................................................................................................vii Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................viii Co-Authorship Statement.............................................................................................ix  1 Introduction................................................................................................................1 1.1 Problem statement....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Research objectives...................................................................................................................2 1.3 Methods......................................................................................................................................3 1.4 Thesis outline.............................................................................................................................4 1.5 Background and literature review...........................................................................................6 1.5.1 Economic valuation of coral refs and smal-scale fisheries.....................6 1.5.2 Fiji and coral ref-based fisheries..................................................................8 1.6 References................................................................................................................................11  2 Economics of Fiji’s coral ref-based artisanal fisheries..........................................19 2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................19 2.2 Background..............................................................................................................................21 2.2.1 The fisheries...................................................................................................22 2.2.2 Seling the catch.............................................................................................23 2.2.3 Monitoring fish sales.....................................................................................24 2.3 Methods....................................................................................................................................25 2.3.1 Fishers.............................................................................................................26 2.3.2 Middlemen and vendors...............................................................................30  iv 2.4 Results.......................................................................................................................................32 2.4.1 Catch volume and value...............................................................................32 2.4.2 Number of participants................................................................................33 2.4.3 Individual costs and benefits.......................................................................33 2.5 Discusion................................................................................................................................35 2.5.1 Comparison with Fiji’s ofshore fisheries..................................................35 2.5.2 Contributing to future ref fisheries management...................................36 2.6 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................39 2.7 References................................................................................................................................41  3 The Subsistence Fisheries of Fiji: Estimating Catch Volume and Value...............48 3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................48 3.2 Background..............................................................................................................................49 3.2.1 Subsistence fishing........................................................................................49 3.2.2 Subsistence fishing in Fiji.............................................................................50 3.3 Methods....................................................................................................................................55 3.3.1 Interviews.......................................................................................................55 3.3.2 Subsistence catch model...............................................................................55 3.3.3 Model inputs and calculations.....................................................................55 3.3.4 Subsistence fisheries economic analysis.....................................................62 3.4 Results.......................................................................................................................................63 3.4.1 Total subsistence catch.................................................................................63 3.4.2 Ref-asociated subsistence catch...............................................................64 3.5 Discusion................................................................................................................................66 3.5.1 Catch comparison..........................................................................................66 3.5.2 Potential aplications of model...................................................................67 3.5.3 Ref-asociated subsistence catch...............................................................69 3.6 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................69 3.7 References................................................................................................................................71  4 Conclusion...............................................................................................................76 4.1 Fiji’s ref-based artisanal and subsistence fisheries............................................................76  v 4.2 Knowledge gaps, reflections and future work....................................................................78 4.3 References................................................................................................................................81  Apendix A: People contacted while in Fiji................................................................84 Apendix B: A brief history of Fiji’s coral ref-based fisheries...................................85 Apendix C: Input variable descriptions, values, notes and sources.........................10 Apendix D:  Coral ref asociated finfish, invertebrates and marine plants............107 Apendix E: Costs asociated with fishing................................................................110 Apendix F: UBC Research Ethics Board Certificate of Aproval...........................111   vi   List of Tables  Table 2.1 Individuals’ average anual gros benefits, net benefits and value added...............34 Table 2.2 Comparison betwen Fiji’s industrialized ofshore fisheries and artisanal ref-based fisheries............................................................................................................................36 Table 3.1 Sumary of data used to calculate the number of fishers in Fiji.............................57 Table 3.2 Sumary of the Monte Carlo input values..................................................................62 Table 3.3 Gros benefits, intermediate costs and value added asociated with Fiji’s subsistence fisheries..................................................................................................................66 Table A.1:  Individuals coresponded with while in Fiji.............................................................84 Table C.1 Finfish model input variables, values and references..............................................100 Table C.2 Invertebrate model input variables, values and references.....................................103 Table D.1 Coral ref-asociated finfish.......................................................................................107 Table D.2 Coral ref-asociated invertebrates and marine plants...........................................109 Table E.1 Costs asociating with fishing.....................................................................................110  vii List of Figures   Figure 1.1 Schematic showing value categories, value category description and value category examples, as part of coral refs’ total economic value....................................7 Figure 1.2 Map of Fiji......................................................................................................9 Figure 2.1 Estimated number of fishers, middlemen and vendors....................................33 Figure 2.2 Costs and benefits for an average ful-time finfish fisher..................................34 Figure 3.1 Model output distribution of the estimated ref-asociated subsistence catch in tones per year.......................................................................................................64 Figure 3.2 Model output distribution of the estimated number of fishers neded to land Fiji’s ref-asociated subsistence catch......................................................................65 Figure B.1 (1) Beche-de-mer (2) Trochus...........................................................................88   vii   Acknowledgements   First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge the unwavering suport, patience and encouragement of my supervisor, Dr. U. Rashid Sumaila. Rashid’s pasion for exploring the world of fisheries economics is contagious, and for that I am grateful. I would also like to thank my comite members, Drs. Dirk Zeler and Yvone Sadovy, who have provided encouragement and guidance throughout the development and implementation of my thesis research.  PhD students Lydia and Louise Teh also played an important role in the progresion of my research and writing.  Special thanks are owed to the Fiji Fisheries Department for their involvement with this research and logistical suport while in Fiji, particularly, Aisake Batibasaga, Nanise Kuridrani and Apisai Sesewa.  I also acknowledge everyone in Fiji that shared fisheries related data, information or insight, and who tok time to help me gain a beter understanding of the artisanal and subsistence fishing sectors. Robert Gilet, in particular, has shown notable interest in my work and has provided valuable fedback and insight. Lastly, I gratefuly acknowledge the financial suport of the Kingfisher Foundation, who made this research posible. Kfldklf;dgk;dflkg;dfkgd;fskg;dfkg ix   Co-Authorship Statement  Rashid Sumaila and Yvone Sadovy are the principal investigators of a larger project, which my thesis is a part of. Rashid and Yvone have contributed thoughts and recomendations on the direction and content of Chapter 2, and wil be co-authors in a version of the chapter that is planed for submision. I performed the research and data analysis for chapter 2, and am the primary author. Chapter 3 was completed with contributions from Fisheries Centre PhD students Louise and Lydia Teh, who helped develop the Monte Carlo-based model. Louise and Lydia also conducted interviews in Fijian fishing comunities. Select data from these interviews were used as inputs in the Monte Carlo-based model.  I performed the research and data analysis (excluding the interviews) for chapter 3 and wil be the first author, with co-authors Lydia, Louise, Rashid and Dirk Zeler, in the planed submision of a version of this chapter. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 1  Chapter 1   Introduction   1.1 Problem statement  Coral refs have long ben a source of fod, employment and cultural identity for milions of coastal inhabitants in tropical developing countries around the world (Munro, 196). However, these refs are under increasing presure from anthropogenic activities such as intensive agricultural practices, deforestation, urbanization, destructive and unsustainable fishing methods, unregulated tourism, and global climate change (Moberg and Folke, 199; Ahmed et al., 205).  As a result, people that depend on coral ref fisheries for social and economic stability, which are often some of the most vulnerable groups in regard to fod security, exposure to natural disasters and social, economic and political marginalization, are prone to recuring or persistent hardships (Whitingham et al., 203; Bene et al., 207).  Inherently smal-scale, ref fisheries typicaly exist in geographic, socio-economic and political remotenes from decision and policy makers in urban centers (Pauly, 197). Consequently, political interest in coral ref-based fisheries is generaly low (Staples et al., 204), as demonstrated by the regularity in which industrial-scale ofshore fisheries receive the majority of government funding for fisheries monitoring, management and research (Cycon, 1986; Mahon, 197).  With insuficient data on catch volume and value, market transactions and the distribution of benefits, ref fisheries tend to be overloked and under-apreciated in regard to their economic and social significance (Sadovy, 205; Zeler et al., 206). This may result in development decisions being made in favor of other sectors, such as tourism or agriculture, at the expense of the fisheries sector (Sugiyama, 205). The limited data that are available on ref-based fisheries, and the values of coral refs in general, are  2 often under-utilized in coastal investment, development and policy decisions, resulting in short-sighted resolutions that fail to maximize the long-term economic potential of coral ref ecosystems and fisheries (Roxburgh and Spurgeon, 205; Burke et al., 208).  Recognizing these trends, and upon observing a decline in the health of their own coral ref fisheries, the Fiji Fisheries Department, and other coral ref stakeholders, determined that an important step towards protecting Fiji’s coral ref ecosystems and fisheries resources involved obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the fisheries’ economic and social values (Sadovy and Batibasaga, 206). In turn, the Fisheries Department’s decision to beter understand the values of Fiji’s coral ref fisheries led to the development of a colaborative research project betwen the University of British Columbia, the Fiji Fisheries Department, the University of the South Pacific and the University of Hong Kong/Society for the Conservation of Ref Fish Agregations. This project, in part, aims to quantify the direct use values of Fiji’s coral refs, while determining to what extent certain individuals benefit from diferent uses of ref resources. My thesis research is part of this larger project, and loks specificaly at the catch volumes, and economic benefits and costs, asociated with Fiji’s ref-based artisanal and subsistence fisheries.  As used in this thesis, artisanal fishing refers to smal-scale fishing that results in the catch being sold in domestic markets, while subsistence fishing refers to fishing that results in the catch being consumed by the fisher or their family, given away as a gift or bartered localy. The distinction betwen artisanal and subsistence fishers, however, can be blury, as most fishers generaly kep some portion of their catch and sel some portion. As such, further clarification on this topic wil be provided when necesary.  1.2 Research objectives  My research focuses on Fiji’s smal-scale, coral ref-based artisanal and subsistence fisheries. I aim to advance the understanding of the fisheries by producing new information and improved estimates on the fisheries’ catch volume and value, employment numbers, and the costs and benefits for individuals, groups and for the fisheries as a whole. It is my hope that  3 this work wil help raise the profile of Fiji’s ref fisheries and help guide resource use management strategies related to investment, development and conservation of coral ref and coastal resources.  For this research, I develop models that produce outputs that fil existing data and information gaps asociated with Fiji’s artisanal and subsistence fisheries.  Specificaly the objectives of this research are to:  • Improve the existing information on catch volume, catch value, and the number of participants asociated with Fiji’s artisanal and subsistence fisheries; • Raise the profile of Fiji’s ref fisheries in the eyes of governing oficials; • Develop models that can be used by ref fisheries stakeholders to continualy update and improve national-level catch volume and value estimates for Fiji’s inshore fisheries; • Identify gaps and shortcomings in existing data, information and monitoring methods, and make recomendations for future research, monitoring and management of Fiji’s ref fisheries;  • Develop a model framework that can potentialy be used to estimate catch volume and value of artisanal and subsistence fisheries throughout the south Pacific region.  1.3 Methods  From November 15th-December 15th, 207 I traveled throughout Fiji’s two main islands, Viti Levu and Vanua Levu, acquiring data and information to be used in this thesis. Although I did not develop and administer surveys for primary data colection, I acquired a wealth of secondary data, literature and information through informal metings with representatives of several governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions and private enterprises.  A list of the people and organizations I met with while in Fiji can be found in Apendix A.  My understanding of fisheries related market and financial transactions was suplemented by oportune discusions with fishers, middlemen and vendors participating in the fisheries.  4  While in Fiji, I also visited the Fiji Fisheries Department’s library in Lami, the Pacific Islands Marine Resources Information System colection at the University of the South Pacific’s (USP) lower campus, and the Pacific colection at USP’s central library. I also utilized the Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity’s library, located in Noumea, New Caledonia, as a coleague of mine visited and was able to retrieve material I requested.  These libraries provided aces to hard-to-find publications and theses that deal specificaly with fishing and fishing comunities in the south Pacific.   As my research is part of a larger project, involving thre other university students conducting their own research, I also utilized data that my coleagues colected through formal surveys administered in Fijian fishing comunities.  This information was used primarily in the subsistence portion of my thesis, Chapter 3.  Further details on the interviews can be found in Chapter 3.  Drawing from literature on natural resource economic valuation and cost benefit analysis, I developed economic models for the finfish and invertebrate portions of Fiji’s artisanal fisheries (Chapter 2). These models incorporate information on the characteristics of fishing activities and market transactions with cost of fishing data specific to Fiji.  For Fiji’s subsistence fisheries (Chapter 3), a Monte Carlo simulation was developed.  The input variable value ranges used in this simulation are defined by per-reviewed and grey literature as wel as primary interviews conducted in Fiji’s fishing comunities. Modeling for both the artisanal and subsistence fisheries was done using Excel software.  1.4 Thesis outline  This thesis consists of four chapters. The first is an introduction that states the objectives of the research and outlines the structure of the thesis. Additionaly, I provide a background on the economic valuation of coral refs and an overview on socioeconomic research, related to coral ref resource use that has ben caried out within Fiji. This literature review  5 is suplemented by a chronological overview of coral refs’ economic, social, cultural and political importance in Fiji, which is found in Apendix A.  The second chapter covers the ref-based artisanal fisheries of Fiji, of which a version is planed for publication submision. The central focus of this chapter is the development of economic models that depict Fiji’s ref-asociated finfish and invertebrate artisanal fisheries. I describe how the models operate and present results on the catch volume, catch value and employment asociated with Fiji’s ref-based artisanal fisheries.  Additionaly, I present a detailed examination on the costs and benefits to individual participants in the fisheries. The results from this study are then compared with Fiji’s ofshore fishing sector, in an atempt to raise the profile of the economic and social importance of Fiji’s ref fisheries.  Lastly, I identify knowledge gaps in existing data and information and make recomendations for future management, monitoring and research in regard to Fiji’s artisanal fisheries.  Chapter thre focuses on Fiji’s subsistence fishing sector, and is also planed for submision to the primary literature.  The main objective here is to develop a reliable method for estimating Fiji’s anual subsistence catch that is inexpensive and doesn’t require extensive fieldwork or technical expertise. As such, I develop a model that estimates subsistence catch using available data and information on Fiji’s subsistence fisheries. In this chapter, I provide background information on Fiji’s subsistence fisheries and a critical sumary of past subsistence catch estimates, as wel as the methods utilized in the subsistence catch model. I provide catch volume and value estimates of Fiji’s subsistence fishery while distinguishing betwen finfish and invertebrates as wel as ref-asociated and non-ref asociated species. I also present costs and benefits, at a fisher and fisheries level, for Fiji’s subsistence fisheries.  The fourth chapter sumarizes the findings of my research and discuses their significance. In this chapter, I identify gaps and shortcomings in existing research and monitoring, and make recomendations for the future research and monitoring of Fiji’s artisanal and subsistence fisheries. Lastly, I ofer a personal reflection on this research and discus future research interests.   6 1.5 Background and literature review  This section consists of two parts.  The first provides an overview of projects and publications that have focused on the economic valuation of coral ref ecosystems, drawing atention to valuation’s role in coral ref conservation.  The second part provides general information on Fiji and Fiji’s coral refs, as wel as an overview of past studies that have profiled one or more of the economic, social and ecological components of Fiji’s inshore fishing sector.  A complimentary, more detailed acount of Fiji’s coral ref resources’ use, value, management and asociation with political and social isues, can be found in Apendix B.  Together, these overviews help establish a solid foundation for the detailed economic analysis of Fiji’s coral ref-based artisanal and subsistence fisheries, as part of this thesis.  1.5.1 Economic valuation of coral refs and smal-scale fisheries Studies reporting on the economic values asociated with coral ref ecosystems first began to apear in the late 1980s, as individuals and organizations sought new means to promote ref conservation. Prior to this, a conservation mesage formulated around coral refs’ ecological wealth and biodiversity largely failed to influence the behavior of individuals and companies damaging refs, or to engage agencies in a position to implement conservation oriented policies (David et al., 207).  As such, some of the first coral ref valuation publications focused on the economic costs of coral ref degradation (i.e. Hundloe 1987; Hodgson and Dixon, 198; McAlistair, 198).   In 192, the concept of total economic value (TEV) was aplied to coral refs, increasing stakeholders’ awarenes of their wide-ranging direct and indirect values (Spurgeon and Aylward, 192).  Aplying TEV to coral refs provided a practical framework for categorizing and asesing the values asociated with the multi-faceted ecosystems. Figure 1 shows the various categories and atributes asociated with the TEV of coral refs.  7 FisheriesRecreation and tourismBioprospectingR e s e a rc h  a n d  e d u c a tio nOutputs and servicesthat can be c o n s u m e ddirectlyD ire c t u s e  v a lu e sShoreline protectionWater quality controlRefugiaWaste assimulationFunctional benefitse n jo y e d  in d ire c tlyIndirect use valuesT o d a y 's  willingness-to-pay of in d iv id u a ls  thatwish to conserve thea s s e t for future u s ePotential values fromfuture direct andindirect usesOption valuesUse ValuesPerceived value of theasset unrelated to currentor o p tio n a l useValue from knowledgeof c o n tin u e d  e x is te n c e ,b a s e d  on e .g .moral convictionExistence valuesThreatened reef habitatsE n d a n g e re d  s p e c ie sC h a rism a tic  sp e c ie sAesthetic reefscapesValue of leaving useand n o n - u s e  valuesto future generationsBequest valuesNon-use ValuesTotal Economic Value Figure 1.1 Schematic showing value categories, value category description and value category examples, as part of coral refs’ total economic value (based on Ahmed et al., 205; Cesar 200).  Studies on coral ref economic valuation have become more comon over the last two decades or so, with topics ranging from the recreational value of coral refs (Leworthy, 191; Yeo, 201; Brander et al., 207), the economic benefits of marine parks (Dixon, 193; Driml, 194), the value of coral ref protection (Wright, 194; Pendleton, 195), and the economic loses of destructive behavior towards coral refs (Berg et al., 198; Pet-Soede et al. 199; White et al., 200).   Recently, a number of international organizations and agencies have become actively involved in coral ref valuation projects. Each project has recognized the role that economic valuation can play in establishing beneficial resource use strategies and devising cost-efective policy interventions to manage and protect coral refs.  For example, during the late 190s, the World Bank initiated a project that, in part, atempted to adapt and refine existing valuation methods to take into acount the key characteristics of coral refs.  In doing so, the project helped establish methods for the derivation of more acurate estimates on coral ref benefits and the costs of coral ref degradation (Gustavson, 198; Ruitenbeck and Cartier, 199; Cesar, 196; 199; 200; Cesar et al., 202; 203).    8 A second organization, the WorldFish Center, first became involved in coral ref valuation in 201, when they hosted an international workshop that focused on economic research relevant to coral refs. The workshop resulted in the publication of a colection of papers and case studies focusing on the theory and practice of economic valuation and the socioeconomics of coral refs, and their role in coral ref management (Ahmed et al., 205).  The World Resource Institute (WRI) is curently overseing a coral ref valuation project, which aims to refine valuation methods while making them more acesible to coral ref stakeholders. The study aplies knowledge and experience gained from ultiple case studies in the Caribean to develop a user-friendly, Excel-based, coral ref valuation tol, alowing ref stakeholders to explore the recreational, fisheries and shoreline protection values of coral refs in their area (Burke et al., 208).   Although the aforementioned projects and publications have done a comendable job determining the economic values asociated with coral ref ecosystems, they have largely failed to provide comprehensive economic information on smal-scale, coral ref-based fisheries.  Many of these publications do include a rough estimate of the value of inshore fisheries, but in insuficient detail to efectively guide coral ref resource use and management decision.  Notable exceptions include economic asesments of artisanal fisheries by Gustavson (202) and Kronen (204; 207), although these studies do not make a definitive distinction betwen catch consisting of ref-asociated species and non ref-asociated species.  1.5.2 Fiji and coral ref-based fisheries The Republic of the Fiji Islands consists of 106 inhabited islands scatered throughout an exclusive economic zone of 1.26 milion km2 (Richards, 194). With an ocean to land ratio of 70:1 (World Bank, 200) and over 5,00 km of coastline (FAO, 208), it is no wonder that marine ecosystems have ben an integral part of the lives of Fijians since the first setlers arived over thre thousand years ago (Nun et al., 207). Straddling the 18th degre of southern latitude, Fiji’s expansive marine boundaries encompas aproximately 10,00 km2 of biologicaly rich coral ref structures (Spalding et al., 201). These ref ecosystems have  9 long provided Fijians a majority of their animal protein (Salvat, 1980), while being a source for livelihods, cultural identity, and more recently, income generation and foreign exchange (Veitayaki, 195).    Figure 1.2 Map of Fiji  Fiji’s coral ref fisheries are largely the domain of smal-scale artisanal and subsistence fishers, and as such, involve labor-intensive fishing, procesing and distribution technologies (FAO, 204). Using a variety of fishing gears and methods, men, women and children target a wide range of finfish and marine invertebrates; including the finfish families Scaridae, Diodontidae, Lethrinidae, Seranidae, Labridae, Lutjanidae, Balistidae, and Acanthuridae, and invertebrate species of crustaceans, gastropods and bivalves (Richards, 194; Rawlinson et al., 195; Kuster et al., 205).  Although several reports have profiled Fiji’s fishing sectors (Cok 1986; Richards, 194; Hand et al., 205), there has ben no cordinated, national-level study and asesment of Fiji’s coral ref fisheries. There have ben, however, numerous site-specific studies on the subsistence and artisanal fishing sectors of Fiji’s main islands (Rawlinson et al. 195) and outer islands (Jenings and Polunin, 195a, 195b, 196a, 196b; Jenings, 198; Kuster et al., 205; Turner et al., 207). Overal, these studies provide localized data and information htp:/www.nomad4ever.com  10 on catch rates and yields of ref fisheries, biomas and ecological changes of coral ref ecosystems, and the social-economic conditions of coastal fishing comunities.   Economic studies covering coral refs, inshore fisheries and coastal comunities specific to Fiji are limited, but have become more comon in recent years. In 1984, Iwakiri and Ram published a paper on the socioeconomics of smal island fishing comunities in the south Pacific, including Fiji.  More recently, Pasfield (194) calculated a rough estimate of the monetary value of the comercial and subsistence fisheries of two Fijian vilages, while O’Gara (207) estimated the TEV of the Localy Manage Marine Area (LMA) of Navakavu, on Viti Levu. Focusing specificaly on Fiji’s artisanal fisheries, a Fijian economist, working at the University of the South Pacific, investigated the role of property rights in the fisheries’ technical eficiency, profitability and sustainability (Reddy 204; 206).  The Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity is also active in Fiji, having caried out a study examining the socio-economics of six Fijian fishing comunities in regard to marine resource status and use (Anon., 204).  Similarly, Veitayaki et al. (undated) report on the socio-economics of a coastal fisheries development asistance project in Macuata province, Vanua Levu. Studies that have estimated values of Fiji’s inshore fisheries at a national level, although not specific to coral refs, include Gilet and Lightfot’s (201) re-estimation of fisheries contribution to the economy of Fiji, and an Asian Development Bank report by Hand et al. (205) that sumarizes the value of Fiji’s industrial, smal-scale comercial and subsistence fisheries.      11 1.6 References  Anon., 204.  DemEcoFish Project: Final report.  Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity, Ref Fisheries Observatory, and the Institut de Recherche pour le Dévelopement, 135 p.  Ahmed, M., Chong, C.K. and Cesar, H., 205. Economic valuation and policy priorities for sustainable management of coral refs.  International Coral Ref Action Network, World Fish Center, SIDA, 219 p.  Bene, C., Macfadyen, G. and Alison, E.H., 207. Increasing the contribution of smal-scale fisheries to poverty aleviation and fod security. Fod and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries Technical Paper 481, 140 p.  Berg, H., Oehman, M.C., Troeng, S. and Linden, O., 198. Environmental Economics of Coral Ref Destruction in Sri Lanka. Ambio, 27 (8): 627-634.  Brander, L.M., Van Beukering, P. and Cesar, H.S.J., 207.  The recreational value of coral refs: A meta-analysis. Ecological Economics, 63: 209-218.  Burke, L., Grenhalgh, S., Prager, D. and Coper, E., 208.  Coastal capital: Economic valuation of coral refs in Tobago and St. Lucia. World Resource Institute, 76 p.  Cesar, H.J.S., 196. Economic analysis of Indonesian coral refs. Washington DC, World Bank, Division CDII, East Asia and Pacific Region, Environment Department, 86 p.   Cesar, H.J.S., 199. Socio-economic aspects of the 198 coral bleaching event in the Indian OCEAN. In Linden, O. and Sporong, N., 199.  Coral Ref Degradation in the Indian Ocean. Status reports and project presentations. Stockholm: SIDA/FRN/MISTRA/World Bank/WWF, p. 82-85.   12 Cesar, H.J.S., (Ed.), 200. Colected Esays on the Economics of Coral Refs. Kalmar: CORDIO/ Kalmar University, 250 p.  Cesar, H.J.S., Pet-Soede, L., Westmacot, S., Mangi, S. and Aish, A., 202.  Economic analysis of coral bleaching in the Indian Ocean: Phase I.  Report prepared for the World Bank in suport of the Coral Ref Degradation in the Indian Ocean (CORDIO) Program. Washington DC, World Bank, 147 p.   Cesar, H.J.S., Burke, L. and Poet-Soede, L., 203. The economics of worldwide coral ref degradation. Cesar Environmental Consulting, ICRAN/WWF, 23 p.   Cycon, D.E., 1986.  Managing fisheries in developing countries: a plea for apropriate development. Natural Resources Journal, 26: 1-14  David, G., Herenschmidt, J.B., Mirault, E. and Thomasin, A., 207. Social and economic values of Pacific coral refs. Coral Ref Initiatives for the Pacific. Component 1A, Project 1A4, 46 p.   Dixon, J.A., 193. Economic benefits of marine protected areas. Oceanus, p 35–40.  Driml, S., 194.  Protection for profit: economic and financial values of the Great Barier Ref world heritage area and other protected areas.  A Report to the Great Barier Ref Marine Park Authority, Research Publication No vol. 35.  FAO/RAP/FIPL, 204. A research agenda for smal-scale fisheries. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.  RAP Publication No. 204.21 and FIPL/C 1009 (EN), 42 p.  FAO, 208. Fiji Country Profile. htp://ww.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FI-CP_FJ/en.   13 Gilet, R. 202.  Pacific island fisheries: Regional and country information.  Fod and Agriculture Organization.   Gilet, R. and Lightfot, C., 201. The Contribution of Fisheries to the Economies of Pacific Island Countries. Asian Development Bank, Forum Fisheries Agency and the World Bank, 242 p.  Gustavson, K., 198. Values asociated with the local use of the Montego Bay Marine Park. Washington, DC, World Bank,  Report prepared for the Environmentaly and Socialy Sustainable Development Sector Department, Latin America and the Caribean Region (LCSES) of the World Bank, p 83-96  Gustavson, K., 202. Economic production from the artisanal fisheries of Jamaica. Fisheries Research, 57: 103-115.  Hand, T., Davis, D. and Gilet, R., 205.  Republic of the Fiji Islands: Fisheries Sector Review. Technical Asistance Consultant’s Report, Asian Development Bank, 95 p.  Hodgson, G. and Dixon, J., 198. Loging versus fisheries and tourism in Palawan. Occasional Papers of the East–West Environment and Policy Institute, Paper No 7, East–West Centre, Hawai, USA, 95 p.  Hundloe, T.A., Vanclay, F.M., and Carter, M., 1987. Economic and Socio-Economic Impacts of the Crown of Thorns Starfish on the Great Barier Ref, 132 p.    Iwakiri, S. and Ram, V. 1984. An introductory study of the socio-economic aspects of household fisheries in the smal islands economies of the South Pacific. Kagoshima University Research Center for the South Pacific, p. 53-65.  Jenings S. and Polunin, N.V.C., 195a. Comparative size and composition of yield from six Fijian ref fisheries. Journal of Fish Biology, 46: 28-46.   14 Jenings, S. and Polunin, N.V.C., 195b. Relationships betwen catch and efort in Fijian multispecies ref fisheries subject to diferent levels of exploitation. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 2: 89–101.  Jenings, S. and Polunin, N.V.C., 196a.  Fishing strategies, fishery development and socioeconomics in traditionaly managed Fijian fishing grounds. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 3: 35-347.  Jenings, S. and Polunin, N.V.C., 196b. Efects of fishing efort and catch rate upon the structure and biomas of Fijian ref fish comunities. Journal of Aplied Ecology, 3 (2): 400-412.  Jenings, S., 198.  Artisanal fisheries of the Great Astrolabe Ref, Fiji: monitoring, asesment and management. Coral Refs, 17 (1): 82.  Kronen, M., 204. Fishing for fortunes? A socio-economic asesment of Tonga’s artisanal fisheries. Fisheries Research, 70: 121-134.  Kronen, M., 207.  Monetary and non-monetary values of smal-scale fisheries in Pacific Island countries. The Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity Women in Fisheries Information Buletin, 16, p 12-20.  Kuster, C., Vuki, V.C. and Zan, L.P., 205. Long-term trends in subsistence fishing paterns and coral ref fisheries yield from a remote Fijian island. Fisheries Research, 76: 221-28.  Leworthy, V.R., 191. Recreational Use Value for John Penekamp Coral Ref State Park and Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary.  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  Mahon, R., 197.  Does fisheries science serve the neds of managers of smal stocks in developing countries? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54: 207-213.  15  McAlistair, D.E., 198. Environmental, economic and social costs of coral ref destruction in the Philipines. Galaxea, 7: 161–178.  Moberg, F. and Folke, C., 199. Ecological gods and services of coral ref ecosystems. Ecological Economics, 29: 215–23.  Nun, P.D., Ishimura, T., Dickinson, W.R., Katayama, K., Thomas, F., Kumar, R., Matararaba, S., Davidson, J. and Worthy, T.  207.  The Lapita Occupation at Naitabale, Moturiki Island, Central Fiji. Asian Perspectives, 46 (1): 96-132.  O’Gara, T., 207. Estimating the total economic value of the Navakavu LMA (Localy Managed Marine Area) in Viti Levu island, Fiji.  Coral Ref Initiatives for the Pacific, Component 2A, Project 2A2, 140 p.  Pauly, D. 197.  Smal-scale fisheries in the tropics: Marginality, marginalization and some implications for fisheries management. In: E.K. Pikitch, D.. Hupert and M.P. Sisenwine (editors). Global Trends: Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society Symposium 20, Bethesda, Maryland, p 40-49.  Pasfield, K., 194. An asesment of the monetary value of the subsistence and smal-scale comercial coastal fishery in Fiji: A case study of vilages in Verata, Tailevu Province, Viti Levu. Traditional Marine Tenure and Sustainable Management of Marine Resources in Asia and the Pacific, Procedings of the International Workshop, USP, Suva, p 208-215.  Pendleton, L.H., 195. Valuing coral ref protection. Ocean and Coastal Management, 26: 119–131.  Pet-Soede, C., Cesar, H.S.J. and Pet J.S., 199.  An economic analysis of blast fishing on Indonesian coral refs. Environmental Conservation, 26 (2): 83–93.   16 Rawlinson, N.J.F., Milton, D.A., Blaber, S.J.M., Sesewa, A. and Sharma, S.P., 195. A survey of the subsistence and artisanal fisheries in rural areas of Viti Levu, Fiji.  The Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR).  Reddy, M., 204. Economic analysis of artisanal fisheries in Fiji: Isues of profitability and sustainability. South Pacific Studies, 25 (1): 35-48.   Reddy, M., 206.  Technical eficiency in artisanal fisheries: evidence from a developing country. Working Paper 8, University of the South Pacific Schol of Economics.  Richards A., 194. Fiji Fisheries Resources Profiles. South Pacific Fisheries Forum Agency, 231 p.   Roxburgh, T. and Spurgeon, J.  205.  Enhancing the role of economic valuation in coral ref management. Agenda item 1.1. International Coral Ref Initiative (ICRI).  Ruitenbeck, H.J. and Cartier, C.M., 199. Isues in aplied coral ref biodiversity valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica. Washington D.C., World Bank, Research Comite Project RPO#682-2 Final Report.   Sadovy, Y., 205. Trouble on the ref: the imperative for managing vulnerable and valuable fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 6: 167-185.  Sadovy, Y. & Batibasaga, A., 206. Ref fisheries workshop held in Fiji. The Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity Live Ref Fish Information Buletin,15.  Salvat, B., 1980. The living marine resources of the South Pacific: Past, present and future. Population-Environment Relations in Tropical Islands: The case in Eastern Fiji, p. 131-148. Paris: UNESCO.  Spalding, M., Ravilious, C. and Gren, P. E., 201. World Atlas of Coral Refs.  University of California Pres, 434 p.  17  Spurgeon, J. and Aylward, B. 192. The economic value of ecosystems: coral refs. London Environment Economics Centre, Gatekeper series, GK 92-03, 32 p.  Staples, D., Satia, B. and Gardiner, P.R., 204. A research agenda for smal-scale fisheries. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.  RAP Publication No. 204/21 and FIPL/C 1009 (En), 42 p.  Sugiyama, S., 205. Information requirements for policy development, decision making and responsible fisheries management: what should be colected? The Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity Women in Fisheries Buletin, 15.  Turner R.A., Cakacaka A., and Graham N.A.J., 207.  Declining reliance on marine resources in remote South Pacific societies: ecological versus socio-economic drivers. Coral Refs, 26 (4): 97-108.  Veitayaki, J. 195.  Fisheries development in Fiji: The quest for sustainability. Institue of Pacific Studies Publications, University of the South Pacific.   Veitayaki, J., Navuku, S. and Bidesi, V.R., undated. Report on the final evaluation of the coastal fisheries development asistance project on northeast Macuata Province, Fiji. Overseas Fisheries Coperative Foundation and the Ministry of Fisheries and Forestry of the Republic of Fiji, 79 p. White, A.T., Vogt, H.P. and Arin, T., 200.  Philipine coral refs under threat: The economic loses caused by ref destruction. Marine Polution Buletin, 40 (7): 598-605. Whitingham, E., Campbel, J. and Townsley, P., 203. Poverty and Refs.  DFID–IM–IOC/UNESCO, 260 p.  Wright, M.G., 194.  An Economic Analysis of Coral Ref Protection in Negril, Jamaica. Wiliamstown, MA: Wiliams Colege, Thesis.  18  World Bank, 200.  Cities, seas and storms: Managing change in Pacific island economies. Volume 3, Managing the use of the oceans. Papua New Guinea and Pacific Island Country Unit, The World Bank, 71 p.  Yeo, B.H., 204.  The Recreational Benefits of Coral Refs: A Case Study of Pulau Payar Marine Park. ICLARM, 10 p.  Zeler, D., Both, D. and Pauly, D., 206.  Fisheries contribution to the gros domestic product: underestimating smal-scale fisheries in the Pacific. Marine Resource Economics, 21: 35–374.   19  Chapter 2  Economics of Fiji’s coral ref-based artisanal fisheries1  2.1 Introduction  Tropical coral ref ecosystems are some of the most biologicaly diverse and productive ecosystems on earth (Conel, 1978). Despite ocupying les than 0.2% of the global ocean area (Spalding and Grenfel, 197), coral refs are estimated to suply betwen 5-10% of total marine fish landings (Salvat, 192; Whitingham et al., 203), and provide milions of coastal inhabitants a source of fod, employment and cultural identity (Salvat, 1980; Munro, 196; Veitayaki, 200; Spalding et al., 201).   Inherently the domain of smal-scale fishers, coral ref fisheries are particularly important to developing countries (Munro, 196), where, despite limited data and information, they are generaly recognized for their ability to generate significant economic benefits and make meaningful, sometimes criticaly important, contributions to poverty aleviation and fod security (Bene et al., 207). Unfortunately, governing federal agencies often fail to acknowledge the economic and social significance of smal-scale fisheries, instead focusing limited human and financial resources for fisheries management, monitoring and research on suposedly more valuable industrialized ofshore fisheries (Mahon, 197). As a result, smal-scale coral ref based fisheries are largely overloked and underapreciated in terms of their                                                 1 A version of this chapter wil be submited for publication. Starkhouse, B., Sadovy, Y. and Sumaila, U.R. Economics of Fiji’s coral ref-based artisanal fisheries.  20 contributions to a nation’s employment sector, fod security and Gros Domestic Product (GDP) (Sadovy, 205; Zeler et al., 206).  The lack of data, information and efective governance of ref-based fisheries is particularly evident in developing island nations of the South Pacific, where ref fishing is regarded as one of the most important livelihod activities for coastal comunities (Ruddle et al., 192; Veitayaki, 193; Zan and Vuki, 200).  Fitingly, in 206 and 207, the Fiji Fisheries Department, in colaboration with the Society for the Conservation of Ref Fish Agregations (SCRFA), hosted workshops in order to addres growing concerns on the perceived decline in the health of Fiji’s coral ref fisheries (Anon., 206). Although past studies have covered various components of Fiji’s artisanal fisheries at a comunity or regional level (Zan, 1981; Iwakiri and Ram 1984; Pasfield 194; Anon., 204a; Aalbersberg et al., 205; Veitayaki et al., 206; O’Gara, 207), none have atempted to diferentiate betwen ref and non-ref species, or to quantify costs, benefits and employment oportunities asociated with the fisheries at a national level.  As such, one of the top recomendations to emerge from the workshops was the ned to ases the ful economic and social value of Fiji’s coral ref fisheries (Sadovy and Batibasaga, 206).  Given the neds of the Fiji Fisheries Department, the limited availability of reliable data and information, and the aparent under-apreciation of coral ref fisheries, the objectives of this chapter are to derive national-level estimates on the value, volume and employment asociated with Fiji’s coral ref-based artisanal fisheries.  This study focuses specificaly on artisanal catch of ref-asociated species, and does not consider artisanal catch consisting of pelagic and estuarine species.  As such, I use existing data and information to develop models that produce estimates on the total catch volume and value of Fiji’s ref-asociated finfish, invertebrate and marine plants, the total number of fishers, middlemen and vendors that are able to derive income by participating in Fiji’s ref-based artisanal fisheries, and detailed estimates on the costs and benefits for individuals, groups and the fisheries as a whole. The models are created with the intention that they may be used by the Fiji Fisheries Department to continualy update and improve existing information on the country’s ref-based fisheries.  The improved understanding of Fiji’s ref fisheries wil alow for straightforward comparisons with the country’s ofshore fishing sector, encouraging  21 increased recognition of ref fisheries’ economic and social importance.  The resulting knowledge may also be used to inform government level policy and decision makers in the development of fisheries research, monitoring and management strategies.  2.2 Background  The Republic of the Fiji Islands consists of over 84 islands, cays and islets and is home to some of the largest and best-developed coral ref systems in the South Pacific region (Vuki et al., 200). The flora and fauna asociated with Fiji’s aproximately 10,00 km2 of fringing, barier, platform, line and patch refs play a significant role in providing fod, livelihod and employment options for numerous coastal inhabitants (Spalding et al., 201; Kuster et al., 205).  As no single definition of artisanal fishing exists (Schor, 205), it is important to clarify its meaning for this paper.  Artisanal fishing typicaly refers to fishing activities that use low technology, are labor intensive, target multiple species and ocur in nearshore habitats (Schor, 205). Artisanal fishing, as used in this paper, conforms to this general description, with one addition, that al catch is sold domesticaly in either municipal or non-municipal market outlets. This difers from subsistence fishing, where catch is kept by the fisher for personal or household consumption, given away as gifts, or bartered localy (Berkes, 198). In Fiji, the distinction betwen artisanal and subsistence fishing activities can be particularly blury, as the exact fate of a fisher’s catch is often decided only after he or she returns from a fishing outing. Consequently, a single fishing trip can yield an asortment of fish that wil be used for both artisanal and subsistence purposes.   Some clarification is also required on the term fish. Here, fish refers to finfish, invertebrates and marine plants, colectively. To distinguish betwen diferent types of fish, I refer to them specificaly as finfish, invertebrates or marine plants.   22 2.2.1 The fisheries Artisanal fishing in Fiji takes place predominantly in the area betwen the shoreline and the outer slope of barier or fringing refs (Rawlinson et al., 195). This inshore area encompases a number of productive fishing habitats that are utilized by artisanal fishers, including patch refs, fringing refs, lagons, mangroves and estuaries (Rawlinson et al., 195).  Although there is not an exact boundary betwen these often complimentary and overlaping systems (Moberg and Folke, 199), this study focuses exclusively on the catch of species characterized by their life-history asociation with coral refs.  The most comon fishing gears used by Fiji’s artisanal fishers for targeting finfish include handlines, spears and an asortment of diferent sized nets.  Deris, a natural toxin localy known as duva, is also widely used. Harvesting ref-asociated invertebrates and marine plants requires a great deal of agility, skil and species-specific knowledge, colection techniques and strategies (Vunisea, 205). Because many coral ref-asociated invertebrates and plants are found in shalow water and move slowly, or not at al, the prominent invertebrate fishing technique is hand colection, also known as gleaning. Some invertebrates, such as lobsters and octopus, are caught with the aide of a stick or spear, while other species are simply picked from the ref or surounding area.  Men, women and children al take part in Fiji’s artisanal fishing activities.  Men are more likely to engage in fishing activities that require boats, take place in more distant fishing grounds and use handlines and spears to target species of finfish.  Women, on the other hand, tend to fish near the shore and on ref flats, gleaning and net fishing, while targeting shelfish, octopus, echinoderms, crabs and schols of smal finfish (Chapman, 1987). Although very litle is known about children’s contribution to Fiji’s artisanal fisheries, it is recognized that they often acompany their mothers fishing (Kronen, 204).  Fiji’s ref fisheries ocur predominantly in the country’s 41 recognized customary fishing areas, known as qoliqolis. Although the ownership of living marine resources is held by the government, each Native Fijian has the “right of usage” to the marine resources of their ancestral qoliqoli (Kunatuba, 1983). For each qoliqoli, a designated chief, or group of chiefs, regulate fishing activities and resource use. In fact, to receive an Inside Demarcated Area  23 (IDA) fishing license from Fiji’s Fisheries Department, a fisher must first get permision from the chief of the qoliqoli they wish to fish in.  Curently, the Fisheries Department reports isuing about 2,50 IDA fishing licenses per year (Anon., 198b; Anon., 206). These licenses are isued at the discrepancy of qoliqoli chiefs and the Fisheries Department, typicaly without regard for the capacity of the resource base (Sadovy and Batibasga, 206). These licenses, however, do not reflect the true number of artisanal fishers, as Native Fijians are unlikely to obtain an IDA license to fish within their ancestral qoliqoli (N. Kuridrani2, pers. com.). Rawlinson et al. (195) estimate the number of artisanal fishers, on Fiji’s main island of Viti Levu, alone, to be over 8,00.  2.2.2 Seling the catch There are a number of options with regard to whom fishers sel their catch, including middlemen, vendors or directly to consumers.  To realize higher profits, a fisher would always want to sel directly to consumers. However, given time and resource limitations, this is typicaly impractical.  Therefore, a fisher wil often utilize the services of a middleman. Reddy (204) reports that 38% of artisanal fishers in Fiji sel at least a portion of their catch to middlemen and an additional 21% sel a portion of their catch to middlemen or consumers. Unquestionably, middlemen play a significant role in linking artisanal fishers and their catch to vendors and consumers.   Domestic fish sales ocur in municipal and non-municipal market outlets throughout Fiji. Municipal markets are formal markets run by municipal authorities and tend to be in the vicinity of urban centers, while non-municipal markets are found in rural and urban setings, and include everything from roadside stals to supermarkets, fishing wharfs, butcher shops and hotels.  Consistently, a majority of domesticaly sold fish is retailed through non-municipal markets.                                                  2 N. Kuridrani is a Fisheries Oficer with the Fiji Fisheries Department.  24 2.2.3 Monitoring fish sales Observing and recording the domestic sale of finfish, invertebrates and seaweds in municipal and non-municipal markets has ben caried out by Fiji’s Fisheries Department since 197 (Gilet, 204).  The monitoring takes place in thre of the four geographic regions of Fiji; the eastern division is not monitored due to its physical remotenes and lack of perceived fish sales that ocur there.  Fish caught in the eastern division, however, are increasingly being brought to markets in urban centers, as recently established ice plants alow fish to be stored until ships visit the outer islands and can transport the them to urban centers.  In Fiji’s 1 municipal markets, designated fisheries oficers record daily market sales a total of six times every thre months; one visit for each day of the wek, excluding Sundays. Fisheries oficers spend a ful day observing one market, using data shets to record species names, total weight and seling price of al fish and invertebrates sold that day.  The data colected is then extrapolated; Monday’s data is used for every Monday in the thre-month time period, Tuesday’s data for every Tuesday, and so on.  Using this method, anual domestic fish sales and average seling prices are estimated. The same survey shets are used to record fish sales from roadside stals, of which, only around 35% are monitored (S. Singh3, pers. com.), and only once or twice per month.  Non-municipal markets, such as supermarkets, butcher shops and hotels, are typicaly visited by fisheries oficers only once per month.  At the time of visit, the previous month’s completed survey shets are picked up while blank survey shets are droped of.  The survey shets are filed in by an employe of the non-municipal market, and include information on species name, total weight and seling price.  About 25-30% of Fiji’s non-municipal markets are monitored in this way (S. Singh, pers. com.).  Data from these markets are extrapolated to, theoreticaly, acount for al non-municipal markets in Fiji.  With limited resources available within the Fisheries Department, monitoring the domestic sales of Fiji’s artisanal fisheries is far from perfect.  There is often a lack of designated                                                 3 S. Singh is a fisheries oficer with Fiji Fisheries Department.  25 transport, manpower and financial capital to reach and efectively monitor the market outlets.  Additionaly, the fisheries oficers in charge of monitoring are often contract workers that are re-contracted every year, although some have ben working as fisheries oficers for many consecutive years.  Acording to a Fiji fisheries oficer familiar with the situation, it is not uncomon for a geographic division to be mising their fisheries oficer for several weks, even months, as funding becomes available during the year’s first quarter (S. Singh, pers. com.). For example, Fiji’s northern division has recently ben without a fisheries oficer responsible for monitoring artisanal fish sales for over a year.  These shortcomings wil afect the acuracy of the monitoring program, and are taken into consideration in my estimation of the catch volume of ref-asociated species.  2.3 Methods  Two economic models for the ref-based artisanal fisheries of Fiji are developed. The first model incorporates ref-asociated finfish while the second model incorporates ref-asociated invertebrates and marine plants.  The separate models are similar in their input requirements, functionality and outputs, but each model is developed to best represent the fishing strategies and marketing transactions unique to each component of the fishery. By having separate models, I do not sugest that fishers, middlemen or vendors deal exclusively in either finfish or invertebrates, instead, this aproach is taken in order to simplify modeling the behaviors and interactions of the participants of the fisheries.  The finfish and invertebrate models rely on an asortment of sources for quantifying their input variables. Much of the data and information used is based on per-reviewed and grey literature from previous studies conducted within Fiji and the surounding South Pacific region. Personal comunications and first-hand observations are relied upon when esential information is absent from existing literature. A list of the finfish and invertebrate model variables, and their sources, can be found in Apendix C.   26 2.3.1 Fishers  Catch composition and volume For this study, I consider the portion of Fiji’s artisanal catch that consists of ref-asociated species only. There are a number of species targeted and caught by artisanal fishers that are not asociated with coral refs, for example the estuarine bivalve Anadara sp. and several species of pelagic finfish.  To determine the anual catch, I first identified al ref species caught by Fiji’s artisanal fishers.  Relying on the online databases of FishBase and SeaLifeBase, a report sumarizing Fiji’s living marine resources (Richards, 194), and Anual Reports produced by the Fiji Fisheries Department (Anon., 202; Anon., 204b), I identified 68 finfish, 31 invertebrates and 3 marine plants that are ref-asociated and are sold domesticaly throughout Fiji. The invertebrate and plant species, are categorized into 9 groups, including; sea urchins, trochus, seaweds, octopus, gastropods, crustaceans, bivalves, beche-de-mer and other.  A complete list of ref-asociated finfish, invertebrates and marine plants can be found in Apendix D.  The oficial data on the domestic sale of al finfish, invertebrate and marine plant species, as reported in the Fisheries Department’s Anual Reports, relies on extrapolating observed sales to acount for unvisited markets. The actual sales, however, are thought to be greater than the oficial extrapolation estimates (Rawlinson et al., 195).  This under-reporting is due, in part, to the insuficient human and financial resources available to the Fisheries Department. With inadequate funding, transport and manpower, monitoring domestic fish sales in markets dispersed throughout Fiji canot be caried out as formaly intended, leading to inconsistent spatial and temporal coverage of market outlets. As a result, it is estimated that the actual domestic sales of finfish, invertebrates and marine plants are 20% greater than the oficial sales volume estimates (S. Singh, pers. com.; A. Asis, pers. com.). This 20% is aplied towards estimating the domestic sales of Fiji’s coral ref species.  Individual fisher’s anual finfish catch was determined by the fishing gear used (Rawlinson et al., 195; Jenings and Polunin, 195; Dalzel et al., 196; Kuster et al., 205), the gear’s average catch per unit efort (CPUE), expresed in kilograms per person per hour (Rawlinson et al., 195; Dalzel et al., 196; Jenings and Polunin, 196; Kuster et al., 206),  27 and the hours per year spent fishing using specific gears, which is based on information on gear use frequency (Rawlinson et al., 195; Jenings and Polunin, 195; Kuster et al., 205).  Anual invertebrate catch was determined by the colection method, its coresponding CPUE (Rawlinson et al., 195; Dalzel et al., 196; Fay et al., 207) and the hours a fisher spends targeting invertebrates over the course of a year. Because of the lack of published information on invertebrate fishing, fishing hours per person per year are based on the asumption that, in most cases, invertebrate fishing is not a ful-time income earning activity.   Number of fishers The number of fishers participating in Fiji’s ref-based artisanal fisheries was asumed to be dependent on the total anual catch volume of ref-asociated finfish, invertebrates and marine plants. The rational behind this asumption is that fishers can fish only so many hours per year, and with a fixed average CPUE, can catch only so many kilograms of fish per year. As such, the larger the catch volume, the greater the number of fishers it wil take to land that volume, everything else being equal.  In Fiji’s finfish fisheries, the hours spent fishing each wek varies among individual fishers (Anon., 204a). Some fishers fish ful-time, asumed to be 35 hours per wek, on average, others fish part-time, asumed to be 12 hours per wek, on average, while most fishers likely fish somewhere betwen ful and part-time. In the results section of this paper, I present a range for the potential number of fishers involved in the fisheries. The lower limit of the range is based on the asumption that al fishers are ful-time fishers while the uper limit of the range is calculated as if al fishers were part-time fishers. The equation used to calculate the number of fishers, f, is as folows:  ! f=hCPUE"t         (2.1)  where h is catch volume and CPUE is average catch per unit efort, in kilograms per person per hour. The number of hours a fisher spends fishing in one year, t, is the only variable that changes when calculating the number of ful-time or part-time fishers.  28  Similarly, equation 2.1 was used to estimate the number of fishers it takes to land the catch volume asociated with each of the nine coral ref invertebrate groups.  With the invertebrate groups, however, there is not a fixed number of fishing hours or CPUE. Instead, each invertebrate group has a unique number of fishing hours and CPUE, which are defined by asumptions based on the literature (Dazel et al., 196; Pasfield, 197; Anon., 204a; O’Gara, 207) (se Apendix C).  Costs It is asumed that Fiji’s artisanal fishers work variable hours per day and wek, target multiple species of fish and use diferent gear types, over the course of a year. Consequently, over time, their total fishing costs difer considerably from one another. Therefore, individual fisher’s costs, as reported in this paper, are averages of the anual costs incured by al fishers, and are reported as a range depending on the fisher’s employment status as ful or part-time.  Fishing costs are clasified either as variable or fixed. Variable costs are expenses that change in proportion to the time spent fishing and the volume of fish and invertebrates caught. In this study, variable costs include operational costs and oportunity costs of labor. Operational costs incorporate costs for fishing gear, boat and engine maintenance, ice, fuel, fod, bateries, flashlights, and any other acesories used during fishing. The oportunity cost of labor is the amount foregone by chosing one option over another; in this case the wage a fisher could have received working a diferent job. As Fiji’s unemployment rate is around 7-8% (Reserve Bank of Fiji, 203), I asume employment oportunities for unskiled laborers are available.  As such, I use an oportunity cost of US$ 0.70/hour, which is reported as the Fijian wage for unskiled labor (O’Gara, 207).   The only fixed costs fishers incur are capital costs for boats and engines. Capital costs are one-time purchases of capital equipment, which continualy depreciate in value throughout their limited life span. In this study, I aply the straight-line depreciation method in order to calculate anual depreciation expenses, d, as expresed in equation 2.2.   29 ! d=cf"vsl          (2.2)  Where cf is the cost of the fixed aset and l is the life-span of the aset in years. I asume the scrap value, vs, of boats and engines to be zero.   Fishers’ costs in both the finfish and invertebrate models are estimated asuming that fishers own their boats and pay al costs asociated with fishing.  In reality, this is not always the case. It is comon for a second party to own a fishing boat and rent it to fishers or hire men to fish for them, being paid with an hourly wage or a percentage of total catch (L. Teh and N. Kuridrani, unpublished data from interviews conducted in Fiji, 208).  When a second party owns a fishing boat there wil be various financial arangements betwen boat owners and fishers with regard to paying for operational costs. For example, a boat owner wil often pay some portion of the fuel, bait, ice or gear costs prior to a fishing trip, geting reimbursed with fish upon the return of the fishers (Reddy, 204). To simplify the situation for modeling purposes, I asume that fishers own al boats used for fishing, are responsible for al fishing costs and retain al the benefits, as determined by the value of the fish they sel. I justify this aproach by asuming that fisher’s costs and net benefits would be roughly the same whether they rent or own a boat. For a list of fishing costs used in this study, and their sources, se Apendix E.  Benefits The gros benefits a fisher receives partialy depends on who they sel their fish to; middlemen, vendors, or directly to consumers.  Acording to discusions with fishers, middlemen and vendors of Fiji’s artisanal fisheries, there is an aproximately US$ 0.67 mark up, on a US$ 3.0/kg fish, betwen each step in the value chain (B. Starkhouse, personal observation). Reddy (204) confirms this when he reports that a 40% mark-up in unit price from a middleman to a consumer is typical in Fiji’s artisanal fisheries.  Given this information, I asume a fisher wil be paid 60%, 80% or 10% of a fish’s market value when seling to a middleman, vendor or consumer, respectively.   30 Fishers’ net benefits, bn, are calculated by subtracting total costs, which consist of capital costs, cc, and variable costs, cv, from gros benefits, bg.   ! bn=bg"(c+cv)           (2.3)  Net benefits, however, do not represent a fisher’s take home earnings, as net benefits are calculated by subtracting oportunity costs, among other costs, from gros benefits. Instead, value added, an economic term that expreses the diference betwen the value of gods produced and the costs of materials and suplies, known as intermediate costs (Philipson, 206), can provide a beter indication of fishers’ take-home financial benefits. Value added consists of wages, oportunity costs, profits and depreciation of capital purchases. Intermediate costs include fishing gear and suplies, fuel and oil, ice, bait, and boat and engine maintenance. Value added can be expresed in multiple ways; as a total value, as a ratio of the gros value of output (value added divided by gros market value), or as a value per tone of product sold.  2.3.2 Midlemen and vendors The methods used to derive outputs for middlemen and vendors are similar to one another and wil be described simultaneously.  Sales volume The volume of ref-asociated finfish, invertebrates and marine plants that middlemen and vendors buy and sel is dependent on the volume made available to them by individuals lower in the resources’ value chain. Literature describing the proportions of fish bought and sold amongst individuals within the fisheries’ value chain is particularly scarce.  Based on survey results from Reddy (204) and personal field observations of transactions taking place at Fiji’s fishing wharfs and markets, I asume that fishers sel betwen 25-45% of their catch to middlemen, 30-40% to vendors and 25-35% directly to consumers. Middlemen sel 10% of their catch to vendors; if a middleman sold directly to a consumer then he would no longer be considered a middleman, but a vendor.    31 Within the invertebrate model, fishers sel varying portions of their catch to middlemen, vendors and consumers, depending on the particular invertebrate group.  For example, fishers sel a majority of beche-de-mer and lobsters to middlemen and vendors (L. Teh and N. Kuridrani, unpublished data from interviews conducted in Fiji, 208), while seling a majority of seaweds, trochus meat and sea urchins directly to consumers (B. Starkhouse, personal observation).   The amount of finfish, invertebrates and plants that an individual middleman or vendor handles (buys and sels) in a year is based on the volume that a typical individual handles per day and the number of days worked per year. For example, if a middleman buys and sels, on average, 25 kg of fish per working day and works 25 days per year, they handle a total of 5,625 kg of fish per year. In the finfish and invertebrate models, the amount of fish handled by middlemen and vendors is based on personal comunication with middlemen and vendors at fishing wharfs and fish markets in Suva, Lautoka and Labasa. Se Apendix C for specific quantities regarding middlemen and vendors’ handling of fish.  Number of midlemen and vendors The number of middlemen and vendors employed through Fiji’s coral ref-based artisanal fisheries is determined by the total volume of finfish, invertebrates and marine plants available to them and the average amount an individual handles in a year. The number of middlemen and vendors is calculated using:  ! Im,v=hm,vdm,v          (2.4)  Where I is the number of individual middlemen or vendors, h is the total catch available to al middlemen or vendors anualy, and d is the volume of fish handled by an individual anualy. The subscripts m and v refer to middlemen and vendors, respectively.   Similar to the number of fishers, I present a range of the number of potential middlemen and vendors that derive income through buying and seling ref-asociated species.  The range is defined by the number of days an individual works per wek, and the weks worked  32 per year.  As with the number of fishers, the low end of the range is defined by al middlemen and vendors working ful-time, while the high end of the range is defined by al middlemen and vendors working part-time.  Costs and benefits Total costs to middlemen include the cost of buying fish, oportunity costs of labor, capital costs of owning a vehicle and transportation costs. Costs that vendors incur include the cost of buying fish, oportunity costs of labor and in some cases, the cost of using market space. The net benefits to middlemen and vendors are calculated by subtracting total costs from gros benefits. Gros benefits are determined by the quantity of fish sold. As per fishers, value added is a beter indication of take-home earnings, and is defined as the diference betwen gros benefits and intermediate costs.   2.4 Results  Some of the folowing results are presented as a range of values. In each case, one end of the range is determined as if al participants in the fisheries are working ful-time, while the other end of the range is determined as if al participants work part-time.  Furthermore, individual cost and benefit estimates are averaged acros the finfish and invertebrate models.  2.4.1 Catch volume and value Fiji’s domestic finfish sales consist of aproximately 86% ref-asociated species, by weight, and invertebrate and marine plant sales consist of aproximately 24% ref-asociated species, by weight. The remaining sales consist of primarily of pelagic and oceanodromous fish species and estuarine shelfish such as Anadara sp.  When compensating for the shortcomings and inacuracies of monitoring and recording Fiji’s domestic fish sales, the total anual catch volume of ref-asociated finfish is estimated to be 6,401 (tones) t, while ref-asociated invertebrates and marine plants contribute an additional 1,342 t. Together, ref species are estimated to have a gros market value of US$ 3.4 milion. Further, the net benefits of the fisheries are estimated to be betwen US$ 1.2 milion and US$ 12.8 milion,  33 while the fisheries’ value added contribution ranges from US$ 18.2 milion to US$ 20.1 milion. The value added ratio is estimated to range from 5% to 60% and the value added per tone of fish sold ranges from US$ 2,354 to US$ 2,601.   2.4.2 Number of participants Fiji’s ref-based artisanal fisheries provide employment for betwen 5,36-12,183 fishers, 421-842 middlemen, and 1,240-2,480 vendors (se Figure 2.1).  Figure 2.1 Estimated number of fishers, middlemen and vendors. The light grey represents the low end of the estimate range, where al participants are asumed to work ful-time, while the dark grey represent the high end of the range, where al participants are asumed to work part-time.  2.4.3 Individual costs and benefits Anual net benefits for participants of Fiji’s ref fisheries working ful-time range from US$ 1,019 to US$ 4,023, while the net benefits to individuals working part-time are betwen US$ 61 and US$ 1,637.  As mentioned earlier, value added is a beter representation of an individual’s take home earnings.  Individuals’ estimated value added is betwen US$ 2,046 and US$ 5,136 for ful-time employment and from US$ 1,084 to US$ 2,05 for part-time employment. Individuals’ anual gros benefits, net benefits and value added are shown in Table 2.1.    34 Table 2.1 Individuals’ average anual gros benefits, net benefits and value added (US$). Shown for part-time and (ful-time) employment. Participation group Gross benefits Net benefits Value aded Fishers 2,03   (4,643)  61  (1,019) 1,084  (2,046) Middlemen 1,686  (23,371) 1,569  (4,023) 2,126  (5,136) Vendors 9,731  (19,463) 1,637  (3,274) 2,05  (4,10)  The models also provide itemized cost estimates for al individual participants of the fisheries.  As an example, Figure 2.2 shows an itemization of costs and benefits for the average ful-time finfish fisher. The costs for fishing suplies, fuel for boat’s engines and the oportunity cost of labor constitute roughly 40%, 26% and 29% of al costs, respectively. Costs asociated with fishers transporting their catch to markets and the capital costs of boats and engines make up a smal percentage of a ful time finfish fisher’s anual expenses at 4% and 1%, respectively. As reported here, a finfish fisher’s capital costs for boats and engines are noticeably low. This is because costs for the average ful-time finfish fisher are presented, when not al fishers own or use boats for fishing.  Figure 2.2 Costs and benefits for an average ful-time finfish fisher.  Labor Boat and engine Fuel Transportation  Gros benefits Net benefits Value added Suplies   35 2.5 Discusion 2.5.1 Comparison with Fiji’s ofshore fisheries Profiling Fiji’s ref-asociated artisanal fisheries, at a national level, alows for a direct comparison with the country’s industrialized ofshore fishing sector. Acording to the Asian Development Bank’s Fiji Fisheries Sector Review, the 203 anual gros revenue from Fiji’s ofshore fisheries totaled roughly US$ 40 milion, in 208 dolars (Hand et al., 205). The same study reveals the ofshore fisheries have a value added ratio of 3% (value added divided by gros value) and a value added per tone of fish caught (value added divided by catch) of aproximately US$ 1,10. In comparison, I estimate that Fiji’s ref-based artisanal fisheries generate a gros market revenue of roughly US$ 3 milion, have a value added ratio of betwen 5-60%, and a value added per tone of fish caught betwen US$ 2,354-2,601. Table 2.2 sumarizes the comparison betwen Fiji’s ofshore industrial fishing sector and the artisanal ref-based fishing sector.  This comparison draws atention to the economic significance of Fiji’s artisanal fisheries, relative to the country’s highly regarded ofshore fisheries.  Although, in terms of gros value, Fiji’s ref-based artisanal fisheries, alone, are not as valuable as the country’s ofshore fisheries, the higher value added ratio and value added per tone, asociated with the ref-based artisanal fisheries, are evidence of their greater economic eficiency. This means that, for every unit of intermediate cost put towards artisanal or ofshore industrial fishing, the artisanal fisheries produces greater economic benefits. In itself, this is not surprising, as smal-scale fishers are known to operate with greater economic eficiency (McGodwin, 190; Sumaila et al., 201; Bene et al., 207).  It is important, nonetheles, because it provides por fishers income-earning oportunities that make eficient use of their limited financial resources.  In addition to having greater economic eficiency than the country’s ofshore fishing sector, Fiji’s ref-based artisanal fisheries also provide considerably more employment oportunities.  Given the smal-scale and dispersed nature of coral ref fisheries and the industrial organization of ofshore fisheries, this should not come as a surprise. Though the exact number of jobs asociated with Fiji’s ofshore fishing sector is uncertain, it is estimated  36 to provide 1,057 domestic catching and procesing jobs (Gilet et al., 201) or 50 ful-time employment equivalents (Hand et al., 205). In comparison, I estimate the number of jobs asociated with Fiji’s ref-based artisanal fisheries to be betwen 6,97 and 15,505, depending on ful-time or part-time employment. If each artisanal fisher lives in an average household (4.75 people per household, acording to the 207 National Census), the role of smal-scale fisheries to income generation and poverty aleviation is amplified, further demonstrating the importance of Fiji’s ref-based artisanal fisheries.   Table 2.2 Comparison betwen Fiji’s industrialized ofshore fisheries and artisanal ref-based fisheries.  Employment Gross value (US$) Value aded (US$) Value aded ratio (%) Value aded per tonne of fish caught (US$) Artisanal ref fisheries* 6.97-15,505 3.4 milion 18.2-20.1 milion 55-60 2,354-2,601 Industrialized ofshore fisheries* 550-1,057 40 milion 13 milion 33 1,10 *Based on this study *Based on Gilet et al., 201 and Hand et al., 205  It should be emphasized, that these comparisons feature just the ref-based artisanal fisheries and the industrialized ofshore fisheries.  Fiji’s subsistence fisheries, which are thought to contribute significantly to the catch volume and value or Fiji’s fisheries, are examined on their own in Chapter 3.  The comparisons betwen Fiji’s smal-scale, ref-based artisanal fisheries, and the country’s industrialized ofshore fisheries, help draw atention to ref fisheries nationwide economic and social significance.  Establishing ref fisheries’ importance may influence policy and decision makers within the federal government to alocate more time, as wel as financial and human resources, towards research, monitoring, management and enforcement of the country’s ref-based fisheries.   2.5.2 Contributing to future ref fisheries management One objective of creating the finfish and invertebrate models was for them to be used by stakeholders of Fiji’s ref fisheries, in particular, the Fiji Fisheries Department, to continualy  37 update and improve the acuracy of the models’ outputs. As such, the models are able to acomodate and incorporate the most recent data and information, as wel as the fisheries-related knowledge and experience of individual and group model users. The models’ input flexibility also alows model users to explore the influence that diferent inputs have on economic related fisheries outputs.  For example, a fisheries manager might adjust the models’ input variables to miic a prospective fisheries management strategy prior to its implementation.  The fisheries manager could then observe the management strategy’s impact on outputs, such as the fisheries’ employment capacity, participant’s individual incomes or value added contribution to Fiji’s economy. In this way, the models may contribute to the development of fisheries management strategies that addres the economic neds of fishers and fishing comunities.   Additionaly, the examination of existing literature, data and monitoring protocol, required for the development and operation of the finfish and invertebrate models, has helped in the identification of existing data and knowledge gaps, and may help in defining future research and data colection priorities.  For example, there is very litle existing or available information on the livelihods of middlemen and vendors, and the role they play as a link betwen resource exploitation and consumption. Similarly, it would be useful to know, from a fisher’s perspective, what percentage of their catch they sel to middlemen, vendors and consumers, and why.  Furthermore, the role of women in Fiji’s ref fisheries is largely undocumented, even though they are known to actively participate in ref fishing and gleaning (Fay et al., 207; Fay-Sauni et al., 208). In fact, the colection of ref invertebrates and plants, in general, is porly understod. As these knowledge gaps represent a significant portion of Fiji’s artisanal fisheries, it is recomended that future research and monitoring projects adjust their objectives to addres them. However, identifying knowledge gaps and urging researchers to fil them is only fuly useful if the resulting information is made widely available. To this end, I strongly encourage al entities engaged in research and monitoring to make their work publicly available, and to work colaboratively when posible.  Further recomendations relevant to future management and monitoring of Fiji’s artisanal fisheries are as folows.  First, colection of fisheries data could be improved by increasing the involvement of the participants in Fiji’s artisanal fishing sector.  Traditional resource  38 owners, who play an important role in overseing and regulating resource use within customary resource areas, should play an increased role in monitoring and recording the number of fishers and volume of catch, in regard to their qoliqoli.  Similarly, fishers, middlemen and vendors, with minimal training, could significantly contribute to fisheries data colection coverage. Providing minimal monetary compensation to genuinely interested individuals would likely increase their engagement and improve the reliability of data colected.  In this maner, the Fisheries Department could broaden and improve their coverage of Fiji’s municipal and non-municipal markets.   Second, I recomend that Fiji’s Fisheries Department shift their focus from developing smal-scale fisheries, to a more conservative management aproach.  This aproach could entail establishing a greater number of temporal and spatial limitations on fishing, and restrictions on permisible fishing gears.  As Fiji’s ref fish catches are thought to be declining (Sadovy, 205), it is important to alocate greater atention to conservation strategies to ensure refs can continualy provide fod and income security to coastal comunities (Whitingham et al., 203).  Similarly, the high value of inshore resources to livelihods and fod merits additional and consistent government funding to study, monitor and enforce the fisheries.   Third, further oportunities for adding value to products of smal-scale fishing should be explored.  Post-catch procesing such as cleaning, drying or coking may help fishers and fishing households obtain higher incomes, without actualy increasing the volume of fish being taken from ref ecosystems. Given aces to resources (financial, technical, physical, etc.) and the fredom to pursue value-adding projects, individuals may efectively increase the incomes they derive from the fisheries  To ensure that Fiji’s ref-fisheries stakeholders are able to efectively utilize the finfish and invertebrate models, and benefit from the study in general, it is important to engage the apropriate stakeholders in an informative dialogue. Such a dialogue would facilitate shared learning of Fiji’s ref fisheries, while providing a platform to discus how this work may best be integrated into, and utilized by, the Fiji Fisheries Department.   This discusion would also alow for a detailed explanation of the models’ functionality and intricacies. For these  39 reasons, it is my intention to interact with Fiji’s ref fisheries stakeholders by atending and participating in Fiji’s 209 ref-fisheries workshop.  Lastly, limited and contrasting data and information on ref-based fisheries is not unique to Fiji. Throughout the Indo-Pacific region, smal-scale fisheries are overloked by governing bodies due to dificulties in data colection and the perception that smal-scale fisheries are les economicaly important than ofshore industrial fisheries (Sadovy, 205; Zeler et al., 206). Although the models in this paper were created for Fiji, the basic model framework could be aplied to smal-scale fisheries throughout the region, as the models can operate with limited country or fisheries specific data and information.  In this way, economic modeling, such as presented in this paper, can play an important role in filing knowledge and data gaps on the economic characteristics of smal-scale fisheries, raising the profile of the fisheries in the eyes of government oficials, and helping in the development of management strategies that aim to instil economic equity and living wages among fisheries participants.  2.6 Conclusion  In this paper, I use Fiji as a case study for an economic analysis of a coral ref-based artisanal fishery. The results from this study difer from the Fisheries Department’s artisanal catch estimates and other studies asociated with Fiji’s artisanal fisheries for thre primary reasons; (1) this study focuses exclusively on ref-asociated species while omiting the portion of the artisanal catch that consist of pelagic and estuarine species, (2) this study provides cost, benefit and employment numbers while diferentiating betwen fishers, middlemen and vendors, and (3) this study takes into consideration the deficiencies in monitoring domestic fish sales caused, in part, by inadequate funding, transport and manpower.   Comparing the economic and employment figures of the ref-asociated artisanal fisheries with the respective figures for Fiji’s industrialized ofshore fisheries reveals thre important points; (1) the ref-based artisanal fisheries generate gros revenues similar to the industrial fisheries, (2) the ref-based fisheries apear to operate with greater economic eficiency than  40 the ofshore fisheries, and (3) many more people are able to derive income by participating in the artisanal fisheries, as aposed to the industrial fisheries.  As such, the estimates generated in this study may help ref fisheries gain apropriate recognition for their contributions to the country’s economy and employment.  Lastly, the models for this study were developed to be used by Fiji’s Fisheries Department as a cost and time efective way to generate preliminary and recurent nationwide estimates on the economic values asociated with Fiji’s ref-based fisheries. It is expected that a more complete understanding of Fiji’s ref fisheries, in addition to an enhanced apreciation for their economic and social importance, wil help promote a greater comitment of time and resources from government level policy-makers and fisheries managers for research, monitoring, management and enforcement of coral ref-asociated fisheries.  41 2.7 References  Aalbersberg, B., Tawake, A., and Paras, T.  205.  Vilage by Vilage: Recovering Fiji’s coastal fisheries. In The Wealth of the Por: Managing ecosystems to fight poverty. United Nations Development Programe, United Nations Environment Programe, The World Bank, World Resources Institute.   Anon., undated. Vilage surveys. Fiji Bureau of Statistics.  Anon., 198a. Fiji Islands’ Employment Survey. Fiji Bureau of Statistics.  Anon., 198b. Fiji Fisheries Department: Anual Report. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests, 47 p.  Anon., 202. Fiji Fisheries Department: Anual report. Ministry of Fisheries and Forestry, 49 p.  Anon., 204a.  DemEcoFish Project: Final report.  Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity, Ref Fisheries Observatory, and the Institut de Recherche pour le Dévelopement, 135 p.  Anon., 204b. Fiji Fisheries Department: Anual Report. Ministry of Fisheries and Forestry, 46 p.  Anon., 206.  Ref fisheries: Now and for the future.  Workshop report, Fiji Fisheries Research Division and the Society for the Conservation of Ref Fish Agregations.  Bene, C., Macfadyen, G. and Alison, E.H., 207. Increasing the contribution of smal-scale fisheries to poverty aleviation and fod security. Fod and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Fisheries Technical Paper 481, 140 p.  Berkes, F., 198. Subsistence fishing in Canada: a note on terminology. Arctic, 41(4): 319–20.  42    Central Inteligence Agency, 207. The World Factbok - Fiji. Available at htps://ww.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbok/print/fj.html. Acesed July 208.  Chapman, M.D., 1987. Women’s fishing in Oceania. Human Ecology, 15 (3): 267–28.  Conel, J.H., 1978.  Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral refs.  Science, 19: 1302-1310.   Dalzel, P., Adams, T.J.H. and Polunin, N.V.C.,  196.  Coastal Fisheries in the Pacific Islands. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Anual Review, 34: 395-531.  Fay-Sauni, L., Vuki, V. and Rokosawa, M., 208.  Women’s subsistence fishing suports rural households in Fiji: A case study of Nadoria, Viti Levu, Fiji. In the Women in Fisheries Buletin, 18. Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity.  FishBase. htp://ww.fishbase.org/search.php. Acesed January 208.  Gilet, R., M. McCoy, L. Rodwel, and J. Tamate. 201. Tuna: A Key Economic Resource in the Pacific. Manila: Asian Development Bank, 103 p.  Gilet, R., 204. Inshore fisheries in Fiji: Some important questions on curent strategies for development and management. Asian Development Bank.  Gilet, R. and Lightfot, C., 201. The Contribution of Fisheries to the Economies of Pacific Island Countries. Asian Development Bank, Forum Fisheries Agency and the World Bank, 242 p.  Hand, T., Davis, D. and Gilet, R., 205.  Republic of the Fiji Islands: Fisheries sector review. Technical Asistance Consultant’s Report, Asian Development Bank, 95 p.   43 Iwakiri, S., and Ram, V. 1984. An introductory study of the socio-economic aspects of household fisheries in the smal islands economies of the South Pacific. Kagoshima University Research Center for the South Pacific, 53-65  Jenings S. and Polunin, N.V.C., 195. Comparative size and composition of yield from six Fijian ref fisheries. Journal of Fish Biology, 46: 28-46.  Jenings, S. and Polunin, N.V.C., 196.  Fishing strategies, fishery development and socioeconomics in traditionaly managed Fijian fishing grounds. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 3: 35-347.  Kronen, M., 204. Alu toutai -Na laki qoli - Fun or duty: Schol children’s involvement in subsistence fisheries in Tonga and Fiji. Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity Women in Fisheries Information Buletin: 14.   Kunatuba, P., 1983. Traditional knowledge of the marine environment in Fiji. A report on the traditional fisheries of Fiji. European Economic Comunity.  Kuiter, R.H. and Tonozuka, T., 201. Pictorial guide to Indonesian ref fishes. Part 3. Jawfishes - Sunfishes, Opistognathidae - Molidae. Zonetics, Australia, 623-893.  Kuster, C., Vuki, V.C. and Zan, L.P., 205.  Long-term trends in subsistence fishing paterns and coral ref fisheries yield from a remote Fijian island.  Fisheries Research, 76: 221-28.  Kuster, C., Vuki, V.C. and Zan, L.P., 206.  Validation of the acuracy of household reporting of subsistence fishing catch and efort: A Fijian case study. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 13: 17-184.  Mahon, R., 197.  Does fisheries science serve the neds of managers of smal stocks in developing countries? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54: 207-213.   44 McGodwin, J.R., 190. Crisis in the world's fisheries: people, problems, and policies. Stanford University Pres, 235 p.  Moberg, F. and Folke, C., 199. Ecological gods and services of coral ref ecosystems. Ecological Economics, 29: 215–23.  Munroe, J.L., 196.  The scope of tropical fisheries and their management.  In: Polunin, N.V.C., and Roberts, C.M. (Eds). Ref fisheries. Chapman and Hal, London, UK, p 1-14.  Myers, R.F., 191. Micronesian ref fishes. Second Ed. Coral Graphics, Barigada, Guam, 298 p.  O’Gara, T., 207. Estimating the total economic value of the Navakavu LMA (Localy Managed Marine Area) in Viti Levu island, Fiji.  Coral Ref Initiatives for the Pacific, Component 2A, Project 2A2, 140 p.  Pasfield, K., 194. An asesment of the monetary value of the subsistence and smal scale comercial coastal fishery in Fiji: A case study of vilages in Verata, Tailevu Province, Viti Levu. Traditional Marine Tenure and Sustainable Management of Marine Resources in Asia and the Pacific, Procedings of the International Workshop, USP, Suva, p 208-215.  Philipson, P.W., 206.  An asesment of development options in the longline fishery. Development of tuna fisheries in the Pacific ACP countries (DEVFISH) Project.   Rawlinson, N.J.F., Milton, D.A., Blaber, S.J.M., Sesewa, A. and Sharma, S.P., 195. A survey of the subsistence and artisanal fisheries in rural areas of Viti Levu, Fiji.  The Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), 126 p.  Reddy, M., 204. Economic analysis of artisanal fisheries in Fiji: Isues of profitability and sustainability. South Pacific Studies, 25 (1): 35-48.    45 Reddy, M., 206.  Technical eficiency in artisanal fisheries: evidence from a developing country. Working paper 8, University of the South Pacific Schol of Economics.  Reserve Bank of Fiji, 203. Economic focus: Types of unemployment.   Reserve Bank of Fiji, 208. Quarterly Review.   Richards A., 194. Fiji Fisheries Resources Profiles. South Pacific Fisheries Forum Agency, 231 p.   Roxburgh, T. and Spurgeon, J., 205.  Enhancing the role of economic valuation in coral ref management. Submited for the International Coral Ref Initiative, general meting.   Ruddle, K., Hviding, E. and Johanes, R.E., 192.  Marine resources management in the context of customary tenure. Marine Resource Economics, 7: 249-273.  Sadovy, Y., 205. Trouble on the ref: the imperative for managing vulnerable and valuable fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 6: 167-185.  Sadovy, Y. and Batibasaga, A., 206. Ref fisheries workshop held in Fiji. Live Ref Fish Information Buletin, 16, Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity.  Salvat, B., 1980. The living marine resources of the south Pacific: Past present and future. In Population-Environment Relations in Tropical Islands: The Case of Eastern Fiji, p 131-148. Paris: UNESCO.  Salvat, B., 192.  Coral refs: A chalenging ecosystem for human societies.  Global Environmental Change, 2: 12-18.  SeaLifeBase. htp://fishbase.sinica.edu.tw/SLP/search.php. Last acesed January 208   46 Spalding, M.D. and Grenfel, A.M., 197. New estimates of global and regional coral ref areas. Coral Refs, 16: 25-230.   Spalding, M. D., Ravilious, C. and Gren, E. P., 201.  World Atlas of Coral Refs. University of California Pres, Berkeley, 434 p.  Sumaila, U.R., Liu, Y. and Tyedmers, P., 201. Smal versus large-scale fishing operations in the North Atlantic. In: Pitcher, T.J., Sumaila, U.R., Pauly, D. (Eds.). Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Evaluations and Policy Explorations. Fisheries Centre Research Report 9(5), p. 25–34.  Veitayaki, J., 193.  Vilage-level fishing in the Pacific.  In: South, G.R. (Ed.), Marine Resources and Development. The Ray Parkinson Memorial Lectures. PIMRIS, University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji, p. 73-97.  Veitayaki, J., 200. Fisheries resource-use culture in Fiji and its implications. In Culture and sustainable development in the Pacific. Asian Pres at the Australian National University.   Veitayaki, J., Navuku, S. and Bidesi, V.R., 206. Report on the final evaluation of the coastal fisheries development asistance project on northeast Macuata Province, Fiji. Overseas Fisheries Coperative Foundation and the Ministry of Fisheries and Forestry of the Republic of Fiji, 79 p.  Vuki, V., Naqasima, M. and Vave, R., 200. Status of Fiji’s coral refs. Global Coral Ref Monitoring Network (GCRMN) Report, 16 p.  Vunisea, A., 204. The chalenges of seafod marketing in Fiji.  Women in Fisheries Information Buletin, 14, Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity.  Vunisea, A., 205. Women’s changing roles in the subsistence fishing sector in Fiji. In: Novaczek, I., Mitchel, J. and Veitayaki, J. (Eds.). Pacific voices: equity and sustainability in  47 Pacific Island fisheries. Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, Suva, p. 88-105.   Whitingham, E., Campbel, J., and Townsley, P., 203.  Poverty and refs: A global overview. DFID–IM–IOC/UNESCO, 260 p.  Zan, L.P., 1981. Fiji’s artisanal fisheries and fishing vesels: recomendations in development and training. USP/IMR Misc.Rep.83/1. Institute of Marine Resources, The University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji, 35 p.  Zan, L.P., Vuki, V.C., 200.  The status and management of subsistence fisheries in the South Pacific. Ocean Yearbok No. 14. The International Ocean Institute, The University of Chicago Pres.  Zeler, D., Both, D. and Pauly, D., 206.  Fisheries contribution to the gros domestic product: underestimating smal-scale fisheries in the Pacific. Marine Resource Economics, 21: 35–374.   48  Chapter 3  The Subsistence Fisheries of Fiji: Estimating Catch Volume and Value4  3.1 Introduction  Virtualy every coastal vilage in the Pacific islands is involved in subsistence fishing activities (Gilet, 200).  As such, subsistence fisheries play an important role in regional fod security, social networking and subsistence economies (Kronen, 204a; Bel et al., 208; King and Lambeth, 200). Despite their importance, there is litle formal published information on subsistence fisheries that can be used to guide coastal fisheries development, management or conservation (Veitayaki and Noaczek, 203).   The comon argument is that subsistence fisheries are dificult to quantify, due to their wide geographic dispersal and their low dependence on established infrastructure (Schuman & Macinko, 207). Additionaly, governing agencies distributing limited federal resources for fisheries management, monitoring and research often overlok subsistence fisheries, focusing instead on semingly more valuable, industrial-scale fisheries targeting large stocks of pelagic and oceanodromus fish species (Mahon, 197). As evidence of governments’ failure to properly acknowledge subsistence fishing, only one Pacific island country, Tonga, has even defined subsistence fishing in legislation (Gilet, 205). Consequently, subsistence landings are frequently underestimated or mising entirely from national statistics (World                                                 4 A version of the chapter wil be submited for publication.  Starkhouse, B.A., Teh, L.C., Teh, L.S., Zeler, D. and Sumaila, U.R.  The subsistence fisheries of Fiji: estimating catch volume and value.  49 Bank, 200).  As subsistence catches are often substantial compared to artisanal and comercial fishing sectors (Dalzel et al., 196), omiting them leads to a potentialy substantial underestimation of the overal fisheries catch and creates a misleading picture about the state of the fisheries resources. A limited understanding of subsistence catch, in turn, may lead to undervaluing the resource’s contribution to a country’s total economic production (Zeler et al., 206).  In this study, I argue that the magnitude and value of subsistence catches can be reasonably estimated with litle or no suplemental field data colection required. This aproach is neither data-intensive nor technicaly chalenging, and can be completed relatively quickly. Therefore, it is useful where limited funds and technical expertise might be an obstacle towards quantifying the landings of subsistence fisheries. I aply this aproach to estimating the subsistence fisheries catch for Fiji, a Pacific island country where coastal comunities have traditionaly relied on inshore marine resources for the majority of their animal protein (Salvat, 1980).   3.2 Background  3.2.1 Subsistence fishing Although no universaly acepted definition of subsistence fishing exists, the term is typicaly used to describe local, smal-scale fisheries oriented to the procurement of fish for consumption by the fishers, their families, and the comunity (Berkes, 198).  Adding sustenance to the term, Schuman and Macinko (207) cite Polanyi (1957) in describing a subsistence economy as revolving around a matrix of social relations that typicaly include reciprocity (an individual makes a gift to another with the expectation that he wil later receive one), redistribution (gods are delivered to a central figure to be alocated among members of a comunity) and householding (families produce for their own consumption).  For this study, subsistence fishing refers to any fishing activity that results in the catch being eaten by the fisher or their family, or given away or bartered to friends and neighbours. As  50 such, subsistence catch is not just the product of subsistence fishers. Smal-scale comercial fishers, whose main focus is to sel their catch, often kep a portion of it for personal or family consumption.  Therefore, both artisanal and subsistence fishers contribute to subsistence catch. In this study, any catch, or portion of catch, that does not enter markets driven by monetary exchange, is regarded as subsistence catch.  The role of coral ref ecosystems in fod security and livelihod provision, for coastal comunities, canot be understated. Coral refs are estimated to contribute betwen 5-10% of global marine fisheries landings (Whitingham et al., 203), while providing fod for milions of people around the world (Munro, 196). In Pacific island countries, coral ref fisheries are characterized by a strong predominance of fishing for subsistence purposes (Labrose et al., 206), with an estimated 80% of coastal fisheries catch consumed directly by the fisher and their comunities (Adams et al., 195). Given the importance of coral refs in subsistence fisheries, I use this study to report results for Fiji’s total subsistence catch and, separately, Fiji’s ref-asociated subsistence catch. Total subsistence catch consists of coral ref species as wel as fish and invertebrate species more closely related with estuarine or pelagic environments, while ref-asociated subsistence catch consists exclusively of coral ref species, as identified using FishBase and SeaLifeBase.   3.2.2 Subsistence fishing in Fiji  Characteristics Subsistence fishing ocurs extensively throughout Fiji, taking place predominantly in the area betwen the shoreline and the outer slope of barier and fringing refs. This inshore area encompases a number of productive fishing habitats that are utilized by Fiji’s subsistence fishers, including patch refs, fringing refs, lagons, mangroves and estuaries (Rawlinson et al., 195).  Finfish families typicaly consumed for subsistence include Lethrinidae, Scombridae, Labridae and Acanthuridae (Jenings and Polunin, 195), while invertebrate harvests include species of sea urchin, mud crabs, sea cucumber, octopus, and many species of bivalves such as the estuarine shelfish, Anadara sp. (Fay et al., 207).  Around 5% of  51 fishers are reported to fish on the ocean side of fringing refs and in distant fishing grounds, targeting both finfish and invertebrates (Rawlinson et al., 195).  Fijian fishers, like many other Pacific islanders, have tremendous fishing knowledge (Veitayaki, 205). They use a number of fishing and colection techniques that demonstrate their extensive and sophisticated understanding of the behaviors of marine species and the habitats in which they are found (Veitayaki, 195).  Many subsistence fishing activities are asociated with fishing lore, skils and traditional institutions that have ben established over many years and pased down through generations (Vunisea, 205). The gears employed by Fiji’s subsistence fishers include many forms of hok and lines, nets, spears, traps and poisons.   Men, women and children al actively participate in Fiji’s subsistence fisheries, albeit in diferent capacities.  Generaly, men make use of hand lines and spears to target finfish, often using boats or canoes to reach otherwise inacesible fishing grounds. Women, on the other hand, tend to fish near the shore and upon ref tops, gleaning and net fishing, while targeting shelfish, octopus, echinoderms, crabs, other invertebrates and schols of smal finfish (Chapman, 1987). Although it has ben shown that women acount for more than 50% of subsistence catch (Rawlinson et al., 195), many studies do not acknowledge their involvement (Vunisea, 205).  The role of children as subsistence fishers has also largely ben overloked. One study in rural Fijian fishing vilages, however, reports that children are actively involved in subsistence fishing and can make meaningful contributions to catch (Kronen, 204b).  As rural comunities become more monetized and aces to market outlets improve, both men and women are increasingly apt to sel a portion of their catch.   The total number of subsistence fishers in Fiji is esentialy unknown. Estimates exist, but are based on broad asumptions of fishing activity and vary considerably.  The Asian Development Bank (ADB) provides an estimate for the number of ful-time fisher equivalents in Fiji, claiming 3,00 (Hand et al., 205). However, the ADB report does not define what a ful-time equivalent is.  The United Nation’s Fod and Agricultural Organization estimate that there are 30,00 subsistence fishers in Fiji, (FAO, 208), and the Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity claims that half of al rural households partake in some  52 form of subsistence fishing (SPC, 208). Viser (197) estimates there were 64,50 ful-time, part-time or ocasional fishers in Fiji in 194, without diferentiating betwen the fishers’ involvement as comercial, artisanal and subsistence.  As no nation-wide study of subsistence fishing has taken place in Fiji in nearly 30 years, it is unclear how acurate these estimates are.  Past atempts at estimating Fiji’s subsistence catch Prior to 1978, very litle was known about the scope and magnitude of subsistence fishing activities in Fiji.  Regardles, the Fiji Fisheries Department estimated anual subsistence catch to be around 2,50 tones (t) (Anon., 1978). This estimate was based primarily on information atained through informal discusions with a few Fisheries Officers familiar with subsistence fishing in various areas throughout Fiji.   An improved subsistence catch estimate was atained through a 1978/79 survey that the Fiji Fisheries Department administered to 62 out of 850  (7%) Fijian coastal vilages.  By interviewing one representative per vilage, the survey produced estimates on the mean catch per vilage per month for each province in Fiji.  This province-specific catch average was then multiplied by the number of vilages in each province to get an estimate for subsistence catch per province per month. From here, each estimate was extrapolated to one year and al provinces were agregated to give a nation-wide subsistence catch estimate, which turned out to be 13,826 t for 1979 (Anon., 1979).  While the 1978/79 survey provided a greatly improved estimate of Fiji’s subsistence catch, it was only meant to be a working figure (Anon., 1981) and its limitations have ben widely recognized (Anon, 1979; Cok, 1986; Hand et al., 205). Taking a closer lok at the survey’s methodology reveals some methodological shortcomings. For example, the survey relies on a single individual in each vilage to recal the entire vilage’s subsistence catch for the previous month. As such, the subsistence catch estimate for the entire country depends on the subjective opinion of a handful of individuals and their ability to recal 30 days of seafod consumption for dozens of households and scores of individuals.   53 Another problematic aspect of the 1978/79 survey is that it was administered in two parts, over two years: part one in 1978 and part two in 1979. If the two parts of the survey are used independently to estimate total subsistence catch for the whole country, part one results in 4,095 t per year, while part two results in 23,437 t per year (Anon., 1979). There are at least thre posible explanations for this discrepancy; (1) how the informants were asked to report their vilage’s catch, (2) the seasonality of important subsistence species, and (3) the two parts of the survey covering areas of Fiji that have very diferent subsistence activities. Further explanation is as folows.  Acording to the survey’s results, catch per vilage per month was expresed as a single figure in part one of the survey, while, in part two of the survey, the interviewe was asked to recal catch per species per fisher per day, and to extrapolate these figures to estimate the vilage’s monthly subsistence catch. The data colection technique used in the second part of the survey requires a series of multiplications to arive at the final figure, which is believed to contribute to an overestimation of subsistence catch (Anon., 1979).  The catch of certain species targeted by Fiji’s subsistence fishers, and by fishers throughout the Pacific, is known to be seasonal (O’Gara, 207).  As the 1978/79 survey was administered over a long time period, it is posible that the two parts captured diferent ‘seasons’ of subsistence fishing activity. Acordingly, the mean number of fishing days per month resulting from part one and two of the survey are 14.5 and 2.8, respectively, while the mean catch per vilage per month is 517 kg and 2,313 kg, for part one and two of the survey, respectively (Anon., 1979).  These discrepancies substantialy contribute to the diference in the estimated catch per month for the survey’s two parts and may be a result of fishing seasonalities.  Last, part one and two of the subsistence catch survey were administered in diferent provinces. It is posible that the vilages visited in the first part of the survey are les reliant on subsistence fishing than the vilages in the second part of the survey.   Regardles of the 1978/79 survey’s limitations, it forms the base of Fiji’s curent oficial subsistence catch estimate. In order to derive each additional year’s subsistence catch, the  54 Fisheries Department adds 20 t to the previous years total, in order to corect for population growth (refer to Apendix B).  Though not yet reported in the Fisheries Department’s Anual Reports, a catch estimate generated using this method would result in a subsistence catch of 19,60 t for 208.  Although the 1978/79 survey is used for the oficial subsistence catch estimate, there have ben other, more recent surveys and estimates. In 1987, the Fisheries Department planed a subsistence fisheries survey that addresed many of the shortcomings of the 1978/79 survey. A detailed plan of the 1987 survey can be found in Cok (1986), and although the survey was completed, for unknown reasons the results were never made available or used to revise the 1978/79 subsistence catch estimate.  Acording to Anon. (191), another subsistence fisheries survey was planed for 192; however, there is no evidence the survey was ever administered.  Other estimates of Fiji’s subsistence catch include Zan and Vuki (198) 17,00 t, the World Bank (200) 18,057 t, and Gilet and Lightfot (201) 21,60 t. These estimates, however, are largely based on the Fisheries Department’s oficial catch estimate figure.  Perhaps the most comprehensive aproach to estimating Fiji’s subsistence catch was undertaken by Rawlinson et al. (195).  However, their estimate was only for Fiji’s main island of Viti Levu. In their study, subsistence catch was estimated to be 3,515 t per year. Rawlinson et al.’s study, highly regarded for its thoroughnes, was intended to revise the methods used to determine the oficial subsistence catch estimate for the entire country, but this has never ocured.   The contribution of invertebrates to Fiji’s subsistence catch is not addresed in most subsistence catch estimates, likely a result of insuficient information on the role of women fishers, and the colection of invertebrates in general.  Only the World Bank’s subsistence catch estimate diferentiates betwen finfish and invertebrates, with finfish contributing 1,015 t per year and invertebrates 7,042 t per year (World Bank, 200). In this study, the split betwen finfish and invertebrates is done using the same ratio as the split betwen the recorded domestic sale of finfish and invertebrates for a given year.   55 3.3 Methods  The catch volume and value of Fiji’s subsistence fishing sector is calculated using a Monte Carlo model. Inputs for the model are obtained from field interviews5 and from per-reviewed and grey literature.  3.3.1 Interviews To obtain information about subsistence fishing activities at the vilage level, 47 interviews were conducted from May to June 208 in 12 vilages in Viti Levu, Yasawa Islands, Kadavu, and Vanua Levu. Relevant interview data for the model pertained to catch rates and fishing frequency. Interviews were conducted at vilages made up mainly of artisanal fishers as wel as at vilages where people fished primarily for subsistence. From this coverage of fishers with varying fishing priorities, a more representative picture of the range of subsistence fishing activities was established.  3.3.2 Subsistence catch model Microsoft Excel was used to run a Monte Carlo simulation routine to estimate the anual volume and value of Fiji’s subsistence catch. Monte Carlo is a sampling method which uses repeated random sampling to compute results when there is uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the inputs of the system being modeled, in this case the system being Fiji’s subsistence fishery. The simulation involved sampling 10,00 random draws, from a designated range for each input variable, asuming a triangle distribution within each range. Data for these input variables were gathered from interviews and from the literature.  3.3.3 Model inputs and calculations  Subsistence catch volume Total anual subsistence catch, catch, was calculated as folows:                                                  5 Interviews were conducted by L.C.L Teh, L.S.L. Teh and N. Kuridrani.  56 ! catch=fishers"CPUE"freq"wks        (3.1)  Where fishers is the number of fishers that retain some portion of their catch for subsistence purposes, CPUE is the catch per unit efort (kg per trip), freq is the wekly fishing frequency (trips per wek), and wks is the number of fishing weks per year. This calculation is used to determine the contribution of both subsistence and artisanal fishers to Fiji’s anual subsistence catch. I elaborate on the derivation of these input variables in the folowing sub-sections.  Number of fishers The total number of fishers that kep a portion of their catch for subsistence purposes consists of Native Fijian and Indo-Fiji artisanal and subsistence fishers. To estimate the total number of fishers, I used two separate aproaches.  The first aproach is based on data sourced from the literature, and is calculated independently from the Monte Carlo model. The second aproach is calculated within the model, and incorporates data from the literature, as wel as data from field interviews.  The two estimates define the uper and lower bounds for the number of artisanal and subsistence fishers used in the Monte Carlo model.   Approach 1: Literature based In this aproach, I calculated the number of fishers living in rural areas only, as done in Rawlinson et al.’s (195) socio-economic survey of subsistence and artisanal fishing on Fiji’s main island of Viti Levu. Acordingly, the estimated number of fishers was calculated by multiplying the number of rural households in Fiji by the percentage of rural households that engage in subsistence or artisanal fishing. The resulting number of subsistence and artisanal fishing households was then multiplied by the number of subsistence and artisanal fishers per fishing household that fish at least once per wek. To sumarize, the number of fishers was calculated as folows:  ! fishers1=ruralhouseholds"%fishinghouseholds"fishersperfishinghousehold  (3.2)   57 The total number of rural Fijian households, acording to Fiji’s 207 Population Census, is 84,157 (Anon., 207).  Artisanal and subsistence fishing households as a percentage of al rural households, and the number of subsistence and artisanal fishers per artisanal and subsistence fishing household, are based on survey results from Rawlinson et al., (195). The calculated number of fishers is inclusive of both finfish and invertebrate fishers, since Rawlinson et al.’s (195) survey includes women and children, who generaly undertake subsistence gleaning.  The calculated number of fishers is also inclusive of Indo Fijian fishers, as this survey diferentiates betwen Native Fijian and Indo-Fijian fishers.  A sumary of the data used to calculate the number of fishers in aproach 1 is shown in Table 3.1.  Table 3.1 Sumary of data used to calculate the number of fishers in Fiji (Based on Rawlinson et al., 195).  Fishing households as a % of rural households Number of rural fishing households Average number of fishers per fishing household  Native Fijian Indo-Fijian Native Fijian Indo-Fijian Native Fijian Indo- Fijian Artisanal 37 5 20,45 1,514 1.54 1.3 Subsistence 48 24 25,37 8,080 1.12 0.21  Approach 2: Literature and field based In the second aproach, the total number of fishers that kep a portion of their catch for subsistence purposes (fishers2) is determined by first calculating the total number of Native Fijian fishers (fishersFIJ), as folows:  ! fishersFIJ=CV"HH"%F"HHF          (3.3)  Where CV is the number of coastal vilages, HH is the number of households per vilage, %F is the proportion of households that fish for subsistence, and HF is the number of people per fishing household who fish.  An important point to note is that ‘vilages’ are inhabited by Native Fijians only, whereas Indo-Fijians live in ‘setlements’. Therefore, only Native Fijian fishers are acounted for in coastal vilages.   58 Computation of CV was determined as folows:  There are 850 coastal vilages in Fiji (Anon., 1978). I made the asumption that some degre of subsistence fishing takes place in al coastal vilages, but at varying levels. I then diferentiated betwen coastal vilages that are removed from urban markets, for example vilages in Yasawa, Lau, and parts of Kadavu, which I refer to as remote areas (RA), and coastal vilages that are close to, or have established links to comercial markets, which I refer to as market acesible areas (AA).  Coastal vilages were then further diferentiated by the presence or absence of employment other than fishing. In vilages that are removed from ajor markets and lack income earning oportunities (RA), I asume that most households fish for subsistence purposes, with exces fish sometimes being sold within the vilage or shared. In such situations, the proportion of households that engage in fishing is high. Likewise, the proportion of fishing households is high in vilages where artisanal fishing is the main source of income. Such vilages lack alternative employment in the imediate vicinity, but are close to urban markets or have a method of acesing markets regularly. I refer to these vilages as AAart. Finaly, in vilages close to urban markets where other sectors, such as tourism or agriculture, provide the major source of income, I made the asumption that the proportion of households that engage in fishing is low, and that fishing is undertaken for subsistence purposes only. I denote these vilages as AAsub. Therefore,  ! CV=CVRA+CVAAart+CVAAsub         (3.4)  where CVRA and CVAAsub are coastal vilages dominated by subsistence fishers, and CVAart refers to coastal vilages where fishing is primarily artisanal.  HH ranges betwen 8-50, and is taken from the average number of households at the vilage level, as recorded in the 1986 Smal Area Enumeration Data (Anon., 1989). HHF ranges betwen 1.1 to 2.4 fishers per fishing household (L. Teh and N. Kuridrani, unpublished data based on interviews conducted in Fiji, 208), and represents total gleaners and finfish fishers, including men, women and children, who partake in subsistence fishing.   59 The model utilizes two values for the percentage of households that fish for subsistence use (%F), depending on the presence of alternative employment as described above. %Fhi ranges from 40% to 96% (Rawlinson et al., 195; Kuster et al., 205), and is aplied to CVRA and CVAAart. %Flow is defined by a lower limit of 12% and an uper limit of 58% (Rawlinson et al., 195), and is aplied to CVAAsub.  Finaly, I acounted for subsistence and artisanal Indo-Fijian fishers (fishersIND) by aplying a ratio of Indo-Fijian to Native Fijian fishers. The percentage of Indo-Fijian fishers (IND) ranges from 6% (Rawlinson et al., 195) to 20% (N. Kuridani6, pers. com.) of the total fisher population.   The total number of fishers who kep a portion of catch for subsistence use is thus:  ! fishers2=fishersFIJ+fishersIND;        (3.6)  where ! fishersFIJ=HH"HHF%Fhi"CVRA( )+%Fhi"CVAAart( )+%Flow"CVAAsub( )[ ];  (3.7)  and  ! fishersIND=fishersFIJ1"IND"fishersFIJ       (3.8)  Catch rate Catch per fishing trip was split by artisanal catch (CPUE art), and subsistence catch (CPUEsub). I estimated these inputs from fishers’ interview responses. Responses for finfish catches were given either as a) bundles of fish; b) numbers of fish; or c) kilograms of cleaned fish. Each bundle of fish consisted of 2 to 18 fish, depending on the size and species of fish being sold, which was specified during interviews. The weight (kg) of fish was obtained by using the weight-length relationship formula W=aLb (Kulbicki et al., 193) to convert the number and size of fish to weight. For responses given in kilograms of cleaned fish, I used a cleaned to uncleaned ratio of 0.9 to acount for the removal of inards (L. Teh and N. Kuridrani, unpublished data based on interviews conducted in Fiji, 208).                                                 6 N. Kuridrani is a Fisheries Officer for the Fiji Fisheries Department.  60 Subsistence catches of finfish and invertebrates per subsistence fisher ranged from 1.5 to 7 kg per trip (CPUEsub). Subsistence catches of finfish and invertebrates by artisanal fishers (CPUEart) ranged from 1 to 1.8 kg per trip (L.Teh and N. Kuridrani, unpublished data based on interviews conducted in Fiji, 208).  Fishing frequency Fishing frequency was estimated from fishers’ interview responses, and was also split betwen subsistence (freqsub) and artisanal (freqart) sectors. The mean number of fishing trips taken by subsistence fishers averaged 2.2 per wek, with a range of 2 to 3. This frequency is aplied to RA and AAsub households. Artisanal fishers fished at a higher intensity, with a mean number of 3.8 trips per wek, ranging from 3 to 5 trips per wek. This value is aplied to AAart households. Saturdays are usualy set aside for subsistence fishing in preparation for the Sunday meal. Over a one-year period, the number of fishing weks (wks) for al fishers was estimated to range from 35 to 50 weks. This estimate is based on time taken of for factors like bad weather, gear maintenance, tending crops, or sicknes, as sugested by an experienced Fisheries Department field oficer (S. Batibasaga7, pers. com.).  Invertebrate catch as a percentage of total subsistence catch Fiji’s subsistence catch consists of finfish and invertebrates.  Upon calculating the total subsistence catch, invertebrate catch was determined acording to an input variable defined by invertebrates’ contribution to total subsistence catch.  This variable (invert) ranges from 24% to 39% and is based on two sources; the Fiji Fisheries Department’s Anual Reports on the domestic sale of finfish and invertebrates (Anon., 204), and on subsistence catch surveys administered in remote Fijian islands, as reported in Kuster et al. (205).  Ref-asociated subsistence catch Acording to Anual Reports compiled by the Fiji Fisheries Department, there are 123 species of finfish and 41 species of invertebrates sold in domestic markets, as identified by their Fijian name (Anon., 204). Using the Fisheries Department’s data, I categorized each species as ref-asociated or non ref-asociated, acording to information from the online,                                                 7 S. Batibasaga is an extension Fisheries Officer for the Fiji Fisheries Department.  61 per-reviewed databases of FishBase and SeaLife Base, and a report comisioned by the Forum Fisheries Agency titled Fiji Fisheries Resources Profiles (Richards, 194). Upon analysis, ref-asociated finfish and invertebrate species were found to comprise aproximately 86% and 24%, by weight, of al domestic finfish and invertebrate sales, respectively. I aplied this information to ref-asociated finfish (refff) and ref-asociated invertebrate (refinv) input variables. Because the exact ratio of ref and non-ref species utilized for subsistence and artisanal purposes likely difers, I define the range of the refff and refinv input variables with a ± 5% deviation from the calculated ref-asociated finfish and invertebrate percentages.  The number of total fishers neded to land Fiji’s ref-asociated subsistence catch was also calculated. The folowing equation was used:  ! reeffishers=reefcatchcatchperfisher        (3.8)  where ref catch is catch per year, and catch per fisher is the calculated anual catch per fisher for al subsistence fishing activity.  Subsistence catch valuation The gros value of Fiji’s total subsistence catch and ref-asociated subsistence catch was determined by multiplying the finfish and invertebrate catch volumes by the artisanal fisheries’ average ex-vesel price.  An ex-vesel price is defined as the price that fishers receive when they sel their catch straight of the boat (Sumaila et al., 207), which, in this study, is estimated to be 60% of market price, as sugested in Reddy (204). Utilizing data colected by the Fiji Fisheries Department, I calculate the average ex-vesel price for domesticaly sold finfish and invertebrates to be US$ 2.05 per kilogram8. Because actual ex-vesel prices likely fluctuate throughout the year, the ex-vesel input variable used in this study (price), is defined by a range of ± US$ 0.15. Using ex-vesel prices to determine the                                                 8 Using this price may slightly overestimate subsistence price, as those fishers that have reliable aces to markets are likely to sel valuable species while keping les valuable species for personal consumption.   62 value of subsistence production, as done in this study, has ben used in other valuation studies, including Gilet and Lightfot (201) and Zeler et al. (206).  Table 3.2 Sumary of the Monte Carlo input values.  Abreviation Description Values CVRA CVAart CVAsub HH %Fhi %Flow HHF IND CPUEsub CPUE art freqsub freqart invert wks refff refinv price Number of coastal vilages, remote areas Number of acesible area coastal vilages with fishing income Number of acesible area coastal vilages with non-fishing income Number of households per vilage Proportion of fishing households in CVRA and CVAart Proportion of fishing households in CVAsub Number of fishers per fishing household Proportion of Indo-Fijian fishers, subsistence and artisanal Subsistence catch per trip, by subsistence fishers (kg) Subsistence catch per trip, by artisanal fishers (kg) Number of days fishing per wek, subsistence Number of days fishing per wek, artisanal Proportion of total catch consisting of invertebrates Number of fishing weks per year Proportion of total finfish catch consisting of ref species Proportion of total invert catch consisting of ref species Ex-vesel price (US$) 315 407 129 8 – 50 0.40 – 0.96 0.12 – 0.58 1.1 – 2.4 0.06 – 0.20 1.5 – 7.0 1.0 – 1.8 2 – 3 3 – 5 0.24 – 0.39 35 – 50 0.81 – 0.91 0.19 – 0.29 1.90 – 2.20  3.3.4 Subsistence fisheries economic analysis An economic analysis of Fiji’s subsistence fisheries is caried out at both the fisher and fisheries level, and consists of calculating an asortment of subsistence fishing costs and benefits.  The costs asociated with landing Fiji’s subsistence catch include intermediate costs (fishing gear and other fishing suplies, fuel, and boat and engine maintenance), capital costs (boat and engine purchases) and the oportunity costs of wages forgone. These costs are largely determined acording to the total quantity of fish caught for subsistence purposes and the efort (time) it takes to catch the specified volume.  This aproach alows me to estimate costs atributed, specificaly, to landing subsistence catch. The ful amount of these costs are determined acording to data from fishers’ interviews, from existing literature of relevant regional studies, and from consultation with individuals familiar with Fiji’s smal-scale fisheries. Specific costs asociated with fishing are shown in Apendix E. The gros benefits of Fiji’s subsistence fisheries are calculated by multiplying the ex-vesel price by the catch, while net benefits are calculated by subtracting total costs from gros benefits.   63 Value added, an economic term that expreses the diference betwen the gros value of gods produced and the intermediate costs of materials and suplies used to produce them, (Philipson, 206), is also calculated. Value added includes wages, oportunity costs, capital depreciation and profits, while intermediate costs include fishing gear and suplies, fuel and oil, bait, and boat and engine maintenance. Value added can be expresed several ways; as a whole number value, as a ratio of the gros value of output (value added divided by gros benefits), or as a value per tone of fish landed.   3.4 Results  Results are shown for total subsistence catch and for the portion of total subsistence catch that consists of ref-asociated species. The total subsistence catch is inclusive of pelagic, estuarine and ref-asociated species. Results are shown as a mean, ± one standard deviation.  3.4.1 Total subsistence catch  Catch volume The mean anual subsistence catch is estimated to be 15,186 t (± 3,507 t), consisting of 10,405 t (± 2,46 t) of finfish and 4,782 t (± 1,206 t) of invertebrates.  Subsistence and artisanal fishers acount for 68% (10,258 t) and 32% (4,928 t) of the anual subsistence catch, respectively.  Number of fishers The mean number of fishers who kep some portion of their catch for subsistence purposes is estimated to be 43,475 (± 3,543). Of this, 2,793 (± 3,074) are estimated to be subsistence fishers, while 20,685 (± 1,76) are estimated to be artisanal fishers.  Catch value The gros value of Fiji’s subsistence catch is estimated to be US$ 31.0 milion (± US$ 7.3 milion). Finfish acount for US$ 21.3 milion (± 5.1 milion), while invertebrates acount  64 for US$ 9.7 milion (± 2.5 milion). The total cost of subsistence fishing is estimated to be US$ 15.2 milion with intermediate costs comprising US$ 5.9 milion. The net benefits are estimated to be US$ 15.8 milion. The value added is US$ 25.1 milion, with a resulting value added ratio of 81%.  For individual fishers, the average anual gros benefits are US$ 875 while total costs are US$ 428, with intermediate costs comprising US$ 16 of total costs.  3.4.2 Ref-asociated subsistence catch  Catch volume The portion of Fiji’s subsistence catch comprised of ref-asociated species is estimated to be 10,034 t (± 2,373 t).  The finfish portion of the catch is 8,893 t (± 2,096 t), while the invertebrate portion of the catch is 1,141 t (± 578 t). Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of anual ref-asociated subsistence catch outputs, acording to the model presented in this chapter.  Figure 3.1 Model output distribution of the estimated ref-asociated subsistence catch in tones per year.   -1 SD +1 SD 5000 10,00 15,00 20,00 X  65 Number of fishers The number of fishers involved in catching the ref-asociated portion of Fiji’s subsistence catch is estimated to be 28,820 (± 2,97). The distribution of the ref-asociated fishers, as derived from the subsistence model, is shown in Figure 3.2. The mean number of fishers that fish solely for subsistence purposes is estimated to be 15,17 (± 2,262), while the mean number of fishers that kep and sel portions of their catch is estimated to be 13,703 (± 1,461).   Figure 3.2 Model output distribution of the estimated number of fishers neded to land Fiji’s ref-asociated subsistence catch.  Catch value The gros value of Fiji’s ref-asociated subsistence catch is estimated to be US$ 20.6 milion (± 5.0 milion). Finfish are estimated to contribute US$ 18.3 milion (± 4.3 milion), while invertebrates are estimated to contribute US$ 2.3 milion (1.2 milion). The total costs for landing the ref-asociated subsistence catch are US$ 10.6 milion, of which intermediate costs comprise US$ 4.4 milion. The net benefits and value added of Fiji’s ref-asociated subsistence catch are therefore calculated to be US$ 10.0 milion and US$ 16.2 milion, respectively. The value added ratio is 79%. For individual fishers, the average anual gros benefits are US$ 86 while total costs are US$ 454, with intermediate costs comprising US$ -1 SD +1 SD 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00 40,00 X  66 187 of total costs. Table 3.3 sumarizes the gros benefits, net benefits and value added for Fiji’s subsistence fisheries.  Table 3.3 Gros benefits, net benefits and value added asociated with Fiji’s subsistence fisheries (US$ milions).   Gross benefits Net benefits Value aded Ref-asociated species 20.6 10.0 16.2 Non ref- asociated species 10.4 5.8 8.9 Total 31.0 15.8 25.1  3.5 Discusion  3.5.1 Catch comparison The results from this study indicate a potentialy lower subsistence catch (15,186 t) than the government’s most curent oficial subsistence catch estimate (19,60 t).  However, this comparison should be observed with a degre of caution, as the government’s oficial catch estimate lays just 1.3 standard deviations away from the mean catch volume derived from the model presented in this study.  If the government’s subsistence catch estimate is indeed an overestimation of actual subsistence catch, there could be a number of contributing factors. One obvious posibility is declining anual catch volumes and catch rates.  These trends have ben observed in several separate studies.  For example, in examining regional fisheries data, Sadovy (205) detected a decline in anual catch per fisher in Fiji and other Pacific island countries. Further evidence includes a broad consensus among a diverse group of ref stakeholders that there has ben widespread declines in Fiji’s ref fisheries (Sadovy and Batibasaga, 206), while subsistence fishers throughout Fiji have indicated their catches have decreased, and that it is more dificult to catch certain fish species now, as compared to the recent past (Mathews, 198; World Bank 200; L. Teh unpublished data).  Evidence of declining catches can even be found on remote Fijian Islands, such as Ono-i-Lau, where important subsistence fish species of mulets, mackerels, rabitfish and parotfish have become conspicuously rare in the last 10 years (Kuster et al., 205). Lastly, the abundance of kaikoso  67 clams, Anadara cornea, a particularly important subsistence fod source in Fiji, has shown decline in certain localities (Tawake et al., 206).  The posibility of diminishing subsistence catch, but especialy declining catch rates, is, or should be, a genuine concern for the government of Fiji. The los of subsistence fisheries resources not only jeopardizes the fod security for fishing comunities, but may also have adverse health efects. For example, concerns have ben raised about the prevalence of non-comunicable diseases, such as diabetes, obesity and hypertension, when traditional fish and rot crop based diets are replaced with refined cereals, sugars and tined meat (Schoefel, 192).   A second factor, potentialy contributing to the government’s posible overestimation of subsistence catch, is the practice of adding an additional 20 t to the previous year’s estimate, to make up for a growing population.  This may have ben an aceptable extrapolation during the 1980s, but acording to Fiji’s most recent national census, the nation’s population has ben shrinking for at least a decade. In particular, Fiji’s rural population, which is more likely to participate in subsistence fishing activities (Rawlinson et al., 195), has declined by over 8,00 people over the last decade (Anon., 207). No subsistence catch estimate, up to this point, has acounted for a shrinking rural population and potentialy fewer subsistence fishers. This is especialy relevant in areas such as Fiji’s Coral Coast, where tourism development in the past 10 to 20 years has likely diverted considerable subsistence fishing efort to tourism-based employment.    3.5.2 Potential aplications of model As described earlier, the survey on which the curent oficial subsistence catch estimate is based was never meant to be more than a rough guideline and has regularly ben criticized for using dubious methodologies (Anon, 1979; Cok, 1986; Hand et al., 205). More recent subsistence catch estimates, largely based on the oficial estimate, are adjusted under the asumption that Fiji’s oficial subsistence catch estimate is underestimated as a result of the inadequacies of the 1978/79 subsistence survey. Consequently, it has ben nearly 30 years  68 since a study or survey has produced, and published, an original nation-wide catch estimate for Fiji’s subsistence fisheries.   Clearly, a reliable, straightforward and relatively easily implemented method for formaly and representatively estimating subsistence catch is neded.  The aproach described in this study ofers such a method, while being sensitive to the limited government resources available for additional data colection. The strength of the curent aproach lies in its ability to acomodate uncertainty, as wel as its relatively low data and technical requirements. Subsistence catch estimates can be generated without relying on extensive monitoring of catch volumes, catch rates or fishing efort. These qualities make the model especialy useful where limited financial and human resources may otherwise constrain fisheries monitoring and data colection eforts, as is the case in Fiji, and most, if not al, Pacific island countries.   For the Fisheries Department to efectively utilize the model in deriving robust subsistence catch estimates, it wil be necesary to refine some of the input data. Narowing the ranges of select inputs can likely be acomplished with relative ease and eficiency, if cordinated with existing nation-wide data colection arangements, such as the national census. Some of the inputs with the largest ranges include the number of households per coastal vilage (HH), the percentage of fishing households per vilage (%F) and the number of fishers per fishing household (HHF).  These inputs, in particular, could be updated and refined if integrated into the national census.  Also, further stratification of select inputs would likely reduce output uncertainty. In the curent model %Fhi is used to estimate the percentage of fishing households in rural and acesible coastal vilages (CVRA and CVAart).  Asigning a unique input range for the percentage of fishing households per vilage (%F) in each group of coastal vilages (CVRA, CVAart and CVAsub) would likely contribute to narowing output ranges derived from the model. Taking these refinements into consideration, the Fisheries Department could make efective use of the model, to regularly generate national subsistence catch estimates, without directly measuring catch or landings.   In addition to Fiji, many smal island countries in the south and west Pacific have incomplete and vague information regarding their subsistence fisheries (Gilet and Lightfot, 201). As such, the methods used in this study could also prove efective in improving nation-wide  69 estimates for these countries, in regard to subsistence catch volume and value, and the number of fishers keping a portion of their catch for subsistence purposes. With existing data and the informed knowledge of fisheries oficials serving as sources of input, national-level estimates on subsistence fishing activities could be obtained.  Refining the ranges of specific input variables by cordinating data colection priorities with established national censuses can help reduce uncertainty in the model’s outputs, with minimal financial obligation on the part of the national Fisheries Department.   3.5.3 Ref-asociated subsistence catch Although this discusion primarily focuses on the total catch of Fiji’s subsistence fisheries (pelagic, estuarine and ref-asociated species), the significance of ref species to subsistence catch should not be understated.  As shown in this study, the role of coral refs in Fiji’s subsistence fisheries is substantial, acounting for aproximately 6% of total subsistence catch volume and value. Until now, however, no study has quantified, at a national level, the contribution of coral ref species to subsistence catch. As such, gaining, and maintaining, federal suport for protecting coral ref ecosystems and ref-based fisheries, on the basis of their contribution to the country’s fod security and social stability, is dificult. Subsistence catch volume (10,034 t) and value (US$ 20.6 milion) estimates specific to coral ref species, as obtained in this study, provide policy and decision makers with tangible evidence of coral refs’ social and economic importance, and may contribute to developing and sustaining coral ref conservation and sustainable management strategies.   3.6 Conclusion  Subsistence fishing plays a significant role in the lives of coastal inhabitants throughout Fiji. The magnitude of this role, however, is largely unknown, as subsistence fishing activities go esentialy unmonitored.  Because nearly 30 years have pased since the last nation-wide subsistence catch survey published original results, there is a genuine ned for updated information on the volume and value of subsistence catch originating from Fiji’s inshore and coral ref habitats.  In addition to addresing this information gap, this study ofers a framework for continualy updating catch volume and value, which does not require  70 extensive fisheries specific data colection, financial resources or technical expertise.  This aproach is intended to be used by fisheries stakeholders and can easily acomodate updated information and the personal knowledge of individuals familiar with subsistence fishing activities. Cordinating data colection priorities, with the existing national census, is a cost and time efective means for improving the acuracy of the catch estimates.  It is believed that this work wil help raise the profile of Fiji’s subsistence fishing sector in the eyes of policy and decision makers, and help guide coastal fisheries development, management and conservation.    71 3.7 References  Adams, T.J.H., Richards, A., Dalzel, P. and Bel, I., 195.  Research on fisheries in the Pacific island region. South Pacific Comision and Forum Fisheries Agency Workshop on the Management of South Pacific Inshore Fisheries, 2: 87-16.   Anon., 1978. Fiji Fisheries Division: Anual Report. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 136 p.  Anon., 1981. Fiji Fisheries Division: Anual Report. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 95 p.  Anon., 1989.  Report on Fiji Population Census 1986.  Vol. 2: Smal area data on enumeration and maps. Parliament of Fiji, Parliamentary Paper, 2: 105 p.  Anon., 191. Fiji Fisheries Division: Anual Report. Ministry of Primary Industries, Suva, 5 pp.  Anon., 204. Fiji Fisheries Division: Anual Report. Ministry of Fisheries and Forest, 48 pp.  Anon., 207. National population census. Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics.   Bel, J.D., Kronen, M., Vunisea, A., Nash, W., Keeble, G., Demke, A., Pontifex, S., and Andrefouet, S., 208.  Planing the use of fish for fod security in the Pacific.  Marine Policy, 3 (1): 64-76.  Berkes, F., 198. Subsistence fishing in Canada: a note on terminology. Arctic, 41 (4): 319–320.  Chapman, M.D., 1987. Women’s fishing in Oceania. Human Ecology, 15 (3): 267–28.  72  Cok, J., 1986.  FAO review of Fiji fish statistics. FAO/United Nations Development Programe (UNDP) Regional Fisheries Programe, Suva, 78 p.  Dalzel, P., T. J. H. Adams, and N. V. C. Polunin. 196. Coastal Fisheries in the Pacific Islands. Oceanography and Marine Biology, 34: 395-531.  FAO, 208. Fiji Country Profile. htp://ww.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FI-CP_FJ/en  Fay, L., Vuki, V., Sauni, S., and Tebona, T., 207.  Andara fishing suports urban households in Tarawa, Kiribati and Suva, Fiji. Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity Women in Fisheries Information Buletin, 17.  Fay-Sauni, L., Vuki, V., Paul, S., and Rokosawa, M., 208.  Women's subsistence fishing suports rural households in Fiji: A case study of Nadoria, Viti Levu, Fiji. Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity Women in Fisheries Information Buletin, 18.   Gilet, R., 200.  The sustainable contribution of fisheries to fod security in Oceania. Bangkok: Asia-Pacific Fishery Comision and FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 93 p.  Gilet, R., 205. Artisanal fisheries in the Pacific Islands: some terminology considerations for discusions on fisheries subsidies within the framework of the World Trade Organization. Gilet, Preston and Asociates, 18 p.  Gilet, R. and Lightfot, C., 201. The Contribution of Fisheries to the Economies of Pacific Island Countries. Asian Development Bank, Forum Fisheries Agency and the World Bank, 242 p.  Hand, T., Davis, D. and Gilet, R., 205.  Republic of the Fiji Islands: Fisheries Sector Review. Technical Asistance Consultant’s Report, Asian Development Bank, 95 p.  73  Jenings, S. and Polunin, N.V.C., 195. Comparative size and composition of yield from six Fijian ref fisheries. Journal of Fish Biology, 46: 28-46.  King, M. and Lambeth, L., 200.  Fisheries management by comunities: A manual on promoting the management of subsistence fisheries by Pacific island comunities. Comunity fisheries section, Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity, Noumea, New Caledonia, 87 p.  Kronen, M., 204a. Fishing for fortunes: A socio-economic asesment of Tonga's artisanal fisheries. Fisheries Research, 70: 121-134.  Kronen, M., 204b. Alu toutai -Na laki qoli - Fun or duty: Schol children’s involvement in subsistence fisheries in Tonga and Fiji. Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity Women in Fisheries Information Buletin: 14.   Kulbicki M., Mou Tham G., Tholot P. and Wantiez L., 193. Length-weight relationships of fish from the lagon of New Caledonia. Naga, 16: 26–30.  Kuster, C., Vuki, V.C. and Zan, L.P., 202.  The subsistence fisheries and seafod consumption of Ono-I-Lau islanders, Fiji islands, in 202. Suva, Fiji. The University of the South Pacific. Marine Studies Programe. Marine Studies Technical Report. 31 p.   Kuster, C., Vuki, V.C., Zan and L.P., 205. Long-term trends in subsistence fishing paterns and coral ref fisheries yield from a remote Fijian island. Fisheries Research, 76: 221-28.  Labrose, P., Feraris, J. and Letourneur, Y., 206.  Asesing the sustainability of subsistence fisheries in the Pacific: the use of data on fish consumption. Ocean and Coastal Management, 49: 203-221.   74 Mahon, R., 197.  Does fisheries science serve the neds of managers of smal stocks in developing countries? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 54: 207-213.  Munroe, J.L., 196.  The scope of tropical fisheries and their management.  In: Polunin, N.V.C., and Roberts, C.M. (Eds). Ref fisheries. Chapman and Hal, London, UK, p 1-14.  Philipson, P.W., 206.  An asesment of development options in the longline fishery. Development of tuna fisheries in the Pacific ACP countries (DEVFISH) Project.   Polanyi, K., 1957. The great transformation. Boston: Beacon Pres.  Rawlinson, N.J.F., Milton, D.A., Blaber, S.J.M., Sesewa, A. and Sharma, S.P., 195. A survey of the subsistence and artisanal fisheries in rural areas of Viti Levu, Fiji. ACIAR Monograph 35, 138 p.  Reddy, M., 204. Economic analysis of artisanal fisheries in Fiji: Isues of profitability and sustainability. South Pacific Studies, 25 (1): 35-48.   Salvat, B., 1980. The living marine resources of the South Pacific: Past, present and future. Population-Environment Relations in Tropical Islands: The case in Eastern Fiji, Paris: UNESCO, p. 131-148.  Schuman, S., and S. Macinko. 207. Subsistence in coastal fisheries policy: What's in a word? Marine Policy 31:706-718.  SPC, 208. Fiji Islands country profile. Strategic Engagement, Policy and Planing Facility, 1 p.  Turner, R.A., Cakacaka, A., Graham, N.A.J., Polunin, N.V.C., Pratchet, M.S., Stead, S.M. and Wilson, S.K., 207.  Declining reliance on marine resources in remote South Pacific societies: ecological versus socio-economic drivers. Coral Refs 26: 97-108.   75 Veitayaki, J., 195. Fisheries Devleopment in Fiji: The quest for sustainability. Institute of Pacific Studies and the Ocean Resources Management Program, the University of the South Pacific, 23 p.  Veitayaki, J., 205. Fisheries resource-use culture in Fiji and its implications. In Hooper, A. (editor), 205. Culture and Sustainable Development in the Pacific. Asian Pacific Pres at the Australian National University, 243 p.  Veitayaki, J., and Noaczek, I., 203.  Filing the gaps: Indigenous researchers, subsistence fisheries and gender analysis.  Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity Women in Fisheries Buletin, 13.  Viser, T., 197. Status of fishery statistics in the South Pacific. REAP Publication 197/30. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (REAP), FAO, Bangkok, 78 p.  Vunisea, A., 205. Women’s changing roles in the subsistence fishing sector in Fiji. In: Novaczek, I., Mitchel, J., Veitayaki, J. (editors). Pacific voices: equity and sustainability in Pacific Islands fisheries. Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, Suva, p. 8-105.   Whitingham, E., Campbel, J., and Townsley, P., 203.  Poverty and refs: A global overview. DFID–IM–IOC/UNESCO, 260 p.  World Bank. 200. Anex A. Economic Valuation of Subsistence Fisheries. In World Bank, editor. Cities, Seas, and Storms Managing Change in Pacific Island Economies. World Bank, Washington D.C., 71 p.  Zeler, D., Both, D. and Pauly, D., 206.  Fisheries contribution to the gros domestic product: underestimating smal-scale fisheries in the Pacific. Marine Resource Economics, 21: 35–374.   76  Chapter 4  Conclusion  4.1 Fiji’s ref-based artisanal and subsistence fisheries  The objectives of this study were to estimate the catch volume and value of Fiji’s coral ref-based artisanal and subsistence fisheries, to determine the economic significance of the fisheries at an individual and national level, to identify gaps and shortcomings in existing data, information and monitoring methods and to develop recomendations for future research, monitoring and management of Fiji’s ref fisheries.  To fulfil these objectives, I developed models that provide ref species catch estimates and fisheries related cost and benefit estimates.  The resulting outcomes indicate that, together, Fiji’s coral ref-based artisanal and subsistence fisheries play an important role in sustaining coastal inhabitants by suplying an estimated 17,77 t of finfish, invertebrates and seawed, per year, for local consumption. The fisheries also provide income and/or nutrition for up to 28,80 fishers, 842 middlemen and 2,480 vendors. With an estimated gros value of US$ 54.0 milion, net benefits betwen US$ 21.2-2.8 milion and value added betwen US$ 34.4-36.3 milion, Fiji’s ref-based fisheries are semingly more valuable than the country’s highly regarded ofshore fisheries.  The ofshore fisheries, which primarily target species of tuna, are estimated to have a gros value of US$ 40 milion and a value added of US$ 13 milion (Hand et al., 205).  These results strongly sugest that Fiji’s ref-based fisheries deserve greater recognition and suport for their economic and social contributions to the country, and a proportional share of federaly administered financial and human resources for fisheries management, research monitoring and enforcement.   77 Estimates of catch, catch value and the number of individuals able to derive income by participating in Fiji’s ref fisheries may bring greater recognition to the fisheries, in the form of federaly administered economic and human resources, but the results from this study are also expected to contribute to a larger dialogue on Fiji’s local and national fod security. Similar to most Pacific islanders, Fijians depend heavily on seafod to fulfil their dietary neds, as seafod makes up an estimated 35% of al protein consumed in Fiji (Fiji Ministry of Health, 204).  Although Fiji’s exact per capita seafod consumption is unknown, it is asumed to be around 50 kg/person/year (Gilet and Lightfot, 201; Vatucawaqa, 203). Given Fiji’s curent population, estimated per capita seafod consumption and the results from this study, Fiji’s ref-based artisanal and subsistence fisheries suply nearly half of al seafod consumed in Fiji, with non-ref species and imported fish making up the other half. This is consistent with information in Fiji’s 203 Fod Balance Shet. If the health of Fiji’s coral refs and ref-based fisheries are in decline, as some literature has sugested (Mathews et al., 198; Hofman, 202; Sadovy, 205; Sadovy and Batibasaga, 206), it wil be increasingly important to include fod security concerns in discusions regarding coral ref development and management strategies.  Over the course of this thesis, I have become quite familiar with the strengths and weakneses of the past and present research, monitoring and management of Fiji’s artisanal and subsistence fisheries, in addition to obtaining a thorough understanding of the curent economic and social conditions of these fisheries. Drawing from this experience, I have a number of recomendations that the Fisheries Department may want to consider as they plan for the future of the country’s coral ref fisheries.  First, colection of fisheries data could be improved by increasing the involvement of the participants in Fiji’s artisanal and subsistence fishing sectors.  Traditional resource owners, who play a substantial role in overseing and regulating resource use within customary resource areas, known as qoliqolis, should play an increased role in monitoring and recording the number of fishers and volume of catch, in regard to their qoliqoli. Similarly, fishers, middlemen and vendors, with minimal training, could significantly contribute to fisheries data colection coverage.  Providing minimal monetary compensation to certain individuals would likely increase their engagement and improve the reliability of data colected. Second, I recomend that Fiji’s Fisheries Department should shift their focus from the development of smal-scale fisheries,  78 to a more conservation oriented management aproach.  As Fiji’s ref fish catches are thought to be declining (Sadovy, 205), it is important to alocate greater atention to conservation strategies to ensure refs can continualy provide fod and income security to coastal comunities (Whitingham et al., 203).  Third, oportunities for adding value to products of smal-scale fishing should be explored. Post-catch procesing such as cleaning, drying or coking may help fishers and fishing households obtain higher incomes, without actualy increasing the volume of fish being taken from ref ecosystems. Given aces to resources (financial, technical, physical, etc.) and the fredom to pursue value-adding projects, individuals may efectively increase the incomes they derive from the fisheries.  As mentioned in the introductory chapter, my thesis is part of a larger research project loking into the direct use values of Fiji’s coral refs and the socio-economic impacts of the diferent uses.  The project’s results are intended to help inform the Fiji Fisheries Department, and other ref fisheries stakeholders, in the proces of designing and implementing resource use management strategies and monitoring protocols. As the larger project nears completion, our project team wil continue to colaborate with the Fisheries Department in an efort to integrate our work and recomendations with their ref fisheries development, management and monitoring objectives.  4.2 Knowledge gaps, reflections and future work  Through the pursuit of my research objectives and the progresion of my work, I have come to realize some of the limitations of existing data and literature relevant to Fiji’s artisanal and subsistence fisheries. Although these fisheries receive considerable atention from academic and non-governmental research and development groups, considerable gaps in knowledge stil exist.  For instance, the role of women and children in Fiji’s ref-fisheries is largely undocumented, even though they are known to actively participate in ref fishing and gleaning (Fay et al., 207; Fay-Sauni et al., 208). In fact, the colection of ref invertebrates and plants, in general, is porly understod.  In addition to women and children, there is very litle information on the livelihods of middlemen and vendors, and the role they play as a link betwen resource exploitation and consumption.  Similarly, it would be useful to  79 know, from a fisher’s perspective, what percentage of their catch they sel to middlemen, vendors and consumers, and why.  These gaps in information represent a significant component of Fiji’s smal-scale fisheries, and therefore, it is recomended that future research and monitoring projects adjust their objectives to addres them.   The proces of researching Fiji’s ref-based fisheries, and developing the artisanal and subsistence models, exposed me to an abundance of research covering the economic and living conditions of fishers and fishing comunities.  Expectedly, a wealth of literature suports the notion that smal-scale fishers generaly have low incomes (Copes, 1989; Loayza and Sprague, 192; Cuningham, 194; Bene, 203) and may even be among the porest of the por (Bailey et al., 1986; Kremer 194). As my thesis research wraps up, my atention and eforts are moving towards addresing the isue of smal-scale fishers’ relatively low incomes.  I recognize that ref fisheries are susceptible to overfishing (Roberts, 195; Jenings and Polunin, 196; Sadovy, 205), and subsidizing increased fishing efort for the purpose of higher incomes, can, in the long run, be counter-productive (Pauly et al., 202, Sumaila and Pauly, 206).  Alternatively, suporting livelihods that ease fishing presure, such as eco-tourism, raising livestock or handicraft production, may be a viable option for improving Fijian fishers’ financial security in a sustainable maner (Veitayaki et al., 207; Gilet et al., 208). As such, micro-credit programs are increasingly being used to provide individuals and groups aces to capital to suport busines ventures and education oportunities (Tietze and Vilareal, 203). Providing micro-finance services, such as loans, money transfers and insurance, to fishing comunities, may help families develop micro-enterprises, increase their income and manage risk beter, thus, reducing their economic and social vulnerabilities (FAO, 204). Micro-finance has experienced widespread suces, but is only recently being aplied specificaly to fishing comunities.  As I move into other fisheries related research, micro-finance for fishing comunities is a topic of particular interest and something that I plan to pursue in coming years.  Overal, this thesis has provided me with a strong background in the design and function of natural resource economic valuations, and an understanding and apreciation of how economics can be used as a tol in resource management. As economics continue to play an increasingly important role in resource use decision-making, the experience I have acquired  80 from completing this thesis wil alow me to meaningfuly contribute to ensuring fishing activities are caried out in an economicaly sustainable and equitable maner, wherever they may be.  81  4.3 References  Bailey, C., Cycon, D. and Moris, M., 1986. Fisheries development in the third-world: the role of international agencies. World Development, 14 (10): 1269-1275.  Bene, C., 203. When fishery rhymes with poverty: a first step beyond the old paradigm on poverty in smal-scale fisheries. World Development, 31 (6): 949-975.  Copes, P., 1989. Why are fishing incomes often low? A critical review of the conventional wisdom. Discusion Paper 21/89-1, Burnaby, Canada: Institute of Fisheries Analysis, Simon Fraser University.  Cuningham, S., 194. Fishermen’s incomes and fisheries management. Marine Resource Economics, 9: 241-252.  FAO, 204. The state of the world fisheries and aquaculture. FAO Fisheries Department, 153 p.   Fay, L., Vuki, V., Sauni, S., and Tebona, T., 207.  Andara fishing suports urban households in Tarawa, Kiribati and Suva, Fiji. Women in Fisheries Information Bulentin, 17. Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity.  Fay-Sauni, L., Vuki, V., Paul, S., and Rokosawa, M., 208.  Women's subsistence fishing suports rural households in Fiji: A case study of Nadoria, Viti Levu, Fiji. Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity Women in Fisheries Information Buletin, 18.  Fiji Ministry of Health, 204. Fiji National Nutrition Survey, 23 p.   82 Gilet, R., Preston, G., Nash, W., Govan, H., Adams, T. and Lam, M., 208.  Livelihod diversification as a marine resource management tol in the Pacific Islands: lesons learned. Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity Fisheries Newsleter, 125.  Gilet, R. and Lightfot, C., 201. The Contribution of Fisheries to the Economies of Pacific Island Countries. Asian Development Bank, Forum Fisheries Agency and the World Bank, 242 p.  Hand, T., Davis, D. and Gilet, R., 205.  Republic of the Fiji Islands: Fisheries Sector Review. Technical Asistance Consultant’s Report, Asian Development Bank, 95 p.  Hofman, T.C., 202.  Coral ref health and efects of socio-economic factors in Fiji and Cok Islands. Marine Polution Buletin, 4: 1281-1293.  Jenings, S. and Polunin, N.V.C., 196.  Impacts of fishing on tropical ref ecosystems. Ambio, 25 (1): 4-49.   Kremer, A., 194. Equity in the fishery: a flodplain in northeast Bangladesh. R94E, Center for Development Studies, University of Bath.   Loayza, E.A. and Sprague, L.M., 192. A strategy for fisheries development. World Bank, Fisheries Series Discusion Papers No. 135, 106 p.  Mathews, E., Veitayaki, J. and Bidesi, V.R., 198. Fijian vilagers adapt to changes in local fisheries. Ocean and Coastal Management, 38: 207-224.  Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guenete, S., Pitcher, T.J., Sumaila, U.R., Walters, C.J., Watson, R. and Zeler, D., 202. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature, 418: 689-695.  Roberts, C.M., 195.  Efects of fishing on the ecosystem structure of coral refs. Conservation Biology, 9 (5): 98-995.   83 Sadovy, Y., 205. Trouble on the ref: the imperative for managing vulnerable and valuable fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 6: 167-185.  Sadovy, Y. and Batibasaga, A., 206. Ref fisheries workshop held in Fiji. Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity Live Ref Fish Information Buletin, 16.  Sumaila, U.R. and Pauly, D., 206. Catching more bait: a botom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies.  University of British Columbia Fisheries Center Research Reports, 14 (6): 121 p.  Tietze, U. and Vilareal, L.V., 203.  Microfinance in fisheries and aquaculture.  FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 40, 103 p.  Vatucawaqa, P., 203. Fod Balance Shet. National Fod and Nutrition Center.   Veitayaki, J., Tawake, A., Fong, S. and Meo, S., 207. Asisting coastal comunities in the Pacific Islands with alternative sources of livelihod and income. Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity Women in Fisheries Information Buletin, 16.  Whitingham, E., Campbel, J., and Townsley, P., 203.  Poverty and refs: A global overview. DFID–IM–IOC/UNESCO, 260 p.         84 Apendix A: People contacted while in Fiji  Table A.1:  Individuals coresponded with while in Fiji, Nov. 15 – Dec. 15, 207. Last names are absent if unknown. Nae Title/position Afiliation Aisake Batibasaga Head of Fisheries Research Division Fiji Fisheries Department, Lami Alifereti Tawaki Scientific oficer Fiji Localy Managed Marine Areas Network Anesh Fish buyer, middleman Labasa fishing wharf Apisai Sesewa Senior fisheries oficer Fiji Fisheries Department, Labasa Arunesh Asis Fisheries oficer, monitoring Fiji Fisheries Department, Lami Ashwin Statistician Fiji Bureau of Statistics, Suva Betani Salusalu Project manager Momanuda Environmental Society (ES) Bil Aalbersberg Director University of the South Pacific Bob Gilet Consultant Gilet and Asociates Cherie Moris Faculty University of the South Pacific, Coral Ref Initiatives for the Pacific Ed Lovel Faculty University of the South Pacific Fulori Nainoca Eco-tourism oficer Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacific International Helen Pipard CITES/coral and live rock trade International Union for Conservation of Nature Hugh Govan Program anager Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacific International Isoa Korovulavula PhD student: Environmental economics University of the South Pacific Joeli Veitayaki Profesor University of the South Pacific Joji Fisheries oficer Fiji Fisheries Department, Savusavu Kely Employe Walt Smith International Keneth MacKay Director Coral Ref Initiatives for the Pacific Lepani Daivalu Fisheries oficer Fiji Fisheries Department, Latoka Loraini Sivo Fiji cordinator Conservation International Louise Isimeli Aquarium trade specialist Fiji Fisheries Department, Suva HQ Nanise Kuridrani Research division Fiji Fisheries Department, Lami Nanise Odrovakavula Tourism oficer Fiji Ministry of Tourism, Suva Penina Vatucawaqa Research oficer Fiji inistry of Fod and Nutrition Sanivalati Navuku Project oficer Worldwide Fund for Nature (WF) Senijiele Bose Lands manager Fiji Ministry of Lands, Suva Shalen Drasing Fisheries oficer Fiji Fisheries Department, Suva HQ Sunia Waqainabete Fisheries oficer Fiji Fisheries Department, Lami Tanya O’Gara Environmental economist Coral Ref Initiatives for the Pacific Vina Ram-Bidesi Profesor University of the South Pacific  85 Apendix B: A brief history of Fiji’s coral ref-based fisheries  Gaining a comprehensive understanding of Fiji’s coral ref-based fisheries involves more than becoming familiar with curent fishing efort, catch composition, fishing gear and ecological conditions; it is also important to obtain a firm apreciation and thorough understanding of ref-based fisheries’ historical, political, cultural and social significance within Fiji. Therefore, I provide a chronological sumary of Fiji’s coral refs’ uses, value, management and asociation with political and social isues. In an efort to encourage and guide improved monitoring and additional research studies, I also identify some of the prominent knowledge and information shortcomings regarding Fiji’s coral ref fisheries.  Initial setlement of Fiji: 150 B.C. – 180 A.D. Traveling west to east against prevailing trade winds, the earliest setlers of the Fijian archipelago arived via western Melanesia. As inhabitants of the Indo-Pacific region, these setlers maintained an intimate relationship with the sea, relying on it for nearly al of their dietary neds (Johanes, 1978). These Melanesian migrants setled into their new home and established prosperous societies amongst the abundant natural resources. Archaeological acounts indicate that a significant portion of native Fijian’s diet consisted of coral ref fish species, particularly from the families Scaridae, Diodontidae, Lethrinidae, Seranidae, Labridae, Lutjanidae, Balistidae, and Acanthuridae, and marine gastropods such as conch (Strombus sp.) and surf clams (Atactodea striata) (Nun et al., 207).  Sea turtles were also an important part of Fijians’ diets. Considered a delicacy, sea turtles would only be eaten at important feasts by high-ranking oficials (Luna, 203).  As time pased, these societies developed a variety of straightforward and semingly sucesful means for managing inshore marine resources. A particularly efective aproach, the alocation of inshore resource ownership, is perhaps the single most important conservation measure in al of Oceania (Johanes, 1978). Efectively establishing property rights, clan leaders from a coastal region would asemble and decide upon inshore fishing  86 boundaries. Incorporating natural features such as ref chanels, distinctive tres and imovable boulders, the boundaries comonly extended from the shoreline to the outer slope of the ref for several kilometers along the coast (Iwakiri, 1983; Kunatuba, 1983; Fong, 194; Veitayaki, 195).  Known as qoliqolis, these traditional fishing grounds endowed inhabitants of the participating clans with exclusive ownership to marine resources within their qoliqoli. In Fiji, a clan, or yavusa, consists of two to four vilages. Sometimes one clan would overse an entire qoliqoli, but more comonly a group of clans would share the responsibility.   Although defined fishing boundaries were generaly respected, people would often fish in qoliqolis other than their own. Fishers seking permision to fish in a neighboring clan’s qoliqoli would folow the custom of sevusevu, or presenting gifts to a chief, often the mildly intoxicating plant and national drink yagona. Upon receiving permision, the fishers could aces the resources of the qoliqoli folowing the agrement made with the chief.  As additional compensation, the fishers would typicaly give a portion of their catch to the chief of the qoliqoli.  These traditional management arangements were, and to some extent, stil are, acepted as part of the social system. Those who defied the authority would be publicly shuned or, folowing particularly serious ofences, kiled (Tipet, 1959).  A second method of marine conservation aplied by early Fijian clans, and used widely throughout Oceania, is known as tabu (Veitayaki, 197). Within the boundaries of a qoliqoli, a vilage chief could declare a certain area of limits to fishing, designating it a tabu area. Tabu areas were established for several reasons. An area might be declared tabu leading up to or folowing a special event such as the pasing of a respected chief, a celebrated birth or the mariage of prominent individuals (Ravuvu, 1983). Typicaly areas remained tabu anywhere from 120 days to 1 year. Upon lifting the tabu, the living marine resources from the formerly closed area would be caught and eaten in a celebratory maner. Efectively, tabu systems helped reduce the ocurence of marine resource over-exploitation within a clan’s qoliqoli.   Supernatural beliefs also played an important role, intentional or not, in the conservation of inshore resources (Veitayaki, 205).  A number of beliefs based on apeasing certain gods and ancestral spirits helped ensure that fish and fishing grounds received respectful  87 treatment. As such, certain fishing grounds were considered sacred; believed to be a physical manifestation of the vital link betwen the living and the dead (Siwatibau, 1984).   The above examples were al deeply embedded in Fiji’s cultural traditions and contributed to the conservation of inshore marine resources. Although the primary objective of traditional marine management was not conservation, but to protect resources from their neighbors and to increase fishing suces (Aswani and Hamilton, 204), creating a limited entry fishery and asigning property rights to inshore resources helped to ensure sustainable levels of exploitation for future generations. Additionaly, influenced by folklore and belief in supernatural powers, these self-proclaimed owners of marine resources had an incentive to pursue sustainable fishing practices.  Period of colonization: 180-1913 The lure of sandalwod tres and other natural resources brought European and American traders to Fiji around the year 180.  Aside from rapidly depleted stands of sandalwod, setling Westerners established sucesful trades in beche-de-mer9, trochus10, and tortoise shels (Howard, 191).  As these trades developed, traditional methods of conserving resources were negligently eroded, driven by an eagernes to maximize the material wealth or social status of those involved. As non-owners of the ref resources, western traders did not have an incentive to fish at sustainable levels. Qoliqoli chiefs, on the other hand, alowed masive quantities of resources to be caught from within their jurisdiction, often in exchange for foreign suplies of weapons, guns and amunition (Scar, 1984).                                                   9 The term beche-de-mer refers to dried sea cucumbers.  10 A large marine gastropod, trochus shels are used for fabricating mother-of-pearl button blanks, a valuable commodity throughout Asia, Europe and North America.  88              1.        2. Figure B.1 (1) Beche-de-mer (2) Trochus  The beche-de mer trade began in earnest, in 1813, as demand originating from China fueled intense exploitation of Fiji’s sea cucumbers. Betwen 1828 and 1848, Fiji exported an estimated 1,50 tones of beche-de-mer (Adams, 198). Upwards of 20 trading ships runing regular routes betwen Fiji and Asia caused significant depletion of sea cucumbers (Scar, 1984) and by 1852, the beche-de-mer trade had slowed considerably. As a result of the beche-de-mer industry’s suces, traders established some of Fiji’s first Western setlements and many of Fiji’s most wel-know Western surnames can be traced to these early comunities (Adams, 198).  After thre-quarters of a century of resource exploitation, trade, eroded customs, setlement, sickneses and misionaries, Fiji oficialy sucumbed to the United Kingdom’s colonization in 1874. While discusing terms of cesion, Governor Sir George Wiliam des Voeux stated that it was the Quen’s desire that Native Fijians should not be deprived any rights to coral refs that they enjoyed under their own laws and customs (Hornel, 1940).  Fiji’s chiefs responded by trusting the Quen to “govern them righteously and in acordance with native usages and customs” (Wilkenson, 1908). This corespondence resulted in Fijians retaining their ‘native customary fishing rights’ but forfeiting the actual ownership of marine resources to the Quen; although legislation suporting this is scarce and quite vague.  In 180, the Native Lands and Fisheries Comision was established in order to arbitrate, setle and record al claims to customary fishing grounds (Dalzel and Adams, 195).   89 During the period of colonialism, subsistence fisheries consisted of a diverse asemblage of marine fish species, primarily from the families of Seranidae, Mugilidae and Lethrinidae (Hornel, 1940). An equaly diverse colection of invertebrates, including numerous species of gastropods, bivalves, crustaceans and echinoderms likely provided a majority of the subsistence catch, by weight. Frequently, Gren and Hawksbil sea turtles would be caught for use in traditional ceremonial feasts (Kunatuba, 1983).  Based on historic population records (htp://populstat.info/populhome.html) and recent trends of per capita seafod consumption for urban and rural areas (Kuster et al., 205; Foraete, 201; Jenings and Polunin, 195; Vuki, 190), it is reasonable to asume that inshore fisheries suplied nearly 7,00 tones for subsistence purposes in 1874.   Period of colonization: 1914-1970 Intending to establish a stable economic base for the colony, the new colonial government actively developed the sugar cane industry within Fiji by securing investments from Australia’s Colonial Sugar Refining Company.  Lacking the necesary work force, the government negotiated a deal to bring indentured laborers from India.  The government financed Indian setlements near sugar plantations, and as early as 1914, a council of Fijian chiefs expresed concern that the growing Indian population’s comercial suces undermined Native Fijians’ national domination (Howard, 191). In total 60,00 Indian workers made their way to Fiji, aproximately 40,00 of them remaining to live beyond their 5-year indenture period.  The imigration and subsequent increase in the population of Indians would impact Fiji’s social and political unity for years to come, substantialy afecting the use and management of coral refs and other inshore marine resources.  The first comprehensive writen acount of Fiji’s ref fisheries came about at the request of Sir Hary Luke in 1940. Comisioned by Luke, James Hornel described a comercial ref fishery that was notably underachieving and lacked government involvement (Hornel, 1940). His investigations stated that there was no shortage of fish, but only a shortage of fishermen. He declared that the native Fijians, who by heritage should be the backbone of the industry, could not “awaken from their apathy and indiference to the riches which the sea ofers” (Hornel, 1940). Hornel observed that subsistence fishing on the refs provided Fijians with al the fish they could eat while requiring very litle efort. Even at this time,  90 fishing outside barier refs ocured very infrequently, in large part because the vast refs provided al the resources necesary for comfortable living.  Hornel’s criticism of Fijians fishing efort exemplifies Western cultures’ influence on resource use within Fiji and throughout the south Pacific.  Shortly after Hornel’s visit to Fiji, the colonial administered Fisheries Act of 1941 (Fisheries Ordinance 1941) apeared in legislation. The act oficialy recognized Fijians’ right to fish in customary fishing grounds, but left ownership in the hands of the state.  The act also alowed the owners of customary fishing rights to advise the Fisheries Department as to which comercial fishermen could fish in their area. Acording to the Act, fisherman could receive a license to fish within a qoliqoli only after obtaining permision from the qoliqoli’s chief, similar to historic traditions.  Independence: 1970-present Fiji regained independence on October 10th, 1970.  Prior to, and folowing Fiji’s independence, Native and Indian Fijians have consistently debated aces rights to inshore fisheries resources. Native Fijians have sought to legaly regain ownership of the resources within their qoliqolis while Indian Fijians have aspired to secure more favorable aces rights to these same resources. In recent years, a controversial legislative bil, know as the Qoliqoli Bil, has emerged.  If pased, the bil would finaly transfer the ful ownership of qoliqoli resources from the state of Fiji to traditional resource rights-holders.  Since al customary fishing rights owners are Native Fijians, pasing the Qoliqoli Bil would kep Indian Fijians at a significant disadvantage in their ability to utilize inshore marine resources for generating income and as a source of fod.  Even without the Qoliqoli Bil, the power that Native Fijians hold in their fishing rights is thought by some to be the one of the most comprehensive recognitions of customary fishing rights in the world (Ledua, 195).  In any case, acquiring acurate, complete and up-to-date data and information on Fiji’s artisanal and subsistence fisheries remains dificult. The Fiji Fisheries Department estimates curent subsistence catch by extrapolating the results from a survey administered in 197-78 (Anon., 1978). The extrapolation involves simply adding 20 metric tones to the previous year’s total, in order to corect for population growth. Although the survey methodologies  91 are questionable (Hand et al., 205) and the inacuracies recognized (Anon., 190), this survey stil provides the oficial estimate for the nation’s subsistence catch. Though not yet confirmed by the Fisheries Department, a catch estimate generated by these methods would result in a 208 subsistence harvest of 19,60 mt.  The number of subsistence fishers is largely unknown. Estimates provided by the Fod and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations indicate that there are 30,00 subsistence fishers in Fiji (FAO, 208), although it is not reported how this number is calculated. Also, the Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity reports that half of al rural households partake in some form of subsistence fishing (SPC, 208).  In 207 there were over 87,00 rural households in Fiji (Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics, 207).  If half of these households contained one subsistence fisher, then there would be over 43,00 subsistence fishers in Fiji.  Monitoring Fiji’s artisanal fisheries has fared beter than the subsistence fisheries, but serious concerns stil exist. One fisheries oficer in each of the north, west and central divisions is asigned the task of monitoring the sales volume and coresponding value of domestic fish sales within their division; the eastern division is not monitored because of its remotenes and perceived lack of fish sales that ocur there. The limited availability of government funding has left fisheries oficers responsible for monitoring domestic fish sales in only the western and central divisions.  Consequently, it is estimated that only 70-90% of actual artisanal fish landings are acounted for (Chana pers. com. 207; Drasing pers. com. 207). In 204, the Fisheries Department reported inshore fish sales to be 10,969 tones, worth US$ 30.1 milion (Anon., 204).  Estimates on the number of individuals able to derive income by participating in Fiji’s artisanal fisheries vary greatly.  For example, the Fisheries Department reports isuing 2,124 inshore fishing licenses in 204 while Rawlinson et al. (195) estimates there are 8,35 artisanal fisheries on Fiji’s main island of Viti Levu alone.  Exploiting Fiji’s ref resources for international trade has persisted since the early days of beche-de-mer and trochus, but has increased in scope and scale in the last thre decades due to a greater market integration and globalization (FAO, 204). During this time, two fisheries have developed that consist of catching ref fish and transporting them alive to international  92 markets. These fisheries, the marine aquarium and the live ref fod fish (LRF) fisheries, involve ref species that can fetch high prices throughout the value chain. Additional ref-asociated items bound for international markets include fresh, frozen and dried ref fish, black pearls, an asortment of invertebrates and coral itself.  Unfortunately, the trade statistics kept by Fiji are to broad and do not identify specific species of fish. Acording to data available from the United Nations, Fiji exported aproximately 3,340 tones of living marine resources, excluding pelagic and aquarium species, worth an estimated US$ 14.1 milion, in 205 (United Nations Comodity Trade Statistics Database, 208).  Because of the high value of select marine comodities, individuals and comunities taking part in export fisheries can potentialy make substantial profits.  However, along with the prospect for high profits comes the potential for ecological and social degradation. Although the volume and value of Fiji’s ref-asociated export fisheries has increased significantly during the past few decades, very litle atention has ben paid to the economic, social and ecological impacts of export driven fisheries on artisanal and subsistence fishers, fishing comunities and fishing habitat.  This represents a considerable gap in knowledge that wil be addresed in the larger project that my thesis is a part of.  Although Fiji’s ref-based fisheries are socialy and economicaly important, there are other uses of Fiji’s coral refs, particularly tourism.  The number of anual visitors to Fiji has fluctuated in recent years as a result of their political instability, but it is estimated that aproximately 570,00 international tourists wil visit Fiji in 208 (Fiji Islands Visitor Bureau, 208).  Past studies have shown that many of these tourists participate in coral ref asociated activities such as scuba diving, snorkeling, fishing and ref walks (Fiji Ministry of Tourism, 204).  Although there are several publications reporting coral refs as a major draw for tourists (Plange, 196; McDonel and Darcy, 198), there is no quantitative data or information on the economic contribution of coral ref-based tourism to Fiji’s economy. Regardles, coastal tourism undoubtedly afects artisanal and subsistence fisheries and wil inevitably influence future fisheries development and management strategies (Gilet, 202).  Other notable direct uses of Fiji’s coral refs include using coral pieces in septic system soakage pits, using coral sand in cement production and pharmaceutical bio-prospecting of  93 coral ref flora and fauna (Anon., 202; Tangley, 196; Aalbersberg et al., 199). There is practicaly no research and monitoring done within Fiji in regard to the volume and value of these uses of coral refs.  As part of Fiji’s Ministry of Primary Industries, the Fisheries Department is asigned the task of monitoring, managing and developing fisheries resources.  The two main pieces of legislation used to regulate curent fishing activities in Fiji’s national waters are the Fisheries Act, which pertains solely to Fijian owned fishing vesels, and the Marine Spaces Act, which aims to regulate the fishing activities of foreign owned fishing vesels (Forum Fisheries Agency, 198).  The Fisheries Act is most aplicable to inshore and ref fishing activities, regulating fishing methods, gears and areas.  For many years the Fisheries Department has emphasized developing Fiji’s fisheries through a number of schemes, including the introduction of motorized fishing boats, improving fishing gear, establishing marketing and transportation systems, developing ice-making and cold storage facilities and improving landing and berthing facilities in main fishing centers (Veitayaki, 195).  However, quarterly operating funds are often substantialy delayed, inhibiting the Fisheries Department’s ability to cary out day-to-day operations and se through long-term projects.  In this environment, it’s posible that the Fisheries Department’s inshore fisheries conservation and management eforts get overloked for semingly more lucrative fisheries development projects and industrial scale ofshore fishing.  In addition to the Fisheries Department, there are several regional and international organizations and institutions playing a role in inshore fisheries research, monitoring and management, and the development of alternative livelihod options.  Although to numerous to mention, one organization is particularly active and visible; the Fiji Localy Managed Marine Area (FLMA) Network. FLMA stands out because of the number of locations they work and their comitment to facilitating colaboration betwen government agencies, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations and local comunities of resource users.  FLMA’s management strategies are based on combining traditional resource use practices with modern methods of biological, social and economic monitoring (Veitayaki et al., 203).  Curently, the Network has initiated a logbok program to colect  94 fisheries related data from coastal comunities throughout Fiji. This data colection scheme figures to significantly contribute to future conservation eforts by the Fiji Fisheries Department and other groups working within the FLMA Network. Another organization working closely and colaboratively with the government of Fiji, with the specific aim of conserving ref fish spawning agregations, is the Society for the Conservation of Ref Fish Agregations.  Conclusion Coral refs, and their asociated flora and fauna, have played a significant role in the lives of Fijians for milenia.  However, the island nation’s long dependence on ref-asociated species for fod, income, livelihods and tradable comodities faces an uncertain future. Increasing fishing efort to met growing domestic and international demand is undoubtedly afecting the economic, social and ecological conditions in Fiji’s fishing comunities and coastal environments.  However, federaly funded research, monitoring, management and enforcement of ref-based fisheries are consistently underprovided for, in regard to financial and human resources. In fact, just two people are curently employed to monitor domestic fish sales for the entire country, while oficial subsistence catch estimates are made acording to a survey last administered nearly 30 years ago. As shown in this overview, existing literature addreses a number of important economic, social, cultural and ecological aspects of Fiji’s ref-based fisheries, but significant data and information gaps remain. Insuficiencies in data paint an incomplete picture of the fisheries and can lead to il-informed management decisions. This literature overview helps ground my research and provides a background to help guide future discusions on coral ref resource management, conservation, research and development strategies.   95 References  Aalbersberg, W.G., Parks, J. E., Rusel, D. and Korovulavula I., 199. In Search of a Cure: Bioprospecting as a marine conservation tol in a Fijian comunity.  In Paterns in Conservation: Linking Busines, the Environment, and Local Comunities in Asia and the Pacific. Washington, D.C., USA. Biodiversity Suport Program.  Adams, T., 198. The Disapearing Dri. Fiji Times.  Anon., 1978. Fiji Fisheries Division: Anual Report. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 136 p.  Anon., 190. Fisheries anual report. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Primary Industries. Suva: Government Printers, 4 p.  Anon., 202.  Sustainable coastal resources management for Fiji.  Prepared for the Fiji National Workshop on Integrated Coastal Management, Suva, Fiji, 48 p.  Anon., 204. Fisheries anual report. Fiji Ministry of Fisheries. Suva: Government Printers, 48 p.  Aswani, S. and Hamilton, R.J., 204.  Integrating indigenous ecological knowledge and customary sea tenure with marine and social science for conservation of bumphead parotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) in the Roviana Lagon, Solomon Islands. Environmental Conservation 31 (1): 69-83.  Chana, A., 207. Fisheries Officer, Department of Fisheries. Personal Comunication.  Dalzel P and Adams T 195.  Management of Pacific Island Inshore Fisheries. 3rd Australasian Fisheries Managers Conference, 2 - 4 August , Rotnest Island, Western Australia.   96 Drasing, S. 207. Fisheries Officer, Department of Fisheries. Personal Comunication.  FAO/RAP/FIPL, 204. A research agenda for smal-scale fisheries. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.  RAP Publication No. 204.21 and FIPL/C 1009 (EN) 42p.  FAO, 208.  Fiji Country Profile. htp://ww.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FI-CP_FJ/en  Fiji Ministry of Tourism 204. Fiji international visitor survey: Sumary report. Stolznow Research.  Fiji Islands Visitors Bureau 208. Keeping the promise.   Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics, 207. National population census.  Fong, G., 194. Case Study of a Traditional Marine Management System: Sasa Vilage, Macuata Province, Fiji. Fod and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.  Foraete, H.M., 201. Fod security strategies for the Republic of Fiji. Working Paper Series - CGPRT Centre (ESCAP), No. 5, 17 p.  Forum Fisheries Agency. 198. Fisheries legislative profile: Republic of Fiji. FA Report 98/28.  Gilet, R. 202.  Pacific island fisheries: Regional and country information.  Fod and Agriculture Organization.   Hand, T., Davis, D. and Gilet, R., 205.  Republic of the Fiji Islands: Fisheries Sector Review. Technical Asistance Consultant’s Report, Asian Development Bank, 95 p.  Hornel, J. 1940. Report on the Fisheries of Fiji. F. W. Smith, Government printer, Suva.  97  Howard, M. 191. Fiji: Race and politics in an Island State. University of British Columbia Pres, Vancouver, 452 p.  Iwakiri, S., 1983. Matagali of the sea: A study of customary right on ref and lagon in Fiji, the South Pacific. Memoirs of the Kagoshima University Research Center for the South Pacific 4, 13-143.  Jenings S. and Polunin, N.V.C., 195. Comparative size and composition of yield from six Fijian ref fisheries. Journal of Fish Biology, 46: 28-46.  Johanes, R.E. 1978.  Traditional Marine Conservation Methods in Oceania and Their Demise. Anual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 9: 349-364.  Kunatuba, P., 1983. Traditional knowledge of the marine environment in Fiji. A report on the traditional fisheries of Fiji. European Economic Comunity.   Kuster, C., Vuki, V.C. and Zan, L.P., 205. Long-term trends in subsistence fishing paterns and coral ref fisheries yield from a remote Fijian island. Fisheries Research, 76: 221-28.  Ledua, E.  195.  Policies, Problems, Law and Regulation with regard to inshore fisheries resource management in Fiji.  Joint FA/SPC workshop on the management of South Pacific inshore fisheries. Noumea, New Caledonia, 9 p.  Nun, P.D., Ishimura, T., Dickinson, W.R., Katayama, K., Thomas, F., Kumar, R., Matararaba, S., Davidson, J. and Worthy, T.  207.  The Lapita Occupation at Naitabale, Moturiki Island, Central Fij. Asian Perspectives, 46 (1): 96-132.  Luna, R. W., 203. Traditional fod prohibitions (tapu) on marine turtles among Pacific Islanders. Secretariat of the Pacific Comunity Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Buletin,15.  98  McDonel, I. A., & Darcy, S., 198.  Tourism precincts: A factor in Bali’s rise in fortune and Fiji ’s fal from favor - an Australian perspective. Journal of Vocational Marketing, 4: 353– 367.  Plange, N., 196. ‘Fiji’, in Hul, M., and Page, J. P., eds, Tourism in the Pacific: Isues and Cases. International Thomson Busines Pres, Boston, MA.  Ravuvu, A., 1983. Vaka i taukei: the Fijian way of life. Institute of Pacific Studies, Suva.  Rawlinson, N.J.F., Milton, D.A., Blaber, S.J.M., Sesewa, A. and Sharma, S.P. 195. A survey of the subsistence and artisanal fisheries in rural areas of Viti Levu, Fiji.  The Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), 138 p.  Scar, D., 1984. Fiji: A short history. George Alen and Unwin Publishers, England, 202 p.  SPC, 208. Fiji Country Profiles. htp://ww.spc.int/coastfish/Sections/Comunity/fiji.htm  Siwatibau, S., 1984. Traditional environment practices in the South Pacific—A case study of Fiji. Ambio, 13 (5–6): 365–368.  Tangley, L., 196. Ground rules emerge for marine bioprospectors. BioScience, 46 (4): 245-246.  Tipet, A.R., 1959. ‘The survival of an ancient custom relative to the pig’s head, Bau, Fiji’, The Fiji Society, 6(1–2): 30–39.  United Nations Comodity Trade Statistics Database, 208. htp://comtrade.un.org/.  Veitayaki, J., 195.  Fisheries development in Fiji: The quest for sustainability.  Institue of Pacific Studies Publications, University of the South Pacific.   99  Veitayaki, J., 197.  Traditional marine resource management practices used in the Pacific Islands: An agenda for change. Ocean and Coastal Management, Vol. 37, No. 1., p123-136.   Veitayaki, J., 205. Fisheries resource-use culture in Fiji and its implications. In Hooper, A. (editor), 205. Culture and Sustainable Development in the Pacific. Asian Pacific Pres at the Australian National University, 243 p.  Veitayaki, J., Aalbersberg, W.G., Tawake, A., Rupeni, E. and Tabunakawai, K., 203. Mainstreaming resource conservation: The Fiji Localy Managed Marine Area Network and its influence on national policy development.  Resource Management in Asia-Pacific Working Paper No. 42. Resource Management in Asia-Pacific Program.     100 Apendix C: Input variable descriptions, values, notes and sources  Table C.1 Finfish model input variables, values and references.     Variables Value Notes References General    Acuracy of Fisheries Department monitoring (volume) 1.2 Represents catch under-estimation Pers. com., A. Asis; S. Singh Inflation (202 prices into Jan 208 prices) 1.28 Fod price inflation Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics htp:/www.statsfiji.gov.fj/ Average number of fishers per boat with an engine 3.64  DemEcoFish survey data, 204 Average number of fishers per boat without an engine 2.14  DemEcoFish survey data, 204 Catch Per Unit Efort (kg/person/hour) 1.78 CPUE varies depending on fishing gear used; spearfishing 1.78, handline 1.5, net fishing 2.25. Numbers represent an average CPUE for each gear type, determined by existing literature Rawlinson et al., 195; Dalzel et al., 196; Jenings and Polunin, 196; Kuster et al., 206     Fishers’ Costs    The % of total fishing hours fished by FT fishers 100  The % of total fishing hours fished by PT fishers 0 Distributes total fishing hours amongst FT and PT fishers. The models can be run as if al fishers were FT, al fishers PT, or a given percentage of FT and PT fishers  Labor cost multiplier for working (not fishing) 1.3 Multiplied by hours spent fishing to get total working hours. Estimates based on personal observations of fishers’ activities at fishing wharfs in Suva and Lautoka  101  Table C.1 Cont’d    Variables Value Notes References Labor cost multiplier for seling to midlemen 1 Represents aditional work required to sel to midlemen Labor cost multiplier for seling to vendor 1.25 Represents aditional work required to sel to vendors Labor cost multiplier for seling direct to consumer 1.5 Represents aditional work required to sel to consumers Labor cost multipliers are my estimates, based on general observations of fishers’ seling to midlemen, vendors and consumers Hours fishing per week for ful-time fishers 30 Hours fishing per week for part-time fishers 12 This number is for hours fishing (gear in the water) and does not include transiting, cleaning fish, etc. Based on: Rawlinson et al., 195; DemEcoFish, 204. Number of fishing trips per week 5  Number of weks worked per year 40  Based on: Rawlinson et al., 195; DemEcoFish, 204. % of PT fishers that use a boat with an engine 30  % of PT fishers that use a boat w/o an engine 50  % of PT fishers that don't use a boat 20  % of FT fishers that use a boat with an engine 50  % of FT fishers that use a boat w/o an engine 35  % of FT fishers that don't use a boat 15  Al values on fishers using boats with engines, without engines or not using boats at al are based DemEcoFish, 204; as wel as personal comunications and observations % of hours using motor, compared with fishing hours 60 Represents the amount of time a motor is being used (full throtle) in comparison to the amount of hours spent fishing. Average motor is 25 horsepower My estimate     Fishers’ Benefits    % of catch sold to midlemen 45 % of catch sold to vendors 30 % of catch sold directly to consumers 25 Represents the percentage of the fishers’ catch that is sold to diferent levels of the products value chain Based on Redy, 204; personal observations of fish sales in Suva, Labasa, Lautoka and Savusavu % of market value received when seling to a midleman 60 % of market value received when seling to a vendor 80 % of market value received when seling to a consumer 100 Represents the % of market value received by a fisher when seling to diferent levels of the value chain Based on Redy, 204; personal observations of fish sales in Suva, Labasa, Lautoka and Savusavu  102  Table C.1 Cont’d    Variables Value Notes References Middlemen Hours worked per day 7  Days worked per week 5  Weks worked per year 45  Kilograms of fish handled per day 40  Hours worked per year per midleman 1575 Determined by hours worked per day and days worked per year Kilograms of fish that a midleman handles per year 900 Determined by fish handled per day and days worked per year There is virtualy no existing information on the role of midlemen in Fiji’s artisanal fisheries. Therefore, al midlemen variable values are informed estimates based on personal comunications with midlemen and personal observations at fishing wharfs and markets in Suva, Labasa, Lautoka and Savusavu Midleman FT and PT multiplier 1 Used to adjust hours worked and fish handled acording to FT or PT employment      Vendors    Market vendor fes/kg of fish sold 0.3 Usage or rental fes are typicaly charged to use retail space at municipal markets Personal comunication, municipal market fish vendors Hours worked per day 6  Days worked per week 5  Weks worked per year 45  Kilograms of fish sold per day 25  Hours worked per year per vendor 1350 Determined by the hours worked per day and days worked per year Kilograms of fish that a vendor sels per year 5625 Determined by fish sold per day and days worked per year Vendor variable values are informed estimates based on personal comunication with vendors and personal observations at fish markets in Suva, Lautoka and Savusavu  Vendor FT and PT multiplier 1 Used to adjust hours worked and fish sold acording to FT or PT employment    103 Table C.2 Invertebrate model input variables, values and references. Variable Invertebrate group name References  Sea Urchin Trochus (meat) Seaweed Octopus Gastropod Crustacean Bivalve BDM Other  General           Inflation (202-208) 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics htp:/www.statsfiji.gov.fj/ Acuracy domestic sales monitoring 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Pers. com., A. Asis; S. Singh            Fishers           Hours worked per week 10 14 14 14 14 8 14 20 6 Days worked per week 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Weks worked per year 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 30 Based on Rawlinson et al., 195. It is asumed that fishers do not spend as much time targeting invertebrates as finfish % of harvest sold to midlemen 30 30 10 30 30 60 20 90 40 % of harvest fishers sold to vendors 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 10 30 % of harvest fishers sold to consumers 40 40 60 40 40 10 50 10 30 Based on Redy, 204; personal observations of fish sales in Suva, Labasa, Lautoka and Savusavu. It is asumed that fishers sel to midlemen more for items that require procesing, and les for items that do not require procesing CPUE (kg per hour) 1.50 0.20 1.0 1.0 1.50 1.0 2.50 1.0 0.50 Based on: Rawlinson et al., 195; Dalzel et al, 196; Pasfield, 197; O’Garra, 207 Fishers per boat w/engine 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 3.64 DemEcoFish, 204 Fishers per boat w/o engine 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 DemEcoFish, 204  104  Table C.2 Cont’d  Variable Invertebrate group name References  Sea Urchin Trochus (meat) Seawed Octopus Gastropod Crustacean Bivalve BDM Other  Labor multiplier for seling to midlemen 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Labor multiplier for seling to vendors 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Labor multiplier for seling to consumers 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Labor cost multipliers are my estimates, based on general observations of fishers’ seling to midlemen, vendors and consumers % of fishers that use a boat 30 40 40 40 40 70 20 50 20 % of boats with an engine 20 30 10 20 30 50 10 30 0 % of boats without an engine 80 70 90 80 70 50 90 70 100 Based on: DemEcoFish, 204; as wel as personal comunications and observations. It is asumed that boats are used les when targeting invertebrates, as aposed to finfish % of hours using motor compared to time spent fishing 30 30 30 30 30 40 30 30 0 My estimate % of market value received when seling to a midleman 60 60 60 60  60  40 60 40  60 % of market value received when seling to a vendor 80 80 80 80 80 60 80 70 80 % of market value received when seling to a consumer 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Based on Redy, 204. It is asumed that fishers receive a smaler percentage of market price for items that demand higher market prices, or require procesing before final market sale.              105  Table C.2 Cont’d Variable Invertebrate group name References  Sea Urchin Trochus (meat) Seawed Octopus Gastropod Crustacean Bivalve BDM Other  Middlemen           idleman hours worked/person/day 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Midleman days worked/person/week 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Midleman weks worked/person/year 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Midleman hours worked/person/year 1575 1575 1575 1575 1575 1575 1575 1575 1575 Midleman trips to the market/person/year 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 Midleman kilograms sold/person/day 15 10 15 10 10 10 20 20 5 Midleman kilograms handled/person/year 375 250 375 250 250 250 450 450 125 There is virtualy no information available on midlemen’s’ participation in domestic invertebrate sales. As such, estimates are made based on personal comunications and observations at fish markets in Suva, Lautoka and Savusavu.             Vendors           Vendor hours worked/person/day 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Vendor days worked/person/week 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Vendor weeks worked/person/year 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Vendor hours worked/person/year 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 945 Vendor kilograms sold/person/day 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 There is virtualy no information available on vendors’ participation in domestic invertebrate sales. As such, estimates are made based on personal comunications and observations at fish markets in Suva, Lautoka and Savusavu.   106  Table C.2 Cont’d   Variable Invertebrate group name References  Sea Urchin Trochus (meat) Seawed Octopus Gastropod Crustacean Bivalve BDM Other  Vendor kilograms sold/person/year 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025 2025  Vendor's market fes F$/kg 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 Personal comunication, municipal market fish vendors  107 Apendix D: Coral ref asociated finfish, invertebrates and marine plants  Table D.1 Coral ref-asociated finfish Family Genus Species Common Name Fijian Name Acanthuridae Acanthurus triostegus Convict surgeonfish tabace Acanthuridae Naso unicornis Bluespine unicornfish   ta Acanthuridae Acanthurus xanthopterus Yelowfin surgeonfish balagi Albulidae Albula neoguinaica Sharpjaw bonefish yawakio Belonidae Tylosuros crocodilus crocodilus Hound nedlefish Saku Carangidae Caranx sp Giant trevaly, bigeye trevaly, brasy trevaly saqa Carangidae Caranx melampygus bluefin trevaly bluefin trevaly Carangidae Selar crumenophthalmus Bigeye scad   yatule Carangidae Caranx lugubris black trevaly saqaloa Carangidae Elagatis bipinulatus Rainbow runner rainbow runer Chirocentridae Chirocentrus dorab Dorab wolf-herring    voivoi Clupedidae Herklotsichthys quadrimaculatus bluestripe herring Daniva Dasyatidae Dasyatis kuhli bluespoted stingray Vaidina Didontidae Diodon hystrix spotfin porcupinefish sokisoki Elopidae Megalops cyprinoides Indo-Pacific tarpon Yavula Engraulidae Thryssa balama Baelama anchovy   vaya Gerreidae Gerus sp  matu Haemulidae Plectorhynchus sp sweetlips sevaseva Hemirhamphidae Hemirhamphus sp Blackbarred halfbeak  Busa Holocentridae Myripristis violacea   Latice soldierfish  corocoro Kuhlidae Kuhlia bilunulata silver flagtail mataba Kuhlidae Kuhlia rupestris rock flagtail ikadroka Kyphosidae Kyphosus sp Blue seachub sirisiriwai Labridae Cheilinus undulatus humphead wrase Varivoce Lethrinidae Lethrinus mahsena Sky emperor    Sabutu Lethrinidae Gymnocranius sp Breams Mama Lethrinidae Lethrinus nebulosus Spangled emperor     Kawago Lethrinidae Lethrinus xanthochila Yelowlip emperor    Kacika Lethrinidae Lethrinus elongatus Smaltoth emperor   Dokonivudi Lethrinidae Monotaxis grandoculis large-eyed bream bu Lethrinidae Lethrinus kalopterus Orange-spoted emperor    Sabutudamu Lethrinidae Lethrinus reticulatus Red snout emperor    Kabatia Lutjanidae Aprion virescens green jobfish utouto Lutjanidae Paracaesio kusakari sadleback snaper uluqa Lutjanidae Aphareus rutilans rusty jobfish sewidri Lutjanidae Lutjanus timorensis timor snaper rosinibogi Lutjanidae Lutjanus malabaricus malabar blod snaper rosinibogi Lutjanidae Pristipomoides sp  opakapaka Table D.1 Cont’d  108 Family Genus Species Common Name Fijian Name Lutjanidae Symphorus nematophorus chinamanfish laidamu Lutjanidae Lutjanus argentimaculatus Mangrove red snaper    damu Lutjanidae Lutjanus gibus humpback red snaper bo Lutjanidae Lutjanus rivulatus bluberlip snaper regua Lutjanidae Lutjanus quinquelineatus five-lined snaper kake Lutjanidae Lutjanus fulvus blacktail snaper kake Lutjanidae Lutjanus fulviflama dory snaper kake Lutjanidae Lutjanus bohar two-spoted red snaper bati Lutjanidae Paracaesio kusakari Kusakar’s snaper bedford Mugilidae Liza vaigiensis Squaretail mulet  kava Mugilidae Valamugil seheli Bluespot mulet kanace Mugilidae Liza melinoptera Otomebora mullet molisa Mullidae Parupeneus indicus Indian goatfish   mataroko Mullidae Muloidichthys vanicolensis yelow goatfish ose Mullidae Upeneus vitatus Yelowstriped goatfish  ki Ostracidae Ostracion tubaculatus Yelow boxfish toa Platacidae Platax orbicularis  Orbicular batfish   vunavuna Polynemidae Lactarius lacterius False trevaly   Kela Scaridae Scarus sp parrotfish Ulavi Scaridae Bolbometopon muricatus green humphead parrotfish Kalia Scatophagidae Scatophagus argus spoted scat batekau Scombridae scomberomorus comerson Narrow-barred Spanish mackerel walu Scombridae Scomberoides sp Doublespoted queenfish     votonimoli Scombridae Gramatorcynus bilineatus   double-lined makerel salalanitoga Scombridae Megalaspis sp  salalanitoga Scombridae Gymnosarda unicolor Dogtoth tuna   dogtoth Serranidae Epinephelus fuscogutatus Brown-marbled grouper kawakawa Serranidae Epinephelus lanceolatus Giant grouper   kavu Serranidae Epinephelus microdon Camouflage grouper   kasala Serranidae Plectroponus sp coral groupers donu Serranidae Epinephelus fuscogutatus Brown-marbled grouper  delabulewa Serranidae Epinephelus mera Honeycomb grouper   senikawakawa Serranidae Cephalopholis miniatus Coral hind   kasaledamu Siganidae Siganus vermiculatus Vermiculated spinefot    nuqa Siganidae Siganus chrysospilos Goldspoted spinefot    nuqa Siganidae Siganus doliatus Barred spinefot    nuqa Siganidae Siganus spinus Litle spinefot   nuqa Sphyraenidae Sphyraena forsteri Forster’s seapike silasila Sphyraenidae Sphyraena sp barracuda Ogo Tetraodontidae Arothron stelatus Starry toadfish   sumusumu           109 Table D.2 Coral ref-asociated invertebrates and marine plants. Family Genus Species Common name Fijian name Aplysidae Dolabela auricularia green seahare veata Arcidae Anadara cornea arkshel kaikoso Caulerpaceae Caulerpa racemosa sea grapes nama Chitonidae Acanthozostera gemata chiton tadruku Diadematidae Tripneustes gratila sea urchin cawaki Gracilariaceae Gracilaria verucosa glasweed lumiwawa Holothuriidae Microthele fuscogilva white teatfish sucuwalu Holothuriidae Actinopyga miliaris Blackfish Dri Holothuriidae Metriatyla scabra sandfish dairo Holothuriidae Microthele nobilis black teatfish loaloa Holothuriidae Bohadschia marmorata brown sandfish vula Hypneaceae Hypnea panosa maidenhair lumicevata Mesodesmatidae Atactodea striata surf clam sigawale Naticidae Polinices flemingiana mon snail drevula Neritidae Nerita polita polished nerite madrali Octopodidae Octopus sp octopus kuita Palinuridae Panulirus versicolor painted rock lobster uraudina Palinuridae Panulirus ornatus ornate rock lobster uraudina Palinuridae Panulirus penicilatus golden rock lobster uraudina Pteriidae Pinctada magaritifera black lip pearl oyster civa Scylaridae Paribacus caledonicus sliper lobster sliper Spondylidae Spondylus ducalis Ducal thorny oyster kalokalo Stichopodidae Stichopus chloronotus greenfish greenfish Strombidae Lambis lambis spider shel yaga Strombidae Strombus giberulus stromb golea Tridacnidae Tridacna derasa smoth giant clam vasuadina Tridacnidae Tridacna maxima rugose giant clam katavatu Tridacnidae Tridacna squamosa fluted giant clam cega Trochidae Trochus niloticus trochus shel sici Trochidae Trochus pyramis top shel tovu Turbinidae Turbo chrysostomus turban shel lasawa Veneridae Gafrarium tumidum venus shel qaqa   110 Apendix E: Costs asociated with fishing  Table E.1 Costs asociating with fishing. Al prices in Fijian dolars. (F$ 1.0 = US$ 0.67, February 208) Item Cost Notes Sources Handline 2.20 Per year O’Garra, 207 Spear gun 36.07 Per year O’Garra, 207 Spear 8.32 Per year O’Garra, 207 Gogles/mask 24.05 Per year O’Garra, 207 Net 50.0 Per year O’Garra, 207 Flashlight 18.50 Per year O’Garra, 207 Labor 1.05 Per hour O’Garra, 207 Bait 37.84 Per boat per trip Redy, 204 Ice 8.37 Per boat per trip Redy, 204 Fod 20.58 Per boat per trip Redy, 204 Batery 3.95 Per boat per trip Redy, 204 Kerosene 1.5 Per boat per trip Redy, 204 Fuel 2.05 Per liter Fiji Daily Post, March 4, 208 Fuel (fishers) 19.42 Per boat (25hp) per hour of engine use My calculation based on price of fuel; DemEcoFish, 204; my estimate of engine use Fuel (midlemen) 9.32 Per day (truck) Based on price of fuel and my asumption on km driven per day Public transit 6.0 Per day Personal observation Boat maintenance (without engine) 14.37 Per year O’Garra, 207; DemEcoFish 204 Boat maintenance (with engine) 54.69 Per year O’Garra, 207; DemEcoFish 204 Boat ownership (without engine) 97.0 Anual depreciation O’Garra, 207; DemEcoFish 204; Personal comunication, boat owners Boat ownership (with engine) 183.0 Anual depreciation O’Garra, 207; DemEcoFish 204; Personal comunication, boat owners Baskets 1.1 Each O’Garra, 207   111 Apendix F: UBC Research Ethics Board Certificate of Aproval  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 63 0
United States 12 1
Fiji 7 5
Canada 5 0
Germany 5 32
Brazil 4 2
Japan 4 0
Russia 3 0
United Kingdom 3 0
France 2 0
Hong Kong 2 0
Saudi Arabia 2 0
Sweden 1 0
City Views Downloads
Hangzhou 35 0
Unknown 19 35
Ashburn 7 0
Shenzhen 6 0
Beijing 6 0
Vancouver 5 0
Suva 3 4
Nanjing 3 0
Saint Petersburg 3 0
Ürümqi 2 0
Palisades 2 0
Jeddah 2 0
Nanchang 2 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0067110/manifest

Comment

Related Items