Frontier Fiji Environmental Research Series

Transcription

1 Frontier Fiji Environmental Research Series TECHNICAL REPORT 2 An Ecological Assessment of the Fringing Reefs of Gau, Fiji FRONTIER-FIJI 27

2 iii

3 Frontier Fiji Environmental Research Series TECHNICAL REPORT 2 An Ecological Assessment of the Fringing Reefs of Gau, Fiji Part 1. Ecological Assessment of the Fringing Reefs of Gau Part 2. Socio-Economic Research and Capacity Building Grover, A., Steer, M.D., Weaver, D.G., Moss, N., Owen, N., Hall, N. & Fanning E. (Eds) Frontier-Fiji International Ocean Institute Pacific Islands Society for Environmental Exploration Gau 27 iv

4 v

5 Suggested Technical Paper Citation: Frontier Fiji (28) Grover, A., Steer, M.D., Weaver, D.G., Moss, N., Owen, N., Hall, N. & Fanning E. (Eds). An Ecological Assessment of the Fringing Reefs of Gau, Fiji, Frontier-Fiji Environmental Research Series Report 2, The Society for Environmental Exploration UK, International Ocean Institute Pacific Islands, The University of the South Pacific, Fiji Suggested Section Citations: Grover, A., Weaver, D.G., Moss, N., Steer, M.D., Owen, N., Hall, N. & Fanning E. 28 Ecological Assessment Of The Fringing Reefs Of Gau In Frontier Fiji (28) Grover, A., Steer, M.D., Weaver, D.G., Moss, N., Owen, N., Hall, N. & Fanning E. (Eds). An Ecological Assessment of the Fringing Reefs of Gau, Fiji, Frontier-Fiji Environmental Research Series Report 2, The Society for Environmental Exploration UK, International Ocean Institute Pacific Islands, The University of the South Pacific, Fiji, pp Cooper, D., Winton, D. and Siddig, S. 28. Holothurians Of Western Gau In Frontier Fiji (28) Grover, A., Steer, M.D., Weaver, D.G., Moss, N., Owen, N., Hall, N. & Fanning E. (Eds). An Ecological Assessment of the Fringing Reefs of Gau, Fiji, Frontier-Fiji Environmental Research Series Report 2, The Society for Environmental Exploration UK, International Ocean Institute Pacific Islands, The University of the South Pacific, Fiji, pp Moss, N. and Gillis, L.G. 28. Soft Coral Rapid Assessment Procedure (Scrap) In Frontier Fiji (28) Grover, A., Steer, M.D., Weaver, D.G., Moss, N., Owen, N., Hall, N. & Fanning E. (Eds). An Ecological Assessment of the Fringing Reefs of Gau, Fiji, Frontier-Fiji Environmental Research Series Report 2, The Society for Environmental Exploration UK, International Ocean Institute Pacific Islands, The University of the South Pacific, Fiji, pp Moss, N., Gillis, L.G. and Steer, M.D. 28. Seagrass Watch, Gau. ) In Frontier Fiji (28) Grover, A., Steer, M.D., Weaver, D.G., Moss, N., Owen, N., Hall, N. & Fanning E. (Eds). An Ecological Assessment of the Fringing Reefs of Gau, Fiji, Frontier-Fiji Environmental Research Series Report 2, The Society for Environmental Exploration UK, International Ocean Institute Pacific Islands, The University of the South Pacific, Fiji, pp Weaver, D.G. 28. Raising awareness of turtle conservation through environmental education. In Frontier Fiji (28) Grover, A., Steer, M.D., Weaver, D.G., Moss, N., Owen, N., Hall, N. & Fanning E. (Eds). An Ecological Assessment of the Fringing Reefs of Gau, Fiji, Frontier-Fiji Environmental Research Series Report 2, The Society for Environmental Exploration UK, International Ocean Institute Pacific Islands, The University of the South Pacific, Fiji, pp Cooper, D., Winton, D. and Siddig, S. 28. Artisinal Fishing Methods And Catch Composition In Frontier Fiji (28) Grover, A., Steer, M.D., Weaver, D.G., Moss, N., Owen, N., Hall, N. & Fanning E. (Eds). An Ecological Assessment of the Fringing Reefs of Gau, Fiji, Frontier-Fiji Environmental Research Series Report 2, The vi

6 Society for Environmental Exploration UK, International Ocean Institute Pacific Islands, The University of the South Pacific, Fiji, pp Moss, N. and Gillis, L.G. 28. Farming Practices in Western Gau In Frontier Fiji (28) Grover, A., Steer, M.D., Weaver, D.G., Moss, N., Owen, N., Hall, N. & Fanning E. (Eds). An Ecological Assessment of the Fringing Reefs of Gau, Fiji, Frontier-Fiji Environmental Research Series Report 2, The Society for Environmental Exploration UK, International Ocean Institute Pacific Islands, The University of the South Pacific, Fiji, pp The Environmental Research Report Series is published by: The Society for Environmental Exploration 5-52 Rivington Street, London, EC2A 3QP United Kingdom Tel: +44 () Fax: +44 () Web Page: ISSN (Print) ISSN X (Online) ISSN (CD-ROM) Frontier-Fiji 28 vii

7 Frontier-Fiji The Society for Environmental Exploration and International Ocean Institute Pacific Islands have been conducting collaborative research into environmental issues since 26 under the title of Frontier-Fiji. Frontier-Fiji conducts research into biological diversity and resource utilisation of both marine and coastal terrestrial environments. Fiji, located in the Pacific Islands is renowned for its biological and ecological diversity. The majority of this country is dependent in some way on its marine resources for protein. They have traditionally used management techniques to maintain these resources but are coming under increasing pressure from unsustainable exploitation. As a result, conservation and development work is of paramount importance in order to better protect and conserve those areas coming under increasing pressure. Frontier-Fiji conducts baseline marine surveys on the western island of Gau, Fiji s fifth largest island in an effort to provide biological and resource utilisation data for the preparation of sustainable management initiatives for the region. International Ocean Institute Pacific Islands (IOI-PI) IOI operates out of 25 countries where it produces research and policy-related publications dealing ocean governance and ocean science. IOI works to ensure the sustainability of the ocean as the source of life, and to uphold and expand the principle of the common heritage as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Society for Environmental Exploration (SEE) The Society is a non-profit making company limited by guarantee and was formed in The Society s objectives are to advance field research into environmental issues and implement practical projects contributing to the conservation of natural resources. Projects organised by The Society are joint initiatives developed in collaboration with national research agencies in cooperating countries. FOR MORE INFORMATION Frontier-Fiji c/o Qarani Post Office Gau, FIJI Tel/Fax: frontierfiji@yahoo.co.uk Society for Environmental Exploration 5-52 Rivington Street London EC2A 3QP U.K Tel: +44 () Fax: +44 () research@frontier.ac.uk Internet: International Ocean Institute Pacific Islands University of South Pacific, Lower Campus, Laucala Bay Road, Suva, FIJI Tel: Veitayaki_J@usp.ac.fj viii

8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is the culmination of the advice, co-operation, hard work and expertise of many people. In particular acknowledgements are due to the following: INTERNATIONAL OCEAN INSTITUTE PACIFIC ISLANDS FJM Host: Dr Joeli Veitayaki SOCIETY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXPLORATION (SEE) Managing Director: Operations Manager: Operations Manager: Research & Development Manager: Research & Development Manager: Research & Development Coordinator: Research & Development Officers: Mrs Eibleis Fanning Ms Keely Severn Mr Kirk Williams Ms Nisha Owen Dr Mark Steer Mr Dan Weaver Miss Anisha Grover Miss Jacqueline Caine Miss Tanja Murphy Miss Brittany Alexander Miss Natalie Hall Miss Elisabeth Wulffeld Miss Aude Caromel FFMRP STAFF Principal Investigator: Dr Carly Brooks (Dec 26 April 27) Principal Investigator: Mr David Cooper (April 27 Sept 27) Logistics Manager: Mr Harry Rousham Logistics Manager: Mr Nicholas Moss Research Officer: Miss Debbie Winton Research Officer: Miss Sara Siddiq Research Officer: Miss Lucy Gwen-Gillis Research Officer: Miss Caroline Johnson Dive Officer: Mr Alan Rees Dive Officer: Mr Paul Collins Conservation Apprentice: Miss Kelsie Lee Pettit Conservation Apprentice: Miss Sarah Waters Conservation Apprentice: Mr Daniel Henly Conservation Apprentice: Miss Claire Horseman Conservation Apprentice: Miss Sophie Donkin Conservation Apprentice: Miss Julie Watson Conservation Apprentice: Miss Lisa Southwood Conservation Apprentice: Miss Carrie Williams Photograph Credits: Frontier-Fiji, Helen Capell ix

9 FFMRP RESEARCH ASSISTANTS: RESEARCH ASSISTANTS Rachel Miller Emily Pinner Jessica Richards Jack McDill Liza Parry Nicholas Riley Elizabeth Barker Victoria Battel Hugo Maughan Frederic Lamb Tania Auger Richard Vockins George Gardner Catherine Sims Claire Horseman Rebecca Wood Victoria Jeffers Katherine Stride Stephanie Reading Kayleigh Walsh Robert McNeil Sam Tucker Paul Haddon Helen Capell Lucie Carrington Julie Watson Matthew Stamper Katharine Hind Jonathon Rabey Michael Horton Luke Bardaji David Holding Carrie Williams Lucy Magoolagan Maia Corbyn Mairi Fenton Lisa Southwood Sophie Donkin Megan Sclater Heather Dutton Katharine Beattie Ben Warren Charlotte Smith Archie Maitland Joseph Naud James Pascall-Smith Eleanor Jones Lucy Webb-Wilson Gregory Rigby Helen Capell Alex Wood Christopher Pawson James Stitt Samuel Alsford Carly Gee Joe Filby Andrew Reece Richard Puxty Vanessa Barber Lauren Beck Michael Kerridge Victoria Steele Victoria Battell Claire Levitt Alexandra Grant Jennifer Hedley Madeline Warnick Harriet Smith Kate Newman Charlotte Highmore Timothy Rogers Mea La Bella Will Jones Laura Jones Edward Hirst Lorna Moore Amy Nogowczy India Le Marinel Benjamin Heyse Stuart McCallum Debra Haylings Deborah Crockard Tomaso Lisca Gemma Cusick Michilla Wright Max Kellett Christopher Smith William Reid Aja Bohutinska Kayleigh Griffiths Gwilym Davies Elaine Boyd Laura Mudge Tim Biggs Matthew Ashman Micheal Colgrave Molly Spector Sarah Wilderspin Richard Goodacre Jack Mackain Bremner Robert Allan Laura Shimell Joshua Baldwin Tom Barrow Emily Hilton Charles Alexander Alison Nicholls Louise Kerry Carl Steadman Samuel Lees Caroline Halls Dane Turville Alexandra Cole Steve Minter Christopher Hallam Lucy Murray Andrew Sykes x

10 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2. INTRODUCTION PROJECT RATIONALE AND HISTORY3 2.2 THE REGIONAL CONTEXT THE STUDY SITE: GAU ISLAND SITE SUMMARY: GAU ISLAND, LOMAIVITI ARCHIPELAGO, FIJI BIOGEOGRAPHY CLIMATE LAND USE AND LIVELIHOODS POLITICS & GOVERNANCE REPORT AIMS 8 PART ONE: ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE FRINGING REEFS OF GAU 9 3. BASELINE ECOLOGICAL SURVEY INTRODUCTION AIMS METHODOLOGY BOAT MARSHAL PHYSICAL SURVEYOR FISH SURVEYOR SUBSTRATE SURVEYOR ALGAE & INVERTEBRATES SURVEYOR USE OF NON-PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH ASSISTANTS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS SURVEY EFFORT BENTHIC COMPOSITION ALGAE HARD CORAL RECENTLY KILLED CORAL RUBBLE SOFT CORAL SAND SILT ROCK OTHER INVERTEBRATES ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECTS ON BENTHIC COVER FISH FISH ABUNDANCE AND DIVERSITY FISH BIOMASS GENERAL CONCLUSIONS SITE ANALYSES VIONE SITE DESCRIPTION 37 xi

11 5.1.2 SOCIO-ECONOMICS BIOTA HARD CORALS FISH KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SAWAIEKE SITE DESCRIPTION SOCIO-ECONOMICS BIOTA HARD CORALS FISH ALGAE DISCUSSION SOMOSOMO SITE DESCRIPTION SOCIO-ECONOMICS BIOTA HARD CORALS FISH ALGAE KEY FINDINGS FURTHER RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS NUKUYAWENI SITE DESCRIPTION SOCIO-ECONOMICS BIOTA HARD CORALS FISH DISCUSSION NAVIAVIA: FRONTIER-FIJI BASE CAMP SITE DESCRIPTION BIOTA HARD CORALS FISH DISCUSSION NAWAIKAMA SITE DESCRIPTION SOCIO-ECONOMICS BIOTA HARD CORALS FISH ALGAE DISCUSSION LEVUKA SITE DESCRIPTION SOCIO-ECONOMICS BIOTA HARD CORALS FISH DISCUSSION NADRODO/YADUA 58 xii

12 5.8.1 SITE DESCRIPTION BIOTA HARD CORALS FISH DISCUSSION NUKULOA SITE DESCRIPTION SOCIO-ECONOMICS BIOTA HARD CORALS FISH SEDIMENTATION INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY RESULTS NAWAIKAMA LEVUKA RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH HOLOTHURIANS OF WESTERN GAU AIM OBJECTIVES INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION SOFT CORAL RAPID ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE (SCRAP) INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY PHYSICAL SURVEYOR SOFT CORAL SURVEYOR RESULTS DISCUSSION SEAGRASS WATCH, GAU INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY RESULTS DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS 76 PART 2. SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESEARCH AND CAPACITY BUILDING TURTLE CONSERVATION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION INTRODUCTION AIMS STUDY SITE METHODOLOGY RESULTS QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEYS 82 xiii

13 1.5.2 TURTLE WARDENS SCHOOL WORKSHOPS PROGRAMME FOR PRIMARY SCHOOLS PROGRAMME FOR THE SECONDARY SCHOOL DISCUSSION ARTISINAL FISHING METHODS AND CATCH COMPOSITION AIM OBJECTIVES INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS FISHING TRIPS RESULTS SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS FISHING LOCATIONS SPECIES CAUGHT TIME SPENT FISHING GEAR AMOUNT OF CATCH WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CATCH CHANGES TO SIZE OF CATCH EFFECT OF THE MPAS AND THE FUTURE DISCUSSION FARMING PRACTICES IN WESTERN GAU INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION DISCUSSION SLASH AND BURN FERTILISERS CONCLUSION FUTURE WORK CONSERVATION, COMMUNITY AND THE CHIEF: A CASE STUDY OF COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ABSTRACT DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS CONCLUDING REMARKS REFERENCES 15 xiv

14 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 2.1 GAU ISLAND, FIJI 6 FIGURE 3.1 STANDARD TOPOGRAPHY OF A FRINGING REEF AND SURVEY DESIGN 13 FIGURE 3.2 RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PHYSICAL SURVEYOR 15 FIGURE 3.3 PROTOCOL FOR THE FISH SURVEYOR 15 FIGURE 4.1 MEAN BENTHIC SUBSTRATE OF FRINGING REEFS BY DEPTH AND REGION 2 FIGURE 4.2 PERCENTAGE BENTHIC COVER OF SIX PREDOMINANT TYPES AT EACH DEPTH AT EACH SITE ON THE WESTERN COAST OF GAU. 21 FIGURE 4.3 MEAN PROPORTION OF ALGAL COVER PER TRANSECT BY WEST COAST REGION, GAU ISLAND, AT EACH DEPTH. 22 FIGURE 4.4 MEAN PROPORTION OF HARD CORAL COVER PER TRANSECT BY WEST COAST REGION, GAU ISLAND, AT EACH DEPTH. 23 FIGURE 4.5 MEAN PROPORTION OF RECENTLY KILLED CORAL COVER PER TRANSECT BY WEST COAST REGION, GAU ISLAND, AT EACH DEPTH. 24 FIGURE 4.6 MEAN PROPORTION OF RUBBLE COVER PER TRANSECT BY WEST COAST REGION, GAU ISLAND, AT EACH DEPTH. 25 FIGURE 4.7 MEAN PROPORTION OF SOFT CORAL COVER PER TRANSECT BY WEST COAST REGION, GAU ISLAND, AT EACH DEPTH. 26 FIGURE 4.8 MEAN PROPORTION OF SAND COVER PER TRANSECT BY WEST COAST REGION, GAU ISLAND, AT EACH DEPTH. 27 FIGURE 4.9 MEAN PROPORTION OF SAND COVER PER TRANSECT BY WEST COAST REGION, GAU ISLAND, AT EACH DEPTH. 28 FIGURE 4.1 MEAN PROPORTION OF ROCK COVER PER TRANSECT BY WEST COAST REGION, GAU ISLAND, AT EACH DEPTH. 29 FIGURE 4.11 MEAN PROPORTION OF OTHER INVERTEBRATE COVER PER TRANSECT BY WEST COAST REGION, GAU ISLAND, AT EACH DEPTH. 3 FIGURE 4.12 AREAS WITH HIGHER HUMAN POPULATIONS EXHIBIT LOWER HARD CORAL COVER AT 1-12 M 31 FIGURE 4.13 AREAS WITH HIGHER HUMAN POPULATIONS EXHIBIT HIGHER NON-CORAL INVERTEBRATE COVER AT DEPTHS OF 3-5 M 32 FIGURE 4.14 AVERAGE ABUNDANCE OF FISH PER TRANSECT AT SITES ON THE WESTERN COAST OF GAU. 33 FIGURE 4.15 AVERAGE DIVERSITY (VIA SHANNON INDEX) OF FISH PER TRANSECT AT SITES ON THE WESTERN COAST OF GAU. 33 FIGURE 4.16 MEAN BIOMASS OF REEF FISH BY LOCAL POPULATION SIZE 34 FIGURE 5.1 MEAN PERCENTAGE OF CORAL BY GENUS, SAWAIEKE 39 FIGURE 5.2 AVERAGE ABUNDANCE OF REEF FISH IN SAWAIEKE BY FAMILY 4 FIGURE 5.3 AVERAGE BIOMASS (IN GRAMS PER 5M3) OF REEF FISH IN SAWAIEKE, BY FAMILY 4 FIGURE 5.4 MEAN PERCENTAGE OF HARD CORAL GENERA IN SOMOSOMO 43 FIGURE 5.5 AVERAGE ABUNDANCE OF REEF FISH IN SOMOSOMO, BY FAMILY. 44 FIGURE 5.6 AVERAGE BIOMASS (IN GRAMS PER 5M3) OF REEF FISH IN SOMOSOMO, BY FAMILY. 44 FIGURE 5.7 PERCENTAGE COVERS OF HARD CORAL GENERA IN NUKUYAWENI. 47 FIGURE 5.8 AVERAGE ABUNDANCE OF REEF FISH IN NUKUYAWENI BY FAMILY. 48 FIGURE 5.9 AVERAGE BIOMASS (IN GRAMS PER 5M3) OF REEF FISH IN NUKUYAWENI, BY FAMILY 48 FIGURE 5.1 PERCENTAGE COVER OF HARD CORAL GENERA IN NAVIAVIA 5 FIGURE 5.11 AVERAGE ABUNDANCE OF REEF FISH IN NAVIAVIA BY FAMILY 51 xv

15 FIGURE 5.12 AVERAGE BIOMASS (IN GRAMS PER 5M3) OF REEF FISH IN NAVIAVIA, BY FAMILY 51 FIGURE 5.13 PERCENTAGE REPRESENTATION OF HARD CORAL GENERA IN NAWAIKAMA 53 FIGURE 5.14 AVERAGE ABUNDANCE OF REEF FISH IN NAWAIKAMA, BY FAMILY 54 FIGURE 5.15 AVERAGE BIOMASS (IN GRAMS PER 5M3) OF REEF FISH IN NAWAIKAMA, BY FAMILY. 54 FIGURE 5.16 MEAN PERCENTAGE OF CORAL BY GENUS, LEVUKA 57 FIGURE 5.17 AVERAGE ABUNDANCE OF REEF FISH IN LEVUKA, BY FAMILY 57 FIGURE 5.18 AVERAGE BIOMASS (IN GRAMS PER 5M3) OF REEF FISH IN LEVUKA, BY FAMILY 57 FIGURE 5.19 MEAN PERCENTAGE OF CORAL BY GENUS, NADRODRO/YADUA 59 FIGURE 5.2 AVERAGE ABUNDANCE OF REEF FISH IN NADORO, BY FAMILY 59 FIGURE 5.21 AVERAGE BIOMASS (IN GRAMS PER 5M3) OF REEF FISH IN NADRODRO, BY FAMILY 6 FIGURE 5.22 AVERAGE ABUNDANCE OF REEF FISH IN NUKULOA, BY FAMILY 62 FIGURE 5.23 AVERAGE BIOMASS (IN GRAMS PER 5M3) OF REEF FISH IN NUKULOA, BY FAMILY 62 FIGURE 6.1 WIND DIRECTION AND PLACEMENT OF VILLAGES AROUND THE NAWAIKAMA PENINSULAR. 63 FIGURE 9.1 PERCENTAGE COVER OF SEAGRASS SPECIES AND ALGAE AT A SEAGRASS BED IN NAVIAVIA 74 FIGURE 9.2 AVERAGE SEAGRASS CANOPY HEIGHT AT DIFFERENT HEIGHTS ALONG THE SHORE. 75 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 3.1 FAMILIES OF FISH RECORDED ON A BASELINE SURVEY. 16 TABLE 3.2 SUBSTRATE TYPES AND THEIR SUBSEQUENT CATEGORIES. 16 TABLE 3.3 KEY INVERTEBRATE INDICATOR SPECIES 18 TABLE 4.1 SURVEY SITES AND EFFORT 19 TABLE 4.2 ESTIMATED POPULATION SIZE (NP) AT EACH STUDY SITE ON THE EASTERN COAST 31 TABLE 1.1 AIMS OF THE SEA TURTLE CONSERVATION PROJECT AND HOW THEY WERE TO BE ACHIEVED 81 TABLE 1.2 TOPICS AND GAMES CONDUCTED WITHIN A TYPICAL WORKSHOP WITH PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN. 84 TABLE 1.3 ITINERARY FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL WORKSHOPS 85 TABLE 11.1 FISHING QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONS 88 LIST OF PLATES PLATE 1 COLONIES OF TABLE ACROPORA WHICH CHARACTERISE THE REEF IN SOMOSOMO 43 PLATE 2 SOME HOLOTHURIANS OF GAU 69 xvi

16 xvii

17 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Frontier-Fiji, is collaboration between the Society for Environmental Exploration (SEE), based in London, and the International Oceanic Institute Pacific Islands (IOI- PI), based in the University of the South Pacific (USP). SEE was invited to Gau in 26 to carry out baseline biodiversity surveys on the customary marine protected areas (qoliqoli) on behalf of the communities of the island to help them understand the status of the reef and inform the sustainable management of these resources. Fishers in the communities of Gau had observed a decline in catch per unit effort and in the size of the fish over the span of a generation. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) were created directly in front of the 16 villages of Gau in which all fishing activities by the villagers are prohibited (tabu). These form part of a wider system of MPAs across Fiji aided by the Fiji Locally Managed Marine Area (FLMMA) network. More recently there has been increasing pressure to reopen the qoliqoli around Gau to commercial fishers. The primary role of Frontier-Fiji has been to conduct intensive baseline underwater visual census transects of the fringing reefs surrounding Gau, utilising the manpower of trained volunteers. Analysis on these results has helped us assess their condition and stressors. This information is then fed back to the communities in order to support the adaptive management of their marine resources. Additionally Frontier-Fiji has undertaken to provide teaching and training to better enable communities to make informed decisions regarding the management of their coastal ecosystems. As well as ecological surveys, socio-economic surveys on fisheries and agriculture have been carried out. Lomani Gau, which is the environment group formed by all the village representatives from the island has been involved in all of the workshops and have had decisive roles in planning particularly in the PADI-funded sea-turtle project where they had final say on the nature of community involvement and who should be involved in a way which was acceptable to them. The chiefs and the people are supportive of the initiatives. Overall, the health of the fringing reefs of Gau has been found to be good. High levels of hard coral cover were found in areas where there was a smaller coastal population, there is little evidence of slash and burn agriculture in the land close to the reefs, and where the majority of mangrove stands were intact. In addition, those areas which were sheltered from prevailing currents and wave action, exhibited higher levels of biodiversity. Reef fish abundance was also found to be good. However in areas which were heavily fished, small generalist families such as damselfish dominated the communities, with poor representation of larger herbivorous and piscivorous fish. The area with the poorest reef health was Nawaikama, as a result of the natural geography of the area which causes sediments to be trapped in Nawaikama bay, coupled with anthropogenic impacts of slash and burn agriculture nearby. Due to remoteness of Gau, problems of poorly planned, and rapid, development and expansion of commercial fisheries which plague much of Fiji do not affect the island to a great extent; therefore the majority of reefs are in good condition. But the subsistence fisheries still need to be managed carefully in order to ensure their sustainability. From the success of the turtle warden training programme, there is scope for further involvement of community members who could be trained in survey methodologies, biodiversity/ fisheries monitoring and ecology. This would ensure that

18 the residents of the island would be equipped to monitor their own marine resources without being dependent on external organisations. 2

19 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 PROJECT RATIONALE AND HISTORY The Society for Environmental Exploration (SEE) was formed in 1989 and is a nonprofit organisation limited by guarantee. The Society s objectives are to advance field research into environmental issues, and implement practical projects contributing to the conservation of natural resources and the development of rural communities in the developing world. Projects organised by The Society are joint initiatives developed in collaboration with national research agencies, academic institutions and government departments in co-operating countries. SEE has conducted research in Tanzania, Uganda, Mozambique, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Madagascar, Cambodia and most recently in Fiji, with particular emphasis on baseline biodiversity studies to aid future monitoring of areas both inside and outside of established and proposed protected areas. SEE s policy is to act as a conduit for local stakeholders concerns, opinions and knowledge. This has enabled SEE to establish management strategies that incorporate a human element into habitat conservation. While the preservation of biodiversity and habitats provides key ecosystem services on national and international levels, conservation can often have a negative effect at local levels, hindering the economic growth of rural populations and restricting access to natural resources. This may affect local stakeholders and therefore the cost of conservation at local levels needs to be minimised and mitigated. Frontier-Fiji was established in 26, at the invitation of the University of the South Pacific (USP) and the International Ocean Institute Pacific Islands (IOI-PI), to help the Lomani Gau assess, monitor and manage the marine resources of the Island of Gau. In 2, the communities in Vanuaso tikina approached Dr Veitayaki at USP as the fishers were noticing a decline in the local fish-stocks, fish sizes and deterioration in fishing grounds (Muhlig-Hoffman, 27, Veitayaki, 21, 25, 26). The district became a member of the Fiji Locally Managed Marine Area (FLMMA). In May 21, five tabu no-take areas were established by the villagers in Vanuaso, after village meetings and discussions to determine a suitable areas and sizes (Muhlig-Hoffman, 27). In addition, USP provided environmental training workshops for members of the community to conduct biological surveys and monitoring using early ReefCheck methodologies. A number of environmental community projects were also launched, which involved controlling and coordinating waste management, and building pig pens to control the livestock which was previously roaming free along the shore, reduce run-off, as well as protect and replant mangroves. Vanuoso district has extended its environmental management activities and was supported by the US s National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to rehabilitate their coastal habitats (Veitayaki et al., 25). In addition, support funds for the projects had been gained from French and Fijian Governments and the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA), with training implemented by USP and IOI PI. Projects such as cattle farming (French government funding), bee keeping, giant clam reseeding and fish aggregation devices (Fiji Government funding) have all aimed to improve livelihoods on the island. USP and IOI-PI have also trained island communities in mangrove planting, environmental 3

20 education on the effects of pig farming along the coast, waste management within villages and how to construct coastal protection to prevent erosion and sedimentation (stone breakwater were constructed using rocks from the coastline). The success of the program in Vanuaso caught the interest of other districts on the island with these districts also looking for outside investment and help in enabling them to better manage their coastal resources. In December 25 all the villages on the island elected to combine their efforts and to form a committee, named Lomani Gau, roughly translated as Guardians of the Island. With this every village on the island set aside an area, generally directly in front of the village, as a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in which fishing activities were controlled and often prohibited. These reserves extend from the mean high tide line to the reef crest and vary in size and composition. The length of time the areas have been protected ranges from just a few months up to six years. Navukailagi tikina established its tabu areas with the aid of the USP s Institute of Applied Sciences (IAS) while Sawaieke and Somosomo villages worked with WWF-Fiji. Due to the lack of government involvement and finances directed towards environmental programs, work conducted by NGOs is critical in Fiji. The LMMA network is reliant on the help of outside organizations such as Frontier-Fiji to provide support, guidance, project design, monitoring, analysis and communication to communities in the adaptive management of their marine resources (Meo & Radikedike, 23). The biodiversity survey research conducted with the aid of volunteer Research Assistants contributes to the creation of a longitudinal dataset vital in the management plan process. Additionally Frontier-Fiji has undertaken to provide teaching and training to better enable communities to make informed decisions regarding the management of their coastal ecosystems. 2.2 THE REGIONAL CONTEXT The Fijian Islands, situated in the western Pacific, are primarily volcanic in origin, although a few are composed of limestone. The group consists of over 32 islands, 15 of which are inhabited, supporting a population of approximately.9 million (Haub & Kent 28). The population of Fiji is divided into two main ethnic groups, indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians. Indo-Fijians originated from India and arrived in Fiji over two centuries ago as indentured labour for the British, the rulers of Fiji at that time. There is also an ever-increasing Asian influence, mainly from Japan, which has occurred much more recently. Fiji s economy is supported by a strong tourism industry as well as sugar, agriculture and mining industries but has diverse export industries ranging from fish, sugar, gold, root crops, copra, vegetables and timber products (Watling 24). The population has an annual growth rate of.8% (Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics 1999) and due to the small island nature of Fiji, much of the expansion and development is occurring along its coastlines. Only 19% of Fiji s landmass is suitable for agriculture (Nair, 23). Additionally, Fiji, like many other small developing nations, is beginning to show a demographic shift with an ever-increasing social drift of young adults to centralised urban areas. This has resulted in an older, more traditionally-minded demographic left in rural areas, especially on small islands, and has exacerbated urban coastline development (Pool et al. 26). 4

21 Traditional Fijian communities are rapidly embracing new technologies, in some cases with a loss of the traditional knowledge and systems (South et al. 24). Fiji has weak environmental management, policy and legislation. Although environmental policy and legislation do exist it is generally outdated, and poor implementation and regulation has resulted in limited adherence (Evans 26). As a result Fiji suffers from agricultural land degradation, waste management problems, industrial and urban pollution, forest conversion, and inadequate and vulnerable protected areas (Evans 26). Concerns over the degradation of the coral reefs of Fiji have led to a number of organisations, including the Fijian government, to seek answers to these problems. Some areas have reverted to traditional management techniques in partnership with science-based resource management approaches in order to prevent further degradation and even improve the marine resources upon which much of the population of Fiji is dependent (Matthews et al 1998, Cooke et al 2). Indigenous Fijians living outside of urban areas live in well-defined social units (Veitayaki 24) characterised by subsistence affluence (Fisk 197, Knapman 1987). Barter systems, reliant less on monetary exchange and more on exchange of goods or labour, prevail in these social units. Kerekere, a system of gaining things by begging for them from a member of one s own group (Capell 1991), is the method of bartering taken on trust by members of the social group. Family ties are also strong amongst Fijian communities with a high degree of responsibility towards other members of one s unit. 2.3 THE STUDY SITE: GAU ISLAND SITE SUMMARY: GAU ISLAND, LOMAI VITI ARCHIPELAGO, FIJI Location: 18 8' to S, ' to E Area: 3km 2 Maximum altitude: 738m asl Topographical maps: 1:5,, Reference (Q28/Q29) 1996 Frontier Fiji Base camp: Naviavia, S, E Ethnicity: Indigenous Fijians Livelihoods: Subsistence agriculture, commercial kava farms, artisanal fisheries (Source: Veitayaki, 26) The Island of Gau (pronounced Ngau ) is one of the Lomaiviti chain of islands and is situated 9km east of Fiji s capital Suva (Viti Levu Island). It is Fiji s fifth largest island after Vanua Levu, Viti Levu, Taveuni and Kadavu. The entire population of ca. 8 (no census has been taken) resides in sixteen villages and eleven settlements divided into three districts, or tikinas, each with their own district chief (Veitayaki 26). The chiefs and elders in Gau, are responsible for overseeing the wellbeing of the entire island. Vanuaso tikina comprises five villages, Navukailagi tikina, which is the smallest, comprises three villages and finally the Sawaieke tikina which covers almost two thirds of the island and consists of eight villages. Despite being Fiji s fifth largest island, supply routes are poor with inter island boats visiting the every 2-4 weeks. A weekly plane service provided by Air Fiji, can accommodate up to sixteen passengers. Owing to this lack of transport infrastructure, Gau is fairly remote with 5

22 little of the unregulated urban development and tourism which characterise other large Fijian islands. Figure 2.1 Gau Island, Fiji with key settlements marked, western barrier and fringing reefs are outlined and the large mangrove stands in Vione and Naviavia are shaded BIOGEOGRAPHY Gau is biogeographically diverse with dense cloud forest, highland and grassland habitats dominating the interior and mangroves and a complex reef system characterizing the coastline. On the western coast, a barrier reef runs parallel to the island, and between the coast and the barrier reef are fringing reefs and a sheltered deep lagoon (figure 2.1). The northern coast has extensive mangrove forests, which slopes gently into large mudflats and the reef is exposed to brisk oceanic currents but is sheltered from the south-eastern trade winds from May to October. Several river tributaries join the sea here on which the villages of Qarani and Navukailagi are situated. The windward eastern coast experiences greater rainfall than the western coast and as a result has numerous small rivers and tributaries, and the fringing reef network extending up to a kilometre from the coast. Much of the montane interior is virgin cloud forest, but has been increasingly subjected to poor land management and slash and burn agriculture. The forests are also home to the indigenous Kacau bird, the Fiji Petrel Pseudobulweria macgillvrayi. 6

23 2.3.3 CLIMATE Fiji and Gau experience a year round tropical maritime climate. Rainfall in Fiji is highly variable and influenced by island topography and the prevailing south-east trade winds. The mountains create wet climatic zones on windward sides and dry climatic zones on leeward sides. There is a distinct wet season from November to April where heavy, brief, local showers and thunderstorms in the afternoon are common. The dry season runs from May to October and is controlled by north and south movements of South Pacific Convergence Zone. The wettest month is March and the driest is July. Tropical cyclones affect the area from November to April. Typical daytime temperatures in Fiji range from 3-32 C and at night around 18-2 C throughout the year (Fiji Met Office, 28). The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon and in particular the La Niña phase, have caused severe fluctuations in climate in 1998 and 2 resulting in widespread coral bleaching across the South Pacific region LAND USE AND LIVELIHOODS The population of Gau is comprised of indigenous Fijians living a traditional, semisubsistence lifestyle with agriculture and shifting cultivation being the mainstays with supporting artisanal fisheries. In recent years, the change in farming technologies and the indiscriminate use of slash and burn has resulted in increasing progression into the virgin forests of Gau. Fishing around the island of Gau is generally reserved only for Gau residents. Whilst it is visited regularly by larger fishing vessels from the capital, Suva, these vessels, unless owning a permit, must remain outside the barrier reef. The majority of fisheries operating within the waters of Gau are therefore of a small-scale subsistence nature with little of these catches being sold outside of Gau. Methods of capture include linefishing, gill-netting, beach seining and spear-fishing. Animals targeted include mangrove crabs, sea cucumbers, trochus, giant clams, sharks, reef fish plus small scale collection of edible seaweed. 2.4 POLITICS & GOVERNANCE Effective governance of marine resources, informed by locally appropriate scientific and socio-economic understanding, is the key to their sustainable use. Across the Indo-Pacific and Caribbean, wide scale political corruption and lack of recognition of indigenous land rights have led to unregulated coastal development and hindered the protection of coral reef ecosystems. These factors have been critical in exacerbating the poverty of coastal communities in developing countries which are reliant on reefbased resources. The political landscape of Fiji has been fraught in recent years, with numerous coups, the most recent one being in 26. Traditionally governed by indigenous Fijian chiefs, Fiji became a British colony in 1874 with the Deed of Cession. Under the Deed of Cession, all unclaimed land and lagoonal water became the property of the Crown. When Fiji was given independence, land tenureship became a complex process, with tribal lands being returned to their traditional owners, despite the presence of indentured Indian settlers. Today 8% of land is owned by indigenous Fijians and 7

24 2% is owned by the state. Offshore, a dual tenureship operates with traditional ownership of fishing grounds restored but the underlying seabed belonging to the State (Evans, 26). This makes management of marine resources a complex process. On this political backdrop, NGOs play an increasing role in aiding communities in the assessment of biodiversity, continual monitoring and guiding the management of natural resources. The Island of Gau practises a traditional form of governance, where the Paramount Chiefs and the Island Council, are responsible for the wellbeing of the island population. The Chiefs, along with the Council, make all decisions regarding marine resource use within the customary waters of the island. All marine areas within the fringing reef of the island are regarded as the property of the island. As a result of this any fishing within the customary waters is considered illegal without a licence granted by the local land owners and the Chiefs. The Chiefs allow no commercial fishing or fishing by non residents within the lagoonal waters, as the island communities are so heavily reliant on protein from the sea to supplement their diets. However, large commercial fishing vessels do visit the waters outside of the fringing reef, where there are no such restrictions. The introduction of either commercial or non subsistence fishing practise within the fringing reef would upset the careful balance that the island community have with the marine resources. However, concerns were raised by the communities and partner organisations, such as IOI PI and WWF Fiji, regarding fish stocks and the general reef health. 2.5 REPORT AIMS The 26 reports (Frontier-Fiji 27) documented three areas of concern, namely sedimentation, eutrophication and fishing pressure on invertebrates in Nawaikama and Levuka in particular. The 27 report has been divided into two sections; Part One is a detailed analysis the ecological survey work and scientific methodologies employed and Part Two discusses the socio-economic and capacity building work which Frontier-Fiji conducted. The results published here will continue to develop sustainable marine resource practice among the communities of Gau, and help to deliver strategic management decisions among the island community. 8

25 PART ONE ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE FRINGING REEFS OF GAU 9

26

27 3. BASELINE ECOLOGICAL SURVEY 3.1 INTRODUCTION The importance of tropical coral reefs in terms of their high biodiversity and dependence of coastal communities on reef resources is well documented (Baird and Marshal, 22, Brown and Ogden, 1993, McManus, 1997, Nair, 23, Souter and Linden, 2). Tropical coral reefs are highly biodiverse ecosystems created by the deposition of calcium carbonate by reef-building sclerectianian corals, and are comparable to tropical rainforests in terms of productivity and complexity (Connell, 1978). Coral reefs account for less than 1% of the world s marine ecosystem, yet they provide food and shelter for up to 25% of all marine organisms. Therefore their continued survival is key to marine conservation and human resources use the world over. Coral reefs are found predominantly within the tropics, with coastal communities in many developing countries reliant upon reefs for income and protein (Gomez 1997). In many coastal areas of developing countries, virtually all animal protein consumed is extracted from reef fisheries. With many of these countries expected to double in human population size within the next 3 to 5 years (McManus 1997), the present resource pressure exerted on coral reefs in these areas can only increase. Without proper management or conservation activities many of these unique and diverse habitats will be lost for ever. As well as providing essential subsistence services to coastal communities, coral reefs can also provide additional economic input to nations through tourism-related activities (Souter & Linden 2). Tourism and its economic benefits have, in some instances, provided the impetus to initiate protective measures in developing countries, with the increased revenue actively supporting developing economies (Gomez 1997). Coral reefs are particularly sensitive to environmental change, operating efficiently within a narrow environmental band in which sea temperature plays an integral role (Brown & Ogden 1993). Reef-forming coral species (scleractinian corals) will only grow and reproduce when water temperature is within a range of C (Brown & Ogden 1993). Therefore coral reefs can become stressed easily if environmental conditions change for extended periods of time (Souter & Linden 2), which can lead to events such as coral bleaching (Hill et al 25). Initial studies in Gau in 26 (Brown et al,27) showed that there were certain processes on the western shore that were affecting the overall reef health. Processes such as sedimentation and eutrophication were the predominant areas where concern was raised, with over-fishing (predominantly for invertebrates at low tide) being of lesser concern. The 26 surveys (Brown et al. 27) highlighted that there was no correlation between algal cover and sedimentation (relating to light penetration); therefore an influx of nutrients must be the cause of higher algal cover in certain areas. Recent casual conversations with local communities have shown that there is very little or no fertiliser or pesticide use on Gau, and it was concluded that the influx of nutrients was more likely to come from untreated sewage and animal waste. Traditionally islanders 11

28 would use a pit toilet, which is covered over once full. However, with increased development on the island, flush toilets have now started to be installed. There is, however, no sewage treatment plant on the island and waste is pumped straight out into the ocean. Other causes of increased nutrient input could also come from the use of coastal areas to house pigs, with waste being washed into the sea by rainfall. This again has serious consequences for the reefs of the island and for the population who is so heavily reliant on marine resources for their subsistence and livelihood. With the lack of extensive commercial fishing on the island, one would assume that abundance and diversity of fish and invertebrates would be healthy. However, the 26 surveys (Brown et al. 27) noted that there are still some areas that are showing signs of high fishing pressure. Using fish abundances, diversity and trophic abundances and key invertebrate abundance and algal dominance as indicators of overfishing, it was determined that Nawaikama and Nukuloa were again areas for concern. This again was attributed to poor coastal management practices causing low fish diversity and biomass. 3.2 AIMS This report aims to build on previous research and further understand the complexities of the reefs of the western coast of Gau. This report will assess if temporal changes have occurred since surveys began in 26 in target areas identified in previous reports. Areas that were shown to be suffering from significant amounts of eutrophication, sedimentation and over-fishing will be specifically assessed and management strategies identified to mitigate such processes. Below are the specific aims of this report. Benthic assessment of all areas surveyed Assessment of fish abundance and biomass for all areas surveyed Assessment of hard coral coverage and diversity Site by site analysis identifying the key areas of concern 3.3 METHODOLOGY Data collection was conducted using a standardised Baseline Survey Protocol (BSP), based on international ReefCheck methodology, and has been developed over the past nineteen years of marine research by Frontier-Tanzania (Darwall et al 1997) and Frontier-Madagascar (Biddick et al, 26). This was then adapted to suit the habitats and conditions around the island of Gau (Brown et al,27). The BSP provides data on benthic cover, Underwater Visual Census (fish abundance and size data), hard coral data (genus and form), frequency of key invertebrates, algal cover as well as the physical and environmental characteristics. It allows many aspects of the marine environment to be documented and is used to ascertain whether there are any relationships within this most complex of systems (Biddick et al, 26). Levuka, Nadrodro and Nukuloa were only sampled on the fore reef during the 27 field season. Somosomo is also lacking results from the mid-range depth, and all the sites have fewer samples from this depth range. 12

29 REEF FLAT TRANSECT A -2M REEF CREST TRANSECT B 25-45M FORE REEF 1-3m -1 m 3-5m 6-8m 1-12m Figure 3.1: Standard topography of a fringing reef and survey design The Baseline Survey Protocol is a five-person survey technique which is carried out at the reef flat (-1m, 1-3m) reef crest (3-5m) and fore reef slope (6-8m and 1-12m) as illustrated above, using either SCUBA or snorkel. Dive times are limited to 4 minutes Surveys usually take approximately 2 minutes per transect, however, in complex areas with high coral cover and high fish abundance one transect could take up the whole 4 minutes. For safety reasons, snorkel surveys were only conducted at midrising and high tide to avoid contact with coral which can result in damage to the colonies and coral rash. Each member of the 5-person team has a specific task in recording data and maintaining high levels of safety BOAT MARSHAL The responsibility of the boat marshal is to collect surface data as well as acting as a safety marshal. The surface data collected includes: Cloud cover (octares) Wind direction and strength (1-5 scale) Turbidity (vertical visibility using Secchi discs) Surface temperature ( C) Boat traffic 13

30 This information enables the creation of physical maps of the areas surveyed in addition to looking at any correlations in data collected such as benthic coverage and prevailing winds and sedimentation. The boat marshal also keeps track of the diving surveyors location using the surface marker buoys carried by the divers. Dive flags warn any passing boat traffic of the divers presence. Time underwater for divers is kept to a maximum of 45 minutes which is monitored by the boat marshal; any overstay of this time results in an alert being raised and rescue divers put on standby PHYSICAL SURVEYOR This diver controls the safety of the dive in addition to the pace of the survey. Acting as a buddy for the fish surveyor they lay out the tape measure to 45 metres pausing at 2 metres for the second buddy pair to catch up and to check level of air consumption in all the divers on deep water surveys. At this interval period if any diver has less than 12bar the second survey is aborted and all divers return to the surface. If carrying out baseline snorkel surveys there is no need for this; however the physical diver continues to monitor the safety of divers during snorkel surveys. Survey teams were matched according to their air consumption rates to reduce the need to abort dives. The tape is laid out at a pace of roughly two metres per minute to allow the fish surveyor to record all the fish. Secondly they lay a chain to measure rugosity (complexity of the substratum) at 2m and 45m.The rugosity chain is laid over the coral along the transect line allowing the weight of the chain to fill in the contours of the reef, the length of the rugosity chain at the end of the ten meter transect will be measured to determine the rugosity value of the transect area. The length of the chain divided by the length of the transect yields the rugosity. Therefore if fifteen meters of chain lays out over a ten meter transect the rugosity is 1.5 for that segment and so on, the higher the number the more the vertical variation of the transect area. They record temperature and depth at intervals along the tape in addition to creating a small map of the area around the tape measure. Depth is recorded at, 2, 25 and 45m along the tape measure; temperature is recorded at and 25m along the tape, and rugosity at 2 and 45m along the tape. The survey is divided into replicate a (-2 m) and replicate b (25-45m) with a 5m buffer zone, thus constituting two replicate transects (see Figure 3.2 below). 14

31 Figure 3.2: Responsibilities of the physical surveyor FISH SURVEYOR This surveyor records every fish that enters into a 5m 3 imaginary box extending 2.5 m either side of the transect from -2m and from 25-45m along the tape, therefore surveying 5 m 3 of reef in each 2m transect (see fig 4.4 below). They record abundance in addition to size of each fish in 5cm increments. This allows calculation of abundances, biomass and biodiversity for each site. Figure 3.3 Protocol for the fish surveyor As diversity among Pacific coral reefs is high, it makes it impractical to census every species encountered; therefore target species and genera were identified for inclusion in the underwater visual census. This includes 141 species from 17 families and spans six trophic levels (table 3.1). Fish from other families are ignored as they are either not typical reef dwellers (pelagic visitors), cryptic, nocturnal, or of no commercial importance. (Mumby et al, 1995; English et al, 1994). 15