School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning

Bachelor of Arts (International Studies)

“Remembering the past

and envisioning futures:

The search for alternative

livelihoods on Kia Island,

Fiji”

Teagan Scarlett

Student Number: 3203559

2

Abstract

The adaption of alternative livelihoods towards addressing developmental concerns and promoting

sustainable resource management has increasingly become an attractive approach taken by various

agents – policy workers, governmental and non-governmental organisations, for example. However,

the various interventions that have been undertaken seem to yield a mixture of varied results, with

some interventions not meeting the wants and needs of the population they were intending to

target, and with only a small amount of alternative livelihood approaches serving to achieve their

intended aims. In either case, the significant dearth in published literature which illustrates the steps

taken towards developing alternative livelihood approaches is something that can be acknowledged.

If debate and discussion about how the actors involved are carrying out the selection and

implementation of these activities is neglected, this can only serve to propel the production of more

failed projects in the long term.

This research aspires to counter the shortfall in the alternative livelihoods discussion by focussing on

the preliminary phase of identifying workable alternative livelihood solutions, and how these are

realised at a community level. It focuses on research undertaken within the not-for-profit

organisation Community Centred Conservation (C3) on Kia Island, Fiji, during the preliminary phase

of alternative livelihoods research. The research employs focus group discussions and prolonged

engagement within the community in order to determine a clear understanding of community

values, wants and needs, as well as to develop a first-hand understanding of the contextual,

environmental and social realities on Kia Island.

Within recent decades, with the introduction to Kia Island of middlemen who buy fish directly from

the local fishermen to sell to the markets on the mainland (more commonly referred to as “fishing

agents”), this has seen the provisions which are collected from the Great Sea Reef that surrounds Kia

become a major income-provider for Kians, witnessing a shift from a community deriving their

livelihoods from the land and fishing for sustenance purposes, to a community engaging in fishing to

secure primary income generation. The findings of this research reiterate that the occupational

variety that Kians experience is now extremely concentrated towards one occupation, which is

fishing. This supports that through nurturing the expansion of opportunities available to the

community to diversify income-generating activities, this would aid in the prevention of exceeding

ecological thresholds in the marine environment.

A number of ideas and suggestions offered by community members sparked interesting discussions

during focus group sessions, and many ventures that people had considered implementing or that

people were fond of seeing initiated on Kia were discussed with enthusiasm. It was determined that

the relatively easy income provided to locals on Kia (more commonly referred to as “fishing agents”),

alongside the associated risks apparent when implementing new income-generating activities and

the lack of knowledge held concerning the management and operations of alternatives were all

identified as current deterrents in entering alternative occupations. It was also determined that

supporting and assisting community members with access to information regarding the proper

management, setup and operation of activities may aid in generating interest in undertaking

alternative activities, as this was a similar sentiment held by many participants within focus groups.

3

An economically and environmentally sustainable recommendation offered to encourage alternative

livelihoods is the promotion and support of mutually-beneficial income-generating projects on Kia.

An example of an activity identified which aligns well with Kia’s environmental landscape and the

desires of the community include a community woodlot initiative, which would in turn provide

wood-fuel for community bakeries, among other mutually-beneficial ventures which are recognised

in the research.

This study aims to encourage the involvement, participation and ownership of the steps taken and

yet to be taken towards developing meaningful and long-term alternative livelihoods by the

community members of Kia. This research also hopes to provide insight into the steps taken to

secure community views and insights and to encourage participation in this preliminary study into

developing alternative livelihoods on Kia.

4

SOCU 1042 International Research Project

Declaration Sheet SOCU 1042 International Research Project Title: Remembering the past and envisioning futures: The search for alternative livelihoods on Kia Island, Fiji. Declaration: I, TEAGAN SCARLETT declare that this report is entirely my own work and has not been submitted in whole or in part for assessment in any other course either at or outside RMIT. Where the work of others is used to substantiate assertions or elaborate upon field data collected by myself this is acknowledged and cited according to the format required in the BA (International Studies) Style Guide.

I also give my consent for BA (International Studies) program to use this research report as an

academic resource. This consent extends to the publication of this essay on internal websites. OR

The contents of this report need to remain confidential. Signed: TEAGAN SCARLETT Print Name: Teagan Scarlett Student No. 3203559 Received by: ………………………………………. Date: …………………………… NOTE: Two copies of the International Research Project Report must be presented to the Course Coordinator; one bound hard copy to be submitted to the reception desk in building 37 level 2; another emailed electronically. Both copies of the report will be retained by the BAIS program, unless the information contained therein needs to be treated as confidential in which case both copies of the report will be destroyed after examination.

5

Acknowledgements This study would have hardly been realised if it were not for my time spent on Kia Island through

placement with Community Centred Conservation (C3). Nor would it have been realised without the

unequivocal warmth, inclusion and acceptance received with the widest, openest arms by the

communities of Kia; I sincerely believe that I will struggle to again find a place where so instantly a

stranger is accepted, fed, watered, sharing jokes and leaving as a member of the family as one finds

themselves on this special island. I would like to thank Maleli Qera, my superior, my friend and my

translator, for all of the help and hikes that he has aided me with in making this research possible. I

would also like to thank my sisters on the island, Monika Stalio, Julianna Measures, Michaela Larsson

and Laura Walsh; you kept my smile wide, and each day brimming with sunshine – even when the

hurricane came close to arriving at our doorstep. I would also like to thank my supervisor Dr.

Roberto Guevara, whose support and guidance always came with great relief and great appreciation

during the course of this project.

6

Contents

Abstract 2

Declaration Sheet 4

Acknowledgements 5

Contents 6

List of Figures 7

List of Tables 7

List of Abbreviations 7

Chapter 1 – Introduction 8

1.2. Kia Island 10

1.3. Aims and Objectives 11

1.4. Rationale and Significance 12

1.5. Scope and Limitations 13

Chapter 2 – Literature Review: Adapting alternative livelihoods 15

2.1. Background 15

2.2. Risky Assumptions 17

2.3. Are alternatives the solution? 18

Chapter 3 - Methodology 21

3.1. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) 21

3.2. Document Analysis 21

3.3. Participant Observation 22

3.4. Focus Group Discussions 22

3.5. Ethical Considerations 25

Chapter 4 - Results 26

4.1. Discussing Alternative Opportunities 27

4.2. Assessing Activity Feasibility from the Perspective of Community Members 29

Chapter 5 - Discussion 33

Chapter 6 - Conclusionand Recommendations 36

Bibliography 39

APPENDIX 1 – Alternative Livelihoods Focus Group Structure 42

APPENDIX 2 Checklist for Research Exempt from Ethical Review 44

Reflective Report Error! Bookmark not defined.

7

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of Kia Island and its villages 11

List of Tables

Table 1: Activities elected as most feasible by participants 27

Table 2: An example of key points raised during focus groups 30

List of Abbreviations

AIG – Alternative income-generating activity

AIGOs – Alternative income-generating opportunities

GSR – Great Sea Reef

MPA – Marine protected area

NGO – Non-governmental organisation

IGA – Income-generating activity

SLA – Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

8

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Both in the past and increasingly in the coming future, those whom derive

their livelihoods from the coast have, and will be, confronted with a diverse

range of volatile conditions which communities will increasingly have to adjust

and adapt to. These volatile conditions which face coastal communities world-

wide range from extreme weather conditions to coastal erosion, from

increased competition for dwindling marine resources to a booming increase in

the world’s population within coastal zones – said to rise 75% by 2020 (IPCC

2001, cited in Turner, 2007). Amongst unsettling facts are also those which

dictate that approximately 200 million fishery-dependant people currently

reside and rely on resources in areas that are vulnerable to human-induced

climate change (Allison et. al 2005).

To some degree the effects of each of the above concerns haven’t been left

unfelt by the coastal communities residing on Kia Island, an island which

resides approximately 24km offshore in the Northern Province, Macuata

District of Fiji. This study was conducted through collaboration with the marine

conservation NGO Community Centred Conservation (C3), and is preliminary

research undertaken towards identifying possibilities to develop alternative

livelihoods on Kia Island. This research intended to work directly with

community members on Kia, firstly to develop a deeper understanding of their

livelihoods, but also to allow them to identify their own strengths, weaknesses,

thoughts and aspirations as a community in order to uncover opportunities

that exist for the development of alternative livelihoods. It was recognised that

developing alternatives was doomed to failure if the activities did not align

9

with the community’s wants and needs socially, economically or

environmentally.

C3’s Fiji and South Pacific programme commenced in 2011, where Kia Island’s

location was identified as significant due to its position directly beneath the

Great Sea Reef (GSR). For generations the GSR has provided Kians with a

bountiful supply of food and resources; however in recent decades the

presence of fishing agents on the island has seen a shift from Kians fishing for

subsistence purposes, to fishing heavily for income generation. In the past,

where Kians once undertook fishing as an activity conducted alongside

agricultural pursuits, increasingly the fishing effort has shifted to serve

communities as a primary income-earner. At this present time, with the island

beginning to witness an expansion in its population, and with fish populations

and other resources already under noticeable pressures, diversifying the

options available to the community to generate income is one way that could

avoid over-exploitation of these resources.

Working towards sustainable management of the marine resources on Kia is

not only an issue which encompasses conservation matters; the identification

of alternative livelihoods will also be a significant step in alleviating some of

the other broader issues which accompany the increasing harvest of marine

resources for income. Whilst conducting research and living amongst the

community on Kia, I realised that since the time that fishing agents had first

became operational on the island (during the 1960s), the rapid changes and

pressures to resources that people had noticed over the years was one

problem that seemed to encompass many others. One issue that was

particularly apparent were the social implications which arose from

10

increasingly burdened resources. People had noticed that over the years they

were needing to spend longer and longer out at sea to catch fish, and this was

having an effect on the amount of time dedicated to family duties and other

tasks on the island. Increasingly women and even children also have been

involved in the fishing effort, and often especially young children are left to be

supervised by their siblings whilst parents fish, where these older siblings are

found to be assuming supervisory roles while they are still very young. Through

diversifying the opportunities available for Kians to generate incomes, this will

not only aid in sustainable resource management, but also potentially provide

benefits socially for community members.

1.2. Kia Island

With a total population of 262 (Biumaiwai 2010, raw data), residing on an

island approximately 2km squared (C3, 2011c; cited in Hepworth, 2011), the

population of Kia is divided between the three villages of Yaro, Ligau and Daku

(shown in Figure 1). Yaro, the largest of the three villages with a population of

143 (Biumaiwai 2010, raw data) is where C3’s base is located. The populations

of Ligau and Daku comprise of 79 and 40 respectively (Biumaiwai 2010, raw

data).

11

Figure 1: Location of Kia Island and its villages (Google Maps, 2012).

1.3. Aims and Objectives

Aim:

To identify possibilities for workable alternative/supplementary income-

generating activities in Kia; ones which align with the wants, strengths and

visions of the community, and ones which work harmoniously within and

support Kia’s natural resources.

Objectives:

• To explore with different groups the possibilities for workable income-

generating activities on Kia, discussing the community’s strengths and

weaknesses as well as the perceived strengths and weaknesses of Kia’s

resources and environment to support these activities.

• To provide a base foundation of community views and perspectives towards

these issues to ensure that future livelihoods projects are more likely to be

actualized/implemented successfully.

12

1.4. Rationale and Significance

The effects of an increasingly globalized society has seen even isolated island

communities experience the pressures of the rising cost of goods and shifts

from traditional norms towards modern lifestyles, and along with this also

comes the pressures of continually generating incomes which reflect and

support these changes. The already noticeable pressures on the marine

resources around Kia Island, although not yet at critical levels, suggest that

continual increases in the fishing effort on Kia will not be sustainable. As a

large majority of Kians derive their primary income directly from fishing, this

research will be significant in determining options for diversifying incomes in

order to relieve stress on the marine resources, as well as to ensure

sustainable futures.

Any intervention undertaken within a community will be an inherently

complex matter; one where the intended results are less likely to be realized or

their intended effects wholly fulfilled if the community’s ideas, values,

strengths and wishes are not understood or taken into account when these

decisions are enacted. The community has to aspire to amend an issue for any

real change to be lasting and effective. This research will be significant in that it

aims to actively involve the community, to understand the community’s

perception of their livelihoods and their environment, and to use discussions

with community members to identify ideas for workable alternative and

supplementary livelihoods; ones which Kians believe will suit their

surroundings and that will complement their livelihoods.

13

This will be the first research undertaken on Kia towards developing alternative

livelihoods, and will be essential in developing a basic understanding of how

community members regard their situation and to determine options which

are perceived as possible, achievable and worthy of implementation from the

viewpoint of community members.

1.5. Scope and Limitations

Because the focus groups were conducted in the participant’s native Fijian

dialect with the aid of a translator, the answers collected were mostly

gathered via translation. A limitation of this is that any discussion between

participants was not fully understood by the researcher, nor was how the

translator framing questions fully known. To minimise the risks posed to data

quality and ensuring there were consistency in interview procedures, the

translator was a Programme Officer for C3 who was aware of the aims of the

project and interview techniques (such as not presenting leading questions)

before commencing focus group sessions.

The presence of a researcher to participants also may affect responses

gathered, with participants not wanting to fully disclose their true thoughts

about particular issues with the researcher (instead advising what they believe

the researcher wants to hear, etc.). An advantage of conducting focus groups

will be that because the participants will be amongst groups where there is an

assumed level of comfort, and the participants will feel at ease with discussing

topics at hand freely. However, the advantage of conducting focus groups to

explore views is also inherently its limitation, which is that they are based

purely upon group discussion rather than individual statements made by each

person alone (Newing, 2011:53-54).

14

Also, due to the nature within Fijian culture to not regard time with the same

sense of punctuality that Westerners hold notoriety for, in some cases a level

of flexibility may need to be accounted for within the timeline for data

collection. Focus group sessions which involve larger groups of participants

may result in longer discussions, which may also result in participants easily

tiring or losing interest. Ensuring that the facilitator is alert, skilled and aware

of all of the questions at hand will help to propel discussions forwards to

minimize this.

15

Chapter 2 – Literature Review: Adapting

alternative livelihoods

2.1. Background

Before examining the literature which investigates the positive and negative

attributes apparent when developing alternative income generating

opportunities (AIGOs), we should first become familiar with exactly what

alternative livelihood approaches entail, and why the approach has gathered

momentum as an appealing developmental strategy with various actors within

government and non-governmental sectors.

Within various development, conservation and policy strategies, the

promotion of alternative livelihood initiatives has increasingly gathered

popularity over the last three decades as an approach to diversify economic

opportunities and increase the socio-economic levels of a group of people, a

community , a region, etc. (Crawford, 2002). Alternative livelihood initiatives

are usually designed as an approach to increase the economic opportunities

within poor and isolated communities, elevate the socio-economic status of

rural fishers, reduce resource dependencies (for example reducing fishing

pressure on overexploited fisheries), and have also been a recommended

approach for fishing communities that have been displaced by marine

protected areas or due to scarcity of fishery resources (Gell & Roberts , 2003;

Sievanen et.a l, 2005; Yap, 1999).

The purpose for why the varying groups involved in initiating alternative

livelihood projects choose to pursue them has been noted by Ireland (2004) to

fall into two broad categories; the first being where the end goal is heavily

16

geared towards the protection and preservation of the marine and coastal

environment by means of actively stopping people from using these resources.

The second category involves groups whose end goal is to achieve sustainable

resource use in an area, but who instead aim to build the capacity of the local

people so that they are able to utilise their coastal and marine resources in a

way which reflects sustainable practices and not undermine the future use of

their resources.

The literature also reveals that one of the most common drivers towards why

various actors engage in implementing alternative livelihood initiatives also

aligns well with the situation experienced on Kia, which is when a community is

experiencing a rapidly expanding population. The increasing population

pressures experienced not only in Kia but in other coastal areas that are

dependent upon limited opportunities for income-generation are expected to

also experience pressures to their limited coastal resources if their situation

continues. An interesting point offered which opposes the opinion that

population pressures can be harmful, is that whilst population expansion

occurs, “evidence also points to the fact that population pressure can also

stimulate increased innovation, and opportunities for improved livelihoods and

environmental management” (DFID, 2002, as cited in Ireland, 2004). Whilst this

is true, because of the isolated nature of Kia, the availability of the fishing

agents on the island (agents either representing a fishing company or who are

self-employed that buy fish directly from the fishermen of Kia to sell on the

mainland) and the swift nature that income can be generated when necessary,

all of these factors have rendered innovation and diversification of IGAs

(income-generating activities) on Kia in recent years almost benign (Personal

Communication). The unique situation experienced on Kia suggests that if no

17

actions were to be taken to diversify IGAs aside from that of fishing, then

pressures upon the area’s fish populations will undoubtedly escalate.

2.2. Risky Assumptions

In cases similar to Kia where diversifying the economic options available would

be a beneficial process in allowing the community to effectively support their

livelihoods as well as sustainably manage their resources, there are still many

risks inherent in the process of diversification. Although “[AIGOs are] now

emerging as an important strategy…success has been limited to date”

(Campbell, 2006:287) among the various actors initiating these projects, mainly

due to “the complexity of initiating and sustaining diversified livelihoods

[being] often underestimated” (Haggblade et al., 2002, as cited in Campbell,

2006).

Sievanen et. al (2005) asserts that the application of alternative livelihood

strategies can often be based on a myriad of assumptions formed by program

designers, project managers and senior policy makers that are often incorrect,

and this can jeopardise interventions even before they begin. These

assumptions noted in Sievanen et. al (2005) are significant; they describe that

firstly, it is often assumed that small-scale fishers are poor and that this is the

reason why they incline towards resource overexploitation. Secondly, they

note that a large assumption is that fishers will be willing to pursue more

lucrative economic opportunities in place of fishing. And thirdly, they note that

it is assumed that through the engagement of fishers in other livelihoods, this

will reduce pressures on fishery resources. The suggestion that small-scale

fishers are poor tends to arise in much of the literature (Allison & Ellis, 2001;

Campbell, 2006; Pauly, 1997); however, after living and conducting research in

a rural Fijian coastal community, and after deep analysis into the literature, the

18

assumption that all small-scale fishers are among the poorest of the poor can

be called into question (Crawford, 1999; Pollnac et. al, 2001; Sievanen et. al,

2005). The presumption that fishers will also be willing to alter their livelihoods

in order to pursue alternative ones is an assumption that needs to be treated

with care; research in Southeast Asia suggested that fishers may refuse

switching to alternative occupations due to job satisfaction (Pollnac et. al,

2001), and another study found that while some households had reduced their

fishing effort since becoming seaweed farmers, others had not, and others had

even invested income gained from seaweed farming into purchasing fishing

gear (Sievanen et. al, 2005). One study in Kenya found fishers were to be more

likely to assume new livelihood activities if their material level of wealth was at

a higher level and if their households were already undertaking a greater

number of occupations (Cinner et. al, 2008). This suggests that in this context

Kenyan fishers wanted to minimize their exposure to risk as much as possible.

Risk minimization should be a goal for actors initiating AIGOs, as fishers will be

more than likely to revert back to fishing if the alternatives offered present too

much risk. Plainly “substituting one income-source for another is no solution”

(Allison and Ellis, 2001).

2.3. Are alternatives the solution?

As alternative livelihood initiatives have gained popularity as a developmental

approach, sadly so too has the effort of developmental agencies concentrating

on the selection of alternative activities from an ever-growing ‘menu-list’ of

ideas devised by outsiders, rather than allowing communities to assess their

own strengths and weaknesses to determine solutions which reflect positively

on where they want their lives to be going (Campbell, 2006; IMM, 2003;

Ireland, 2004). Many interventions sadly plan to initiate developmental

19

schemes which only focus upon short-term projects, which largely

underestimate the time necessary to build the capacity of the people who are

expected to take up and replace these activities with their current activities.

Particularly in cases where the agency concerned is motivated by aiming to

reduce the exploitation of an area’s natural resources, the priorities and needs

of community members themselves tend to be given much less importance

than that of the protection of a particular resource or area (Campbell, 2006).

Despite the amount of literature that describe the common failings apparent

where initiating alternative livelihood strategies, much of the literature also

uncovers research which demonstrates that taking an approach towards

alternative livelihoods can provide a viable and fruitful initiative within a

community, as long as they are undertaken under correct circumstances

aligned with the community’s wants and needs (Allison & Ellis, 2001; Allison &

Horemans, 2006; Asong, 2000; Campbell, 2006; Cinner, 2008; Sievanen, 2005).

A key element which seems to affect the likelihood of success of an

intervention seems to be how well the complexity of a community’s livelihood

is understood and incorporated into the design of the project. The approaches

should be implemented in participatory ways, incorporating the different

wants, needs and aspirations of the various stakeholder groups, and should

build the capacity of the community to respond to change so that “they will

continue to innovate and maintain the viability of their livelihoods” (Campbell,

2006:290).

During stakeholder consultations undertaken in Ireland (2004)’s research, she

identified that there seems to be recurring elements present in successful

alternative livelihood activities. These included features such as skills and

knowledge were established and developed within the community, long term

20

technical assistance was provided, alternative livelihood activities were

identified by the community members themselves (where this was the case

community members were more likely to find solutions to the constraints they

faced), the activity brought equal or superior economic returns than a previous

activity, etc. (Ireland 2004:34). By keeping determinants such as these in mind,

the likelihood of implementing a successful and beneficial policy or

development project should be much greater.

21

Chapter 3 - Methodology

3.1. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA)

Because integration with the community and participatory approaches are key

elements in determining the adaption of meaningful and relevant AIGOs that

represent the strengths, wants and needs of community members, the

methodological approach was designed drawing inspiration from a conceptual

framework that aims to assist policy creation and developmental approaches

called the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (see Carney, 1998, 2003; Scoones,

1998), which has been further adapted by Allison and Ellis (2001) to apply

directly to fishery communities. With the underlying guideline articulating that

the approach seeks “to identify what the poor have rather than what they do

not have” and “*to+ strengthen people’s own inventive solutions, rather than

substitute for, block or undermine them” (Allison & Ellis 2001:378), elements

have been taken from this approach in informing methodological design for

this research to avoid options being selected from outside the sphere of

community desire and involvement.

3.2. Document Analysis

For the purposes of this research, a mixture of data and documents made

available by C3, particularly socio-economic data previously collected by the

NGO will be re-analysed in order to add depth by providing a quantitative

element to this research. As Merriam (1988:118) states, “documents of all

types can help the researcher uncover meaning, develop understanding, and

discover insights relevant to the research problem,” and it is expected that

through the triangulation of methods between document analysis, participant

observation and focus group discussions, this will assist in achieving a deeper

22

understanding of the research as well as assisting the researcher in validating

and contextualising her observations.

3.3. Participant Observation

Whilst working with the NGO Community Centred Conservation (C3) and

during the course of data collection for this research, my time was spent living

amongst the community of Kia, integrating with the community’s daily life and

social activities. Not only did this allow for an in-depth understanding of the

community’s immediate social, economic and environmental realities, but

informal discussions and observations were also beneficial in adding an extra

element of depth and understanding to the collected data. Newing (2011:85-

96) describes participant observation as a “…relatively unstructured interactive

method for studying people as they go about their daily routines and activities,”

and that through active engagement this enables researchers to “build a

picture of ‘the way things are done’ and develop a deeper understanding of

who these people are, how they think and how they differ among themselves.”

She describes that “through shared experiences, you would learn, as a child

has to when growing up, the meanings of objects words and activities, and the

underlying motivations and rationale for certain behaviour,” so that where

people may find difficulty with expressing or explaining their behaviours or

feelings, through engagement with people and observation, a researcher can

allow a humane and sympathetic approach to understanding people within

their daily contexts (Newing, 2011:87).

3.4. Focus Group Discussions

Conducting focus group sessions formed the primary method of data collection

for this research. Because no research has previously been conducted in

23

relation to alternative livelihoods on Kia, and because this research will

fundamentally form a preliminary assessment for the NGO Community Centred

Conservation (C3), by conducting focus group discussions it proved to be an

effective way of having contact with many different groups in the community

and involving them in the decision-making process. O’Leary (2005) discusses

that focus groups are a useful methodological tool in gathering people

together to collaborate towards a common goal. The group discussions that

were held did seem to reflect O’Leary’s suggestions and proved useful not only

in integrating the community members in collaborating ideas towards an issue,

but also in gathering a broad understanding of any contrasting views that were

held and encouraging deeper analysis, reflection and explanations about why a

certain idea or opinion was expressed. Patton (2002:386) also describes that

one of the advantages of focus groups is that it is "enjoyable to participants,

drawing on human tendencies as social animals."

Two focus group sessions were conducted in each of the three villages of Kia

(Yaro, Ligau and Daku); one each for men and women. Because only men have

been interviewed in previous socio-economic surveys conducted on Kia, and

women have been increasingly involved in the fishing effort (whether for

sustenance or commercial purposes), it was felt an important step to equally

hold both male and female focus group sessions in order to build accurate

representation. In doing so this also held additional benefits; it allowed for

participants to speak openly and freely in groups where there was an assumed

level of comfort, and allowed for easy distinction between any trends among

male and female groups. It was expected that saturation of data would be

reached by the end of the six focus group sessions (where patterns or areas of

consensus are recognised, and the production of more data will produce little

new information or understanding: Newing, 2011:75), where for the most part

24

it was; however it never failed to surprise when even during the latter rounds

of discussions, each village and group seemed to offer creative and original

thoughts and would present something completely new to the alternative

livelihoods discussion.

A warm-up activity was initiated at the beginning of each discussion where

participants were asked to think about the way people lived, sources of income,

food and environmental changes fifty ago on Kia (1962), to discuss changes

that they thought to have occurred between then and now, and then to

discuss possibilities for change fifty years into the future (2062). Scoones

(1998:10) also notes that taking an historical approach should be central to any

analysis when developing livelihood strategies and assessing the sustainability

of different options, and because no documentation exists depicting Kia’s past

during the timeframe discussed, this activity served in building a rich

understanding of the way Kians lived their lives at that time, illustrating

perceived changes that have taken place between then and now and also

served to eliminate any preformed assumptions or researcher bias. A similar

method also proved to be effective in Turner et. al (2007)’s research, where

they state that their primary intention in comparing former/future fish

consumption was “to obtain respondent’s perceptions of change, rather than

historically accurate data” (Turner et. al, 2007:5). Thinking into the future in

this research also allowed for insight into how community members visualise

Kia’s future, which is an important step in identifying alternative livelihood

activities which align with the community’s visions for the future.

Data collected from focus group discussions were analysed by identifying

repeating trends, patterns and relationships across the sessions, by noting how

often an activity was discussed among particular groups, as well as by

25

comparing how participants perceived that activity to be beneficial within Kia’s

natural and social contexts. To collect this data the discussions were recorded

through the use of a dictaphone, and notes were taken when needed to assist

alongside recordings.

3.5. Ethical Considerations

As focus group sessions required the participation of community members,

some ethical considerations had to be acknowledged prior to the

commencement of the study. The focus groups were run on a voluntary basis,

so ensuring that all participants had knowingly consented prior to participation

and that they were aware of exactly what the focus group discussions would

entail prior to commencement were all important steps. It was also important

to ensure that participants were aware that they were able to withdraw at any

time, that their identities would be withheld, and that replying was completely

voluntary during the sessions.

26

Chapter 4 - Results

Six focus group sessions were conducted in total (excluding the pilot focus

group session held in Yaro); one focus group each for men and women in each

of the three villages of Yaro, Ligau and Daku. The total number of participants

was 41, consisting of 24 men and 17 women with ages ranging from 19-71 and

20-62 respectively. The mean age of the male and female participants involved

in focus group sessions was 41.51 years old.

Results from an earlier conducted socio-economic survey which consisted of 49

interviewees revealed that 82% of those that were interviewed engaged in

fishing to secure their main source of income; this also proved to be a

consistent actuality with most participants who were involved in focus group

sessions, where the majority also undertook fishing to secure their primary

source of income.

Data collected from the recently conducted socio-economic survey was also

analysed to calculate occupational multiplicity (defined as the sum of the

different types of occupations conducted by one household; see Crawford,

2002:9-10) on Kia.

The occupational portfolio in the socio-economic household surveys consisted

of 17 occupations, with households conducting between 1 to 4 occupations.

Occupational multiplicity on average was quite low, with a mean 1.65

occupations per household, compared for example to a mean 3.2 found across

14 coastal communities in Papua New Guinea (J.E. Cinner, unpublished data,

cited in Cinner et al. 2005a) or a mean 4.7 found among three islands studied

in the Lau Island group, Fiji (Turner et. al, 2007).

27

It must also be noted that at the time which the group discussions were held,

government surveyors had recently visited Kia to survey a plot of land which is

said to be advertised to prospective builders of a hotel. Talk of the proposed

site for the hotel permeated all of the focus group discussions greatly, and was

mentioned consistently in every focus group session held.

4.1. Discussing Alternative Opportunities

In each focus group session participants were asked to brainstorm ideas for

alternative ways to generate income which they thought would work on Kia.

They were then asked to discuss the advantages and disadvantages that each

activity would bring, and then whether they thought the activity would be a

sustainable source of income by itself, or whether they would have to do this

activity alongside another activity to generate a sustainable source of income.

The activities that were identified the most across all six focus group sessions

were vegetable farming and poultry farming (which were raised for discussion

in five focus group sessions), followed by beekeeping and a bakery (discussed

in four of the sessions) and handicrafts, goat farming and seaweed farming

(which were discussed in three focus group sessions).

Participants were also asked to elect which activities they felt would be most

feasible to implement on Kia (results listed in Table 1).

28

Table 1

Activities prioritised as most feasible by participants:

Women Yaro 1. Handicrafts, bakery 2. Hotel 3. Seaweed farming

Women Ligau 1. Handicrafts 2. Vegetable farming 3. Bakery

Women Daku 1. Weaving

handicrafts

2. Poultry farming 3. Vegetable and fruit

farming

Men Yaro 1. Beekeeping 2. Vegetable farming 3. Bakery, hotel, poultry

farming, snorkelling venture

Men Ligau 1. MPA for snorkelling 2. Surfing tourism venture 3. Seaweed farming

Men Daku 1. Sandalwood

farming/Silviculture

2. Goat farming 3. Bakery

There are some trends that were identified among focus groups. Aside from

the pilot focus group that was held involving young male participants, no male

groups discussed handicrafts as an alternative activity, but all three female

focus group sessions elected it as what they believed would be their most

feasible venture. It was noticed that the discussion of tourism ventures only

generally occurred within male focus group session, with the exception of the

focus group session involving men from Daku, who did not raise any discussion

involving tourism ventures (possibly due to Daku being the least populated and

modernised of the three villages). The male focus group sessions conducted in

Yaro and Ligau were similar in that they discussed with enthusiasm many ideas

for tourism ventures that could be implemented on Kia. Women tended only

to discuss the proposed hotel and other ventures benefiting from the hotel

through its creation of an easily accessible market, such as for vegetable

farming, handicrafts (selling and providing skills for workshops) and

entertainment groups.

29

It was interesting that although beekeeping as an alternative activity was one

of the most discussed ventures (raised for discussion in four of the focus group

sessions held), it was only selected as one of the most feasible ventures by one

focus group. Among other factors, this may also be due to participants

believing that they lack immediate knowledge on the undertaking beekeeping

as a business venture (with some participants enquiring and asking questions

about the particulars of beekeeping during focus group sessions).

Discussion involving the instalment of a village bakery took place in both male

and female focus groups conducted in Yaro, the female focus group held in

Ligau, the male focus group held in Daku, and was prioritised as one of the

most favourable business ventures by the women of Yaro, and one of the third

most favourable business ventures by women of Ligau, men of Yaro and the

men of Daku. Its favourability among a variety of participants, both male and

female, demonstrated that if implemented, this activity would most likely be

successful in involving many different members of the community. Other

activities such as poultry farming, seaweed farming and vegetable farming

were also elected among the top three feasible activities decided upon by both

male and female focus groups, which also demonstrated that these activities

would be successful in involving a broad range of community members.

4.2. Assessing Activity Feasibility from the Perspective of

Community Members

Along with identifying possibilities for alternative livelihoods on Kia,

participants were also asked to discuss foreseeable benefits and advantages

that an activity could provide, as well as potential drawbacks or shortcomings

that the activity may also possess.

30

Many interesting and significant points were raised concerning all alternative

activities that were offered for discussion, and listed below are some of the

key points that were identified relating to the activities that were most

frequently discussed during focus groups. Although ‘tourism ventures’ was not

among the activities that were the most frequently discussed, considering the

activity’s popularity among male focus groups and the frequency of

participants deliberating the future of the proposed hotel on Kia Island, it’s

discussion points were included in the table below.

31

Table 2 – Key points relating to the most frequently discussed alternative activities that were raised during focus groups

Bakery Handicrafts Vegetable Farming

Beekeeping Tourism Ventures

Poultry Farming

Ad

van

tage

s - Already have been thinking about initiating as a village project. - Could generate money every day. - Would always be in demand. - Will no longer need to buy bread from markets on mainland. - Would help women who wake up early every morning to cook breakfast, help children by providing an easy breakfast before school.

- Could provide families with a good source of income. - Would allow the younger women to develop knowledge. - Would help preserve and sustain traditional knowledge. (It was often discussed in casual conversation that there has been a noticeable decline in the amount of women who now regularly manufacture traditional handicrafts).

- Could provide people with not only a potential source of income but also a healthy supply of food. - Growing vegetables would benefit the way in which people eat, and ensure that children are receiving healthy diets. - Because many people now buy fruit and vegetable from the marketplace on the mainland, vegetable farming could save people money.

- Could provide a good source of income for families. - Could provide people with a source of food. - Could relieve stress on fishing and allow people to spend more time with their families. - Would be easy to operate, and easy to carry out as a village project. - A beekeeping scheme exists in Labasa which could provide support for people choosing to perform beekeeping on Kia. - Can aid in the pollination of fruit crops. (One focus group even proposed that beekeeping could be performed as a combined project alongside the planting of fruit trees to help regenerate the number of old fruit trees that have been lost to fires on the island).

- Would encourage appropriate monitoring and management of the reef (MPA) (as it stands, the only purpose of the MPA is for fishing, and this would encourage proper management). - Easy to implement. - Would make it easy to meet financial demands – education of children (school, church), etc. - Could provide a lot of income. - (In relation to communities supplying accommodations (huts/bure) for tourists): People come by yachts to the island but sleep on the boat; by providing a bure this would encourage visitors to lodge on the island whilst providing income to villagers.

- Could provide people with a source of income and a source of food. - Different sources of income and by-products could be gathered from the same project. It was discussed that on one hand you could have meat birds and layers (to raise chickens to sell and to produce eggs), and on the other you could also collect chicken droppings to derive methane gas (a process where the droppings are stored in a septic tank, nitric gas comes from the chicken waste and is captured). - Instead of people going to the sea all of the time to catch fish for functions, poultry farming could supply a source of food that could be used for functions instead. - Chickens could provide feathers which the women could use for handicrafts. - Poultry farming could provide manure for vegetable gardens. - The government and private companies can also provide young chicks to be bought, and special food for layers and meat birds can also be bought.

Dis

adva

nta

ges - Lack of

firewood and vegetation could hinder operation. - Would depend upon weather conditions, as it may be difficult to collect firewood during the rainy season.

- Although there are many pandanus trees in Ligau and Daku, there is a short supply of pandanus and coconut leaves in Yaro. - Depends on weather for supply of pandanus.

- Farming for income-generating purposes would require a lot of water. - Some plants can be susceptible to pests. - Some people may not always want to buy vegetables, and may just take or

- Beestings may often occur. - One focus group explained that they had heard that honey has to be extracted every time it is produced, otherwise the queen could migrate. They were concerned that improper

- Will further disruptions in traditional village life. - People earning lots of money may tend to stop following traditional laws that are in place. - Advancing tourism ventures may see people disregarding

- A bad smell can be produced. - Stealing can sometimes occur. - One focus group discussed that a disadvantage is that there is not enough space on a small island to undergo extensive poultry farming; however, it was also acknowledged in two other focus group sessions that there is

32

steal them (which occurs occasionally with people’s personal crops).

management could lead to failure of the project. - People would require more information to be able to implement and run beehives successfully.

church activities, due to tourist influences and larger earnings.

enough space to implement this kind of activity on Kia.

Po

ssib

le m

arke

ts - Bread can be

supplied to the whole island, as well as the hotel once it is in place.

- Could be sold on the mainland in Labasa, as well as to people on Kia. - Could supply the proposed hotel with items such as brooms, mats, and activities such as how to weave traditional handicrafts.

- Fruits and vegetables could be sold on the island amongst other villages - Could be sold in the markets on the mainland in Labasa. - The hotel would also be a potential market, and now would be the optimal time to being planning and growing plants so that they would be ready for when the hotel is instated.

- The hotel could provide an ideal market, as well as people on Kia.

- Tourists that already visit Kia island. (It was noted that during the months of July, August and September, people have noticed that many yachts visit Kia, with 13 yachts visiting last year during those months. - The proposed hotel could also provide a market for tourism ventures.

- It was discussed that people from Labasa can order eggs (which people from Kia could provide), and that they could also supply eggs and chicken meat for themselves and other villages .

Pri

mar

y /

Sup

ple

men

tary

act

ivit

y All of the focus groups determined that a village bakery could generate enough income to serve as a primary income earner, as it would be easy to operate and would be in high demand.

All of the focus group sessions identified that the sale of handicrafts would best serve community members as a supplementary income-generating activity, due to the unpredictability of the wants of buyers, and because it can be managed easily alongside other activities.

- Because of the weather patterns, weather conditions, the seasonal nature of vegetables, and the amount of water required to produce a successful vegetable garden, participants determined that this activity would best serve people as a supplementary activity.

- Most focus groups believed that beekeeping could be implemented as a primary income generating activity for people. They expressed that it would be easy to carry out as a village project, or among families or clans to generate income.

- Focus groups determined that there were many tourism ventures that could provide people with a primary source of income, but this depended on what kind of venture it was. Smaller tourism ventures may have to be conducted as supplementary activities.

Almost all of the focus groups elected that it would be best served as a supplementary activity except for one focus group session, who determined that it could be conducted to generate a primary source of income. Focus groups that elected poultry farming as a supplementary activity stated that they did so because it can become quite an expensive venture when taking into account things such as food for the chickens, and that this would be most effectively carried out alongside another income-generating activity.

33

Chapter 5 - Discussion

Because occupational multiplicity (the sum of the different types of

occupations conducted by one household; Crawford, 2002:9-10) was found to

be very low on Kia at a mean 1.65, and highly concentrated towards one

occupation (fishing), this indicates that the promotion of alternative

occupations and the creation of opportunities to diversify incomes would be

highly helpful in the prevention of exceeding ecological thresholds in the

marine environment. Many studies point to the instability experienced

environmentally and economically when increased specialisation and reliance

is directed towards a low number of occupations (Adger, 2000; Allison and Ellis,

2001; Armitage, 2005; Turner, 2007; Walker et. al. 2002); not only can this be

viewed to reflect Kia’s current situation, but also as a lesson in initiating

alternative livelihood opportunities. If specialisation is encouraged in few

occupations, then reliance on natural resources and other commodities may

have implications for future economic stability.

In the case of Kia, many community members spoke with enthusiasm about

the numerous ideas which they had to generate income. Only in recent

decades have Kians become so heavily dependent upon fishing to secure their

incomes, and this has only been made so readily possible through the presence

of fishing agents on the island. Because it is relatively simple to earn a decent

income when it is needed on the island, this has deterred any need for creative

application towards new income-generating ventures.

Understanding the community, how they feel about these issues and what

solutions they wish to see arise from these initiatives will be the first significant

step towards implementing alternative livelihood activities that are relevant

34

and meaningful to Kians, and will also act as a significant step towards differing

from Sienaven et. al’s (2005) described assumptions which are mistakenly and

commonly held by development agents and policy designers. These

assumptions include that small-scale fishermen are predisposed towards

resource exploitation due to their poor nature, that community members will

want to pursue more lucrative livelihood options other than fishing, and that

the engagement of fishers in alternative livelihoods will ultimately fulfil the

goal of diminishing resource exploitation. Ensuring that these assumptions are

acknowledged and understood from the commencement of project design will

be an imperative step towards realising lasting and meaningful solutions for

Kians.

Secondly, if the project design embodies the key determinates found to be

recurring in successful alternative livelihood initiatives in Ireland’s (2004) study,

this may also aid in increasing the likelihood that alternative livelihood

solutions will be lasting and successful. Ensuring that skills and knowledge are

developed and established within the community, long-term technical

assistance is provided, that the activity brings equal or superior returns than

the previous activity, and that all alternative activities are chosen by

community members themselves so as to ensure that the community will be

more likely to find solutions to problems faced themselves (Ireland, 2004:34)

will determine that the long-term sustainability of a project within a

community will be possible.

The literature has shown that the role which C3 must assume amongst the

community cannot be one which imposes ideas nor selects ventures from a

‘menu list’ of alternatives. For initiatives to be successful, the role of C3 must

be one which encourages creative thought and participation amongst the

35

community, affording members of the community with support and access to

information to minimise risk and to maximise chances of implementing long-

term and meaningful alternative solutions.

36

Chapter 6 – Conclusion and Recommendations

There will not be one sure-fire solution to easing the current pressure that

exists on fish populations, but diversifying options that are available to people

on Kia may assist in contributing to part of the solution.

Many Kians who participated in focus group sessions seemed happy with the

idea of the diversifying incomes and participating in alternative income-

generating ventures; the key factor seemed to be whether enough money

could be made to support needs and operate the venture easily without much

expenditure. A lack of knowledge about the management and operations of

business ventures was also another reason identified as deterrence to entering

into different income-generating activities. Supporting community members

through assisting them with access to information regarding proper

management, setup and operation of activities may advance genuine interest

in undertaking alternative activities.

An economically and environmentally beneficial way to promote sustainable

alternatives to fishing would be to encourage and to support the creation of

mutually-beneficial ventures. Examples which align well with Kia’s

environmental landscape and the desires of community members include a

community woodlot initiative, which would in turn reinvigorate Kia’s natural

landscape, as well as provide wood-fuel to sustainably implement village

bakeries; poultry farming ventures where manure is used to tend to vegetable

farming plots; pandanus plantations, where pandanus can be sold to other

community members as well as provide a sustainable source of pandanus to

manufacture handicrafts; or a beekeeping scheme conducted in tandem with a

37

fruit-farming project, to encourage the pollination of fruits. All of the products

of the potential activities mentioned above could be sold on to the proposed

hotel, as well as onto other community members or to markets on the

mainland.

The proposed hotel will also present the opportunity for interested parties in

the community to initiate tourism ventures in order to supplement and sustain

livelihoods. Many innovative ideas offered during focus group sessions were

discussed with enthusiasm, with ideas including snorkelling tourism ventures,

surfing tourism ventures (with WWF (undated:37) stating that the area around

Kia Island has

“some of the

best surfing

waves in the

world”),

trekking and

sightseeing

tourism

ventures, the

provision of a

bure

(traditional

Fijian hut) for backpackers, etc. The WWF (undated) survey which focuses on

biodiversity and coastal habitats situated along the GSR that surrounds Kia

Island recommends that the promotion of non-extractive economic options,

such as eco-tourism, should be encouraged and developed in this region. One

focus group discussed that an advantage with promoting tourism ventures on

Ligau Focus Group: (In relation to building a bure to provide accommodation) “’Cause most people really want to come to Kia, but the only problem *is+ place where to come and stay” (quote from anonymous participant, Ligau).

38

Kia Island is that it would encourage proper monitoring and management of

the island’s natural resources. It was discussed that, for example, if a

snorkelling tourism venture were to be initiated in the MPA, where some

people currently still fish against regulation, it would motivate people to

properly manage and take care of this area.

Beginning with small projects and expanding activities naturally will be the

desired approach taken to minimise the various risks involved; the risks

involved with shifting people to a new income-generating activity and the risks

involved in trialling an activity’s long-term financial, social and environmental

sustainability.

Also, initiating some of the longer-term activities which could largely benefit

the community environmentally and economically in the future could also

prove to be highly advantageous for future generations of Kia if implemented

now. These could include vegetable and fruit farming as discussed above, but

also longer-term nut and timber crop ventures such as beginning sandalwood,

mango, mahogany, teak, citrus tree farming projects, etc.; ventures that may

take ten to twenty years to develop, but will be highly beneficial for Kia’s

future generations.

39

Bibliography

Adger. 2000. ‘Social and ecological resilience: are they related?’ Progress in Human Geography 24

(3): 347-364.

Allison, E. Ellis, F. 2001. ‘The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale fisheries.’ Marine

Policy 25, pg. 377-388.

Allison, E. Horemans, B. 2006. ‘Putting the principles of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach into

fisheries development policy and practice.’ Marine Policy 30, pg. 757-766.

Armitage, D. 2005. ‘Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management.’

Environmental Management 35:703-715.

Asong, R.H. Mabunay, Ma. L., Aure, D., Seraspe, E., Braganza, R., Corda, D.E. 2000. ‘Alternative

livelihoods in a coastal village.’ University of the Philippines in the Visayas, Philippines.

Biumaiwai, F. 2010. Census conducted by Filomena Biumaiwai (village nurse) in 2010. Unpublished

data.

C3. (Online). http://www.c-3.org.uk [Accessed July, 2011].

C3. (2011). Socioeconomic household surveys. Unpublished data.

Campbell, J. Whittingham, E. and Townsley, P. 2006. ‘Responding to Coastal Poverty: Should we be

Doing Things Differently or Doing Different Things?’ Environment and Livelihoods in Tropical Coastal

Zones. CAB International, 2006.

Carney, D. 1998. ‘Sustainable rural livelihoods: What contribution can we make?’ Papers presented

at the Department for International Development’s Natural Resources Advisers’ Conference, July

1998.

Carney, D. 2003. ‘Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Progress and possibilities for change.’

Department for International Development. [Online] Available at:

http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0812/SLA_Progress.pdf [Accessed 1/03/2012].

Chambers, R., Conway, G. 1991. ‘Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century.’

Institute of Development Studies Discussion Paper 296.

Cinner, J.E, Marnane, M.J., McClanahan, T. 2005a. ‘Conservation and community benefits from

traditional coral reef management at Ahus Island, Papua New Guinea.’ Conserv Biol 19, pg.1714–

1723.

Cinner, J.E. Daw, T. McClanahan, T.R. 2008. ‘Socioeconomic factors that affect artisanal fishers’

readiness to exit a declining fishery.’ Conservation Biology. [Online] Available at:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.82175!cinner%20et%20al%20resubmitted%20080409%20-

%20socioecon%20and%20fishery%20exit.pdf [Accessed 1/02/2012]

40

Crawford, B. 2002. ‘Seaweed farming: An alternative livelihood for small-scale fishers?’ Coastal

Resources Centre. [Online] Available at:

http://imcafs.org/download/Alt_Livelihood.pdf [Accessed 13/02/2012].

Creswell, J. 2003. ‘Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches.’ (2nd

Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Department for International Development. 2002. ‘Better livelihoods for poor people: The role of

agriculture.’ Consultation document, May 2002. [Online] Available at:

http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20100423085705/http://dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publicatio

ns/agricultureconsult.pdf [Accessed 4/04/2012].

Gell, F.R. Roberts, C.M. 2003. ‘The fishery effects of marine reserves and fishery closures.’ WWF-US,

1250 24th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA, 2003.

Haggblade, S., Hazell, P. and Reardon, T. 2002. ‘Strategies for stimulating poverty alleviating growth

in the rural nonfarm economy in developing countries.’ International Food Policy Research Institute

and the World Bank, Washington, DC.

Hepworth, L. 2011. ‘Breaking or following the fishing rules and regulations: motivations, benefits and

incentives for Kia Islanders, Fiji.’ University of Brighton.

Heuër, A. Navarette, D. van Bochove, J.W. Harding, A. Raines, P. ‘Socio-Economic Study: Local

Livelihoods, Use and Management of Coastal Resources and Efficiency of Marine Protected Areas in

Panaon Island.’ Coral Cay Conservation.

IMM. 2003. Sustainably Enhancing and Diversifying the Livelihoods of the Coastal Poor.’ SCLP

Working Paper 7. An output from the SCLP project funded by DFID.

IPCC. 2001. ‘Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report.’ Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to

the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge

University Press.

Ireland, C. 2004. ‘Alternative Sustainable Livelihoods for coastal communities – a review of

experience and guide to best practice.’ IUCN, The World Conservation Union.

http://theidlgroup.com/documents/SustainableCoastalLivelihoods-IUCNOct2004.pdf

Merriam, S.B. 1988. ‘Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach.’ San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Newing, H. 2011. ‘Conducting Research in Conservation: Social Science Methods and Practice.’

Routledge.

O’Leary, Z. 2005. ‘Researching Real-World Problems: A Guide to Methods of Inquiry.’ Sage

Publications.

Pauly, D. ‘Small-scale fisheries in the tropics: marginality, marginalisation, and some implications for

fisheries management.’ In: Pikitch, E.K., Huppert, D.D. Sissenwine, M.P. 1997. ‘Global trends:

fisheries management.’ Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society, 1997.p. 40-9.

41

Pollnac, R.B. Pomeroy, R. Harkes, I. 2001. ‘Fishery policy and job satisfaction in three Southeast Asian

fisheries.’ Ocean and Coastal Management 2001; 44 (5):531-44.

Scoones, I. 1998. ‘Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis.’ IDS Working Paper 72,

1998.

Sievanen, L. Crawford, B. Pollnac, R. Lowe, C. 2005. ‘Weeding through assumption of livelihood

approaches in ICM: Seaweed farming in the Philippines and Indonesia.’ Ocean and Coastal

Management 48 (2005) 297-313.

Syron, J. 2011. ‘A Socio-economic assessment of Kia Island Fisheries.’ University College London.

Turner, R.A. Cakacaka, A. Graham, N.A.J. Polunin, N.V.C. Pratchett, M.S. Stead, S.M. Wilson, S.K.

2007. ‘Declining reliance on marine resources in remote South Pacific societies: ecological versus

socio-economic drivers.’ Coral Reefs, 2007. 26:997-1008.

Walker, B. Carpenter, S. Anderies, J. Abel, N. Cumming, G. Janssen, M. Lebel, L. Norberg, J. Peterson,

G.D. Pritchard, R. 2002. ‘Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis

for a participatory approach.’ Conservation Ecology 6:14.

Wongbusarakum, S., Pomeroy, B., Loper, C., Vieux, C., Guilbeaux, M., Levine, A., Bartlett, C. 2008.

‘SEM-Pasifika: Socio-economic monitoring guidelines for coastal managers in Pacific Island Countries.’

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Apia, Samoa.

WWF. ‘Fiji’s Great Sea Reef: The first marine biodiversity survey of Cakaulevu and associated coastal

habitats.’ [Online] Available at:

http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/gsr_fullcopy_1_1.pdf [Accessed 18/01/2012]

Yap, W. 1999. ‘Rural aquaculture in the Philippines.’ RAP Publication 1999/20. Regional Office for

Asia and the Pacific Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Bangkok, Thailand,

1999

42

APPENDIX 1 – Alternative Livelihoods Focus Group Structure

“Envisioning futures for alternative livelihoods in Kia.”

INTRODUCTION: (“Introduce yourself, and the background and purpose of your interview,” “present

the general topics or themes to be covered” – SEM Pasifika).

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT:

MAIN ACTIVITY - GROUP BRAINSTORMING TASK

*(Before brainstorming begins, talk through how the discussion will operate, and ensure that it is

made clear that because participants are volunteering their time and efforts they should not feel

obliged to stay or respond to every question).

BRAINSTORM:

In Kia, what are some other possible activities that people

could engage in (in order to diversify incomes)?

INSTRUCTIONS: Wait for initial ideas. If suggestions are given, separate into following categories. If

no suggestions are offered, use the following categories as conversational stimulus.

FARMING, AQUACULTURE, SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM SERVICES, OTHER

FOR EXAMPLE:

Hello, my name is ______ and I would like to take about 45 minutes of your time to

brainstorm ideas for alternative livelihood opportunities that could be implemented on Kia,

as well as people’s attitudes and perceptions towards these. Please be aware that the results

collected from this focus group discussion will be kept completely confidential and your

identity will remain anonymous. After the sessions, the results will be shared back to the

community, with the hopes of continuing and encouraging an open dialogue and sharing of

information regarding the improvement and management of Kia’s natural resources.

Farming

Vegetable farming

Bee keeping

Suki Plantation

43

Once initial brainstorming phase has been exhausted, return to alternative/supplementary livelihood

suggestions to analyse further, mind-mapping on separate paper with the following questions:

What would the advantages of this activity be?

What would the disadvantages of this activity be?

Do you consider this to be an alternative livelihood, or a

supplementary livelihood?

From the suggestions above, which activities do you think

would be the most feasible on Kia? (Participants select 3 of their

most desirable activities, numbering them 1 (most favourite), 2 and 3).

44

APPENDIX 2 Checklist for Research Exempt from Ethical Review

If you intend to involve human participants in your research, please use this checklist to ensure your project is exempt from HREC review.

A Research Project might be exempt from Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) review if both the following questions can be answered “yes”:

1. Does the RP only involve negligible risk i.e. where there is no foreseeable risks of harm or discomfort and any foreseeable risk is no more than inconvenience to the participants? Yes.

(The National Statement describes inconvenience as the least form of harm that is possible for human participants in research. The most common examples of inconvenience in human research are filling in a form, participating in a de-identified survey or giving up time to participate in a research activity).

2. Does the project involve the use of existing collections of data, or records that already contain only non-identifiable data about human participants? Yes.

Please continue with the following questions in order to ascertain if your project can be exempt from ethical review.

1. Are participants identifiable or re-identifiable? Yes No

2. Is some form of deception is involved? Yes No

3. Are participants aged less than 18 years? Yes No

4. Are participants cognitively or emotionally impaired? Yes No

5. Do participants belong to the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people, or similarly disadvantaged cultural/minority group? Yes No

6. Does the procedure involve any experimental manipulation or include the presentation of any stimulus other than question-asking? Yes No

7. Do the questions asked include sensitive personal and/or cultural issues? Yes No

8. Is there any power-dependency relationship between researcher(s) and participants(s)? Yes No

If you answered “yes’” to ANY of the 8 questions above it means that your project cannot be considered exempt from review.

If you are sure your project is exempt from review please complete the statement below:

'I certify that my responses to this checklist accurately reflect the subject and methods in the project: Remembering the past and envisioning futures: The search for alternative livelihoods on Kia Island, Fiji.

I am about to undertake this project for International Research Project (SOCU1042).

I believe I am now exempt from applying for ethical review of my project.

Student name: Teagan Scarlett

Date: 2/5/2012