Critical reflections from fostering adaptive community-based, co-management in Solomon Islands’ small-scale fisheries

Adaptive co-management approaches have been at the core of attempts to apply resilience principles to small-scale fisheries. Although recommendations of what should be done to promote resilience are commonplace, insights from practice are rare. The authors provide a critical analysis of WorldFish’s effort to improve the resilience of small-scale fisheries, particularly experiences with facilitating, implementing and sustaining a collaborative form of management referred to as community-based resource management (CBRM) in five regions in Solomon Islands over nine years. A participatory diagnosis and adaptive management framework was applied to foster the emergence of CBRM in intense community engagements. The authors reflect on the adoption of resilience principles in their practice through: 1) defining a fishery to fit local governance contexts; 2) drawing on multiple knowledge sources to guide local rules to protect the ecological, social and other functions of small-scale fisheries; 3) fostering local ownership and participation, while also brokering external links for learning; 4) developing monitoring that is meaningful for communities; and 5) promoting inclusive forms of governance that are responsive to change. Results were fair at best because adaptive new, negotiated forms of management were sustained in only two regions. However, insights led to changes in WorldFish’s practice, and demonstrate that embedding resilience principles (such as encouraging learning, fostering adaptive systems, and thinking and promoting links across scales of governance) requires capacity among all participants to reflect, adapt and adjust. 1 WorldFish, PO Box 438, Honiara, Solomon Islands. 2 ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia 3 The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, P.O. Box G13, Honiara, Solomon Islands 4 EAWAG Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Seestrasse 79, Kastanienbaum 6047, Switzerland * Corresponding author: Anne-Maree Schwarz, c/o The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, PO Box G13, Honiara, Solomon Islands. Email: schwarzamj@outlook.com Introduction Fishers engaged in small-scale fisheries (SSFs) are vulnerable to the compounding effects of stresses within fishery systems (e.g. stock depletion, increased competition) as well as environmental and social shocks emanating from outside their domain (e.g. climatic variation, global trade, price fluctuations). This complexity is challenging for managers to ensure SSF can maintain the delivery of benefits to those reliant on them. To continue functioning as a livelihood “safety net” for the rural poor, SSFs must better absorb shocks, and adapt to change. However, resilience theory is difficult to translate into practical guidance for managers attempting to sustain and improve small-scale fisheries (Béné et al. 2014). Decentralised adaptive co-management has long been promoted as consistent with principles of resilience (Berkes et al. 2001; Biggs et al. 2015), and it is increasingly common in practice as a strategy to preserve social and economic benefits from SSFs (Cinner et al. 2012; Evans et al. 2011). Adaptive co-management seeks to promote management that is responsive and specific to local conditions. It often devolves some governance responsibility to resource users, and ultimately seeks to share governing responsibilities between resource users and other (often state) stakeholders. A global review of cases of adaptive co-management suggests that outcomes are generally more positive than negative. Positive outcomes reported included improved inclusion and representation in governance processes, increased capacity to control or influence decisions, higher rates of compliance with management rules, and quantitative increases in household income, well-being, resource status and fishery yield (Evans et al. 2011). However, it is also important to recognise that it is the successful projects that are more likely to be evaluated and reported in the literature, whereas projects that fail or are discontinued are rarely documented (Evans et 15 SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin #38 – June 2017 al. 2011). In the Pacific, there are enthusiastic reports of adaptive co-management (e.g. Bartlett et al. 2009; Govan et al 2011; Jupiter et al. 2014), but critical reflections about approaches applied, and the logic behind them, are much more difficult to come by. To overcome this gap, we offer a critical account of our experience in facilitating a form of adaptive comanagement, commonly referred to as communitybased resource management (CBRM) (WorldFish 2013), a model particularly common throughout the Pacific Islands region (Govan 2009). In this paper we describe implementation of CBRM for SSF in five coastal regions of Solomon Islands over nine years. A participatory diagnosis and adaptive management (PDAM) framework designed for developing world contexts (Andrew et al. 2007; Evans and Andrew 2009) was used to order the different phases of implementation. The framework emphasises the need for particular attention to factors arising from outside the fishery domain that may influence management performance and the livelihoods of fishery stakeholders; and the local, cultural and national institutions (i.e. established sets of rules) that govern fisheries. The framework identifies distinct opportunities for learning, reflection and adjustment in three main stages of implementation: 1) participatory diagnosis, 2) defining the management constituency, and 3) implementation of management and monitoring. The research questions addressed were how, and in what ways, does the use of participatory approaches, structured by the PDAM framework, foster the emergence of CBRM? The research was addressed through a comprehensive objective of promoting the emergence of CBRM. To align with resilience principles, we organised this into five specific objectives: 1) define the fishery, management constituency and management solutions to “fit” the local governance context; 2) draw on multiple knowledge sources to guide locally designed rules that would protect the ecological and social function of the small-scale fishery; 3) foster local ownership and participation while simultaneously presenting ourselves as a broker to external knowledge, expertise, resources and links to higher-level governing support; 4) foster monitoring that was meaningful to communities, and that promoted reflection and informed adjustments to management; and 5) promote governance structures that were inclusive and responsive to change. The paper is structured around each of these objectives, and concludes by setting findings within the literature on adaptive co-management, and discussing the practical implications for governing SSF for resilience in Solomon Islands. Background to the study region In Solomon Islands more than 70% of people rely heavily on subsistence fishing, yet a shortfall of fish looms as a long-term threat (Bell et al. 2009). Historically, governments have had little influence over rural fisheries (Lane 2006), and this gap has been filled by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that promote and directly support various forms of adaptive co-management (Cohen et al. 2012). However, substantial regional policy, described within and built on by SPC (2014), and national policy (the Coral Triangle National Plan of Action, the Fisheries Figure 1. Five regions within Solomon Islands where the project was implemented. 16 SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin #38 – June 2017 (e.g. Abernethy et al. 2014; Cohen and Alexander 2014; Cohen and Steenberger 2015; Cohen et al. 2013; Schwartz et al. 2011), which employed methods such as semi-structured interviews, key informant interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) described in detail in the articles from which results are cited. The second source draws extensively on project documentation from 2005 to 2014 as primary qualitative data. These project documents include field reports containing transcripts of FGDs, notes from participant observations, meeting minutes, key informant interviews, and informal interviews collected from different social groups (i.e. gender, age, livelihood type). Results and discussion Participatory diagnosis Subsequent to receiving and responding to community requests for assistance, a “scoping” phase commenced (Orirana et al. 2016; WorldFish 2013). This provided an opportunity to determine if there was broad consensus among the community to proceed with CBRM and to develop a mutual understanding between community leaders and WorldFish about the nature of the collaboration, and the roles and responsibilities of each party. Once this initial agreement had been reached, the “diagnosis” phase commenced (Fig. 2) The diagnosis phase is important in order to understand the fishery from ecological, social and political perspectives (Lebel et al. 2006; Nadasdy 2007). Diagnosis involved facilitating community discussion on a definition (Ostrom 2007, 2009) of their fishery, with a particular emphasis on eliciting perspectives of men, women and youth. FGDs and key informant interviews were used to draw out further local knowledge of ecological, social and governance aspects of the fishery. Interviews with fishers were used to understand catch composition, average catch size, perceptions of harvesting trends, and to collate local ecological knowledge (e.g. fish spawning periodicity and locations) with the intent that this knowledge would improve “fit” in the design of management measures. FGDs and Management Act 2015, the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources Strategy 2017) in the last decade, now support community-based approaches as a principle strategy for SSF management, marine conservation and climate change. In an effort to synthesise lessons to inform p