BCNet
           Community Resource Management at the Arnavons

A Participation Case Story

Edward Mayer and Susan Brown

Acknowledgments

1. The Story of the Arnavon Marine Conservation Area


Acknowledgments

Many people's time, effort, and constructive feedback made the Arnavon Project possible. First and foremost, we would like to thank Moses Biliki, his staff at the Solomon Island Ministry of Forest Environment and Conservation, and all the members of the Arnavon Management Committee, whose efforts made this project a reality. Peter Thomas, South Pacific Program Manager for The Nature Conservancy, provided his constant support and allowed us the freedom to experiment. Kelvin Taketa, Audrey Newman, and the staff of The Nature Conservancy's Pacific Regional Office provided support. Hank Cauley, Director of the Biodiversity Conservation Network, gave us the opportunity to reflect on our experiences, distill the essential elements of the participatory process used at the Arnavons, and share them through this paper with other project managers. Finally, Norma Adams, Senior Communications Officer for the Biodiversity Support Program, provided enthusiastic encouragement and superb editorial assistance in helping us get our words onto the pages that follow.


Acronyms
BCN Biodiversity Conservation Network
CO Conservation Officer
ICLARM International Center for Living Aquatic Resource Management
MFEC Ministry of Forest, Environment and Conservation
MNR Ministry of Natural Resources
PRA Participatory Resource Appraisal
REA Rapid Ecological Assessment
SIG Solomon Island Government
SPBCP South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Program
SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment Program
TNC The Nature Conservancy


NOTE: The Arnavon story which follows is told from the voice of the TNC Solomon Island Field Representative, Edward Mayer.

1. The Story of the Arnavon Marine Conservation Area

Initial Efforts To Establish Protected Area Status

The story of the Arnavon Marine Conservation Area began in 1980 when an international conservation organization, with the approval of the Solomon Island Government (SIG), created the Arnavon Wildlife Sanctuary. Scientists had identified the sanctuary area as one of the Pacific's primary nesting sites of the hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata).

Like most conservation reserves and parks at the time, the Arnavon Wildlife Sanctuary was managed by outside resource management experts. Traditional use and ownership issues were never considered. Local people living around the sanctuary had little or no say in resource planning and management decisions, even though they were affected by the restrictions and regulations. The sanctuary was managed by a Peace Corps Volunteer who hired several men from the village of Kia on Isabel Island to train as wildlife wardens, while all other inhabitants of the area were prevented from using or even visiting the islands. This lack of community involvement soon proved to be a fatal flaw.

This move exacerbated a long standing dispute between the people of Kia and Posarae over ownership of the Arnavons. The Posarae community on Choiseul Island who also claimed traditional ownership rights to the Arnavons, perceived the hiring of Kia villagers as ignoring their traditional rights, while strengthening the rights of the Kia people. They were particularly angered when several groups of Posarae travelers were denied permission to land on the islands during rough weather. Shortly after the Peace Corps Volunteer left the Arnavons, the sanctuary's field station was burned to the ground.

After the sanctuary's collapse, there followed nearly a decade of hunting and killing of hawksbill turtles. Their shell or "bekko" was a high-value export to Japan. In 1989, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR), supported by the South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP), initiated an annual turtle survey that showed hawksbill breeding populations had declined sharply since the collapse of the wildlife sanctuary. Concurrently, the MNR began discussing the plight of the turtles and the islands' other marine resources with local community leaders.

The Arnavon Islands are located in the Manning Straits, midway between the island provinces of Isabel and Choiseul, in the northern part of the Solomon Islands. The Arnavons and the surrounding seas were traditionally owned by tribes living on the northern end of Isabel (Sisiga tribe at Kia village), and in southern Choiseul (Volaikana tribe near Posarae). During British colonial rule, the Islands were acquired by the Crown and used for coconut plantations. Although still legally owned by the government, the plantations have long been defunct, native vegetation has regenerated, and traditional owners have resumed their customary use rights. Over the years, tribal intermarriage has blurred land boundaries at the Arnavons and other islands north of Isabel. Land disputes over ownership and use are common.

A Second Chance

In mid-1992, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), a U.S.-based international conservation organization, initiated a partnership with the MNR to establish conservation areas in the Solomon Islands. TNC's new Field Representative, who had worked previously as a volunteer with the MNR, provided a strong link between the two partners.

TNC and the Ministry's first joint activity at the Arnavons was a Rapid Ecological Assessment (REA) conducted in April 1993 to assess the potential for re-establishing protected area status. Data collected by a multidisciplinary team of scientists, MNR and Isabel Province officers, and Volaikana and Sisiga tribal members showed that both turtle and sedentary marine populations (trochus, bech-de-mer, and pearl oyster) had become severely depleted, largely because of commercial over-harvesting. Marine and terrestrial ecosystems, however, remained relatively intact.

To avoid the mistakes of the early 1980s, TNC and the MNR agreed that they should work together with local communities and provincial authorities to re-establish the conservation area. To facilitate this process, consultative workshops and household surveys were conducted in September and October of 1993 with the area's principal resource users: the Volaikana of Posarae, the Sisiga of Kia, and the Gilbertese community living on Waghena Island.

Establishing a Mutual Understanding

These workshops and surveys helped TNC and the MNR better understand the importance of marine resources to the local communities and the existing resource-use patterns that needed to be considered in the project design. At the same time, the results of the REA were shared with the local communities. This stimulated them to begin considering conservation management options. The communities' perceptions about resource depletion confirmed the REA's findings. During the consultative meetings all project stakeholders were identified, and the participants agreed on preliminary management recommendations. The three communities, TNC, and the MNR agreed to hold a follow-up meeting in December 1993.

One point of contention for the Volaikana and Sisiga (Melanesian) communities, who are the traditional landowners, was including the Gilbertese people from Waghena as equal partners. The Gilbertese were transmigrated to Waghena Island from Kiribati in Micronesia in the early 1960s. Mistrusted and viewed as outsiders, with no traditional land or marine-tenure rights, the Gilbertese are the heaviest resource users and are blamed for the area's depleted state. The Gilbertese believed they should be considered full project partners, but the Melanesian communities agreed only to observer status. After the MNR suggested that the chances for successful resource management would be unlikely if the principal resource users were not included, the Melanesian communities finally agreed to equal status for the Gilbertese.

Stakeholders Reach Consensus

A principal concern of the SIG was the potential for a legal challenge of its ownership and authority over the Arnavon Islands if the project were to allow community participation. At the December 1993 meeting, the Commissioner of Lands agreed to community involvement in decision-making and traditional use of the proposed conservation area as long as the SIG's ownership would not be legally challenged. This statement was significant in helping to empower the three communities to participate as equal partners.

The stakeholders went on to reach consensus on preliminary management recommendations and a project framework. They decided to form a Management Committee to include one representative of the MNR, the TNC Field Representative, fisheries officers from both Isabel and Choiseul provinces, and two representatives from each of the three communities.

The Project Team Defines Itself

The months following the December 1993 meeting were marked by several changes. The MNR was reorganized into the Ministry of Forest, Environment, and Conservation (MFEC); TNC hired a new Field Representative; and a project team was formed, composed of MFEC and TNC staff, whose roles evolved as the project began to unfold. The job of the project team was to establish the conservation area. Team members were allowed to use their skills and encouraged to develop new ones in response to changing project needs.

During the early stages of development, our project team made many of the decisions. Over time, however, most of the decision making was transferred to the Management Committee, and our team became responsible for implementing those decisions. At every step, the team was aware of the importance of establishing the community and provincial members as equal partners and viewed their input as essential in shaping the conservation area. As Committee members, the team functioned as resource people and facilitators; the team avoided predetermining how the Committee would work, what the management plan would look like, or how the conservation area would function. We drafted a simple terms of reference for the Committee and a management plan as a starting point for discussion at the first Committee meeting, which was planned for April 1994.

The Arnavon Project Team
The project team was led by Moses Biliki, Chief Environment and Conservation Officer, who offered a perceptive Solomon Island approach to problem-solving. Moses played a major role in planning, decision-making, and facilitating government approvals. Ed Mayer, the new TNC Field Representative, shared the lead in planning and decision-making and served as the Project Coordinator for finance, implementation, and facilitation of the Management Committee. John Pita, the Conservation Area Support Officer at MFEC, managed the project's field implementation, provided liaison between communities and the project team, and supervised the conservation officers. Sango Mahanty, an Australian volunteer, provided technical support at the MFEC and assisted Moses and Ed during the first year of the project. Nathaniel da Wheya replaced Sango in this role in December 1995. Susan Brown, Volunteer Assistant to the TNC Field Representative, helped with planning, logistical support, and project administration.

Allowing Participation To Lead the Process

The evening before the first Management Committee meeting, a traditional Solomon Island feast was organized to break the ice. Besides the project team, the Committee included Rence Zama from Posarae (he was responsible for burning down the original sanctuary field station) and Nelson Bako from Kia, one of the original wildlife wardens from the competing side of the land dispute. Having both Rence and Nelson on the Committee provided interesting dynamics during the project start-up.

Other Committee members included Simon Alekera, Senior Fisheries Officer for Isabel Province; Arthur Nego, Fisheries Officer for Choiseul Province; Leslie Miki, President of the Council of Chiefs of Kia; John Rabaua, a Waghena businessman and former provincial secretary; Bua Tebaubau, a Waghena elder; and Elijah Pita, an elder from Posarae.

The Committee's first action was to rework the draft terms of reference and management plan into a framework that Committee members could view as their own. Hashing out the details in Solomon Island fashion, however, was time-consuming, starting with points that seemed hardly relevant to the issue. Eventually, as every angle was considered and each person's view expressed, the group slowly circled, exploring different scenarios until a solution was gradually settled upon.

Circling To Reach Consensus

Each paragraph of the draft management plan was scrutinized by the Management Committee and adjusted until all members were satisfied it would meet with the approval of the three communities. In a manner that can best be described as "circling," each item was reviewed until a consensus was reached.

When discussing the daily catch limit for sharks, Committee members began by taking turns relating their favorite shark anecdotes. One story would highlight a dramatic shark-hunting episode; another would highlight a tribe that considers sharks as its ancestors. Then, each member discussed the economic importance of shark-hunting to the community. As the members circled around the issue, the discussion gradually came to focus on the practicalities of a shark limit. The pelagic shark can swim in and out of the conservation area, and, not being a permanent resident, the appropriateness of a limit was raised. In addition, shark hunters could enter the conservation area with a canoe full of sharks caught outside, complicating enforcement. Despite these complications, most members favored a limit and gradually reached consensus.

The circling approach was also used as a type of "slow-motion" brainstorming. Each Committee member would present an opinion or idea, followed by the alternative views of the other members. As the discussion circled, the focus would settle on the strongest ideas, upon which the Committee members would build. Gradually, this process led to a proposal everyone agreed upon, and a consensus was reached.

As the Committee members' understanding of the project grew, so did their comfort level and confidence in the decision-making process.

Occasionally, when Committee members were unsure of the answer the project team wanted to a particular question, they would respond "Iu nao save," meaning "You know how it should be." Our typical reply was "Mifala no save; iufala nao save," meaning "No, you really know better, and its your decision." Once the Committee members understood that we wanted their honest opinions and not merely their approval, they became more open in expressing their views. Being allowed to voice their opinions and participate in decisions making was unusual because in a project setting, decisions are usually made by outsiders.

The decision-making pattern of circling an issue was repeated during the June 1994 community meetings to get feedback on the management plan and during all important discussions. The plan was well-received by all three communities and, with only a few changes, was ratified at the August Committee meeting.

Selecting Conservation Officers

With the draft management plan prepared, the Committee turned its attention to hiring conservation officers (COs). The need to take a balanced approach became evident when the Committee disagreed over the number of COs to hire. Our team suggested that four would be sufficient to carry out duties at the conservation area. The community Committee members strongly believed that three COs (one from each community) should be on duty at any given time to avoid bias in enforcing regulations and recommended hiring six COs for two teams. In response to our concern about extra costs and insufficient work, they replied that the expense was necessary to maintain balance and that villagers, unlike Westerners, "don't need to be busy every moment." They added that, because the islands are so remote, having an extra person on duty would be important in case of illness or injury.

The group then outlined a job description, pay scale, and hiring procedures. Each community would be responsible for setting up a selection panel to interview the applicants and make recommendations to the Committee. The Committee established selection criteria to provide a uniform hiring standard for all the communities to use in evaluating their applicants. After the June community meetings, the selection panels interviewed the applicants, and their recommendations were presented at the August 1994 Committee meeting.

Everyone at the Committee meeting was excited about the success of the hiring process. The three communities believed that the hiring criteria were a useful tool. John Rabaua recounted the experience of the village elders in Waghena who were chosen for the selection panel. John realized their skepticism about using this unfamiliar process, and decided to translate the criteria into their local language. To simplify the scoring, he assigned a numerical value to each ranking category. When all the interviews had been completed, the numerical score was tallied for each applicant and the group was ranked. The elders were amazed that the results obtained using this objective standard from outside reflected their own feelings about the individuals and how they acted in the community. Results were similar in Kia. In Posarae, where there were only three applicants, Rence Zama said the one who ranked third would have been last, even if there had been more applicants.

Biological Monitoring

Dr. Johann Bell, Director of the Honiara Research Center of the International Center for Living Aquatic Resource Management (ICLARM) was invited to speak at the August 1994 Committee Meeting about monitoring of sedentary marine resources at the Arnavon Conservation Area. (TNC had previously approached ICLARM to discuss its interest in offering technical and financial support to the project; ICLARM expressed interest in supporting a biological monitoring program.) Dr. Bell was excited by the opportunity to prove the effectiveness of management on the recovery of marine resources, a theory assumed true but not scientifically documented. He said a monitoring program with comprehensive before-closure surveys would be cutting-edge research. ICLARM was willing to secure funding and head the biological monitoring program, so Dr. Bell was asked to present his proposal to the Committee for approval.

Dr. Bell explained that the validity of monitoring results within the conservation area depended on comparing them with results from outside adjacent areas. This raised Committee concern that landowners might perceive these outside areas as part of the conservation area or that resources might be harvested during the monitoring. Dr. Bell assured the Committee that the survey's purpose was to count resources for comparison only, not to disturb or harvest them. The Committee recommended that the approval of the village chiefs be obtained before monitoring began to dispel any possible misunderstandings.

The Committee strongly believed that the new COs should participate in the monitoring program, but Dr. Bell, unfamiliar with the participatory process, did not see the benefit of including untrained people on the survey team. The Committee explained the importance of having community representatives present when working on customary-owned reef. In addition, the COs would gain experience with scientific surveys. Dr. Bell agreed that the COs could participate if they were first trained and certified in scuba diving.

Establishing Legal Status

In September 1994, a project delegation met with the Isabel Provincial Executive concerning the legal status of the conservation area. The 1981 ordinance, which established the wildlife sanctuary and was still in effect, needed to be amended to recognize the changes taking place. Provincial involvement in project activities was an important factor in gaining the Executive's approval. Two advocates, Simon Alekera, Senior Fisheries Officer for the Province and Committee member, and Hudson Kikovaka, Provincial Minister for Resources and Fisheries who participated in the June 1994 community meetings, favorably influenced the Executive.

Learning How To Listen
We concluded the August 1994 Management Committee meeting with an exercise designed to teach facilitation and listening skills. In small groups, each Committee member assumed the role of meeting facilitator. The facilitators selected discussion topics (some serious and others humorous) from a list of topics relevant to Solomon Island life. They introduced their topics and asked members of their group for opinions. After one member responded, the facilitator had to paraphrase what had been said without adding his or her own opinion, before moving on to the next person. Once everyone had completed a turn as facilitator, the group offered each other feedback. Everyone enjoyed the exercise, had plenty of laughs, and learned a new skill. Committee members could apply this skill at village meetings to get community feedback on project activities.

On the recommendation of Isabel's legal advisor, the Executive exercised its right to issue regulations under the original wildlife sanctuary ordinance. It accepted the management plan as regulations for the conservation area and empowered the Management Committee to make rules and regulations, subject to the Executive's approval.

Understanding Community Motivation

Through working with the Management Committee and communities, the project team developed a clearer understanding of what motivates community involvement. The communities, dependent on their marine resources for cash income, realized that, at the current rate of depletion, they would soon have nothing left. Traditional methods of resource management were breaking down, leaving them no mechanism for controlling the problem on their own. Community elders, especially in Waghena, stated that this reckless use of resources would not have been tolerated a generation ago. They viewed the project as a possible means to invigorate the community to regain control over their resources in ways compatible with their traditions.

The communities were also interested in the project as a way of testing resource management on a small scale. They were unwilling to risk the short-term economic loss of closing large areas to harvesting; however, if depleted resources could be restored to harvestable levels at the Arnavons, the communities would be willing to expand resource management to larger areas.

Enterprise Development and Field Station Planning

Two major issues needed to be addressed to sustain community interest and project momentum: 1) creating alternative income sources to reduce dependence on depleted resources and 2) providing tangible evidence that the external partners were serious about their commitment.

Community and Committee members frequently asked how the project could help them develop alternative enterprises. The Committee had agreed to the biological monitoring with the hopes that ICLARM's clam farming project would be introduced to the project area. After having visited the project site in September, the Director of the Biodiversity Conservation Network (BCN), impressed with the Management Committee's accomplishments and the level of community participation achieved through an initial planning grant, proposed a second grant to explore other enterprise options.

Understanding the communities' perceptions about why previous enterprises had succeeded or failed was an important starting point in preparing for the enterprise feasibility study funded under the second grant. The Committee members were asked to think about this issue so they could provide background information that would be helpful to the enterprise consultant. At the December 1994 Committee meeting, members explained that a range of small businesses -- from fishing to handicraft and toddy production -- were initiated. Transportation and marketing in this remote area were the obvious obstacles to business success. However, lack of credit and available capital to create and expand businesses were identified as the major constraints to business development. Also, lack of managerial and administrative skills hindered the use of practical skills in economically productive ways.

Up to this point, project activities revolved around community discussions, meetings to organize the Management Committee, and drafting the management plan. The communities regularly asked us when the conservation area would officially open and when the field station would be built. It seems they needed tangible evidence of our commitment to the project. Building the station would symbolize the project's reality and commitment of all partners.

Planning the construction of the field station was another focus of the December 1994 Committee meeting. The Committee carefully considered each step in the building process. The members designed and drafted blueprints for the proposed buildings and recommended a mix of traditional and manufactured building materials. Based on their knowledge of the islands, they selected an appropriate site with protected anchorage for the boats.

Negotiations followed over division of construction responsibilities between the three communities and contract prices for each job. We believed equitable distribution of the contracts was important to ensure that all three communities would derive monetary benefits. But Posarae withdrew its participation due to prior commitments, allowing Kia its share of the work to earn money for a new church. Waghena was responsible for cutting timber; Kia took charge of building construction and providing thatching leaf and other traditional materials; the project team provided the manufactured materials and supplies and coordinated transportation of materials from Honiara and timber from Waghena.

The December 1994 meeting ended with a good report from lead scientist Marcus Lincoln Smith, who praised the COs for their invaluable assistance during the pilot monitoring survey, which had been completed in November. He said that their continued participation in the remaining three surveys was essential for successful completion. The six COs had received their scuba certification before the survey, and their dive instructor commended them for their understanding of technical principles and their natural ability in the water. The COs' impressive performance underscored the value of our participatory approach to Dr. Bell and confirmed to the Committee that their efforts were paying off.

Role of the Conservation Officers in Biological Monitoring

The Conservation Officers' role in the biological monitoring program was to assist with census-taking of the marine invertebrate species. This work entailed setting up transects at various sites throughout the conservation area and at three locations nearby. The team leaders, assisted by the COs, swam the meter-wide transects during each survey, recording invertebrates by species, size, and number. When all the data was collected, it was analyzed by the lead scientist, who prepared a report on the pre-opening status of marine invertebrates in the conservation area and surrounding waters.

A survey will be conducted after the first and second years of resource management, with a set of three surveys completed at the end of the third year. The results of these surveys will be used to test the effectiveness of resource management on the recovery of marine invertebrates.

Over the course of the three preliminary surveys, the COs became quite adept at census-taking and survey techniques. During the recent one-year survey, the COs' skill level in survey techniques was reported to be comparable to that of the lead scientist and team leaders. This attests to the quality of skills transfer taking place in the project setting and the COs' commitment to their job. Anecdotal results from the survey indicate a significant increase in the numbers of trochus after only one year of management.

Problems in Paradise

The New Year started with a flurry of activities. The first monitoring survey was scheduled to begin shortly after the middle of the month. The project team members, particularly Susan and I, were scrambling to purchase the required building materials for the field station construction. The materials were to be shipped to the Arnavons on the MV Daula research vessel being used by the monitoring team. At the same time, the contractors in Waghena were cutting timber to enable the builders to start work on construction in early February.

We were also preparing for the enterprise consultant's arrival from the U.S. He was to be accompanied on his late January site visit by a volunteer working in small-business development and John Pita from the project team. In addition to working with the consultant, John was responsible for inspecting the timber, paying the contractors at Waghena, and arranging transport of the timber to the islands.

Everything went well until a few days before I was to leave the Solomons to attend TNC meetings and take annual leave. An early morning call from the operator informed me that a radio call from Waghena was being patched through. Then I faintly heard John Pita's voice through the crackling static saying "Ed, iumi garem wanfala bigfala problem long hia" ("Ed, we have a big problem"). The timber cutters were asking for more than twice as many days' pay as agreed upon at the December Committee meeting.

At that meeting, John Rabaua had suggested that we use the same hiring method as Waghena residents use when they need timber to build a house. They hire a chain saw operator and crew for a set daily rate, plus petrol, instead of buying timber by the linear foot. The Committee agreed that this would be the most cost-effective method of payment. Timber contractors would be paid at a rate of $150 per day, plus 2 gallons of petrol and chain oil for each chain saw team, a price slightly higher than community members pay. We estimated 12 days maximum for cutting, based on how much timber the project needed and the amount the Waghena representatives estimated could be cut in a day.

Before ending our radio call, John Pita and I discussed a strategy to get at the root of the problem and negotiate a more realistic price. We agreed that John would talk with the timber cutters, and I would check prices at the lumber yard.

I discovered that the timber cutters were asking an exorbitant price equal to the retail cost of lumber in the capital of Honiara. John found out that the original agreement was beset with confusion. Instructions about how many days to cut were unclear, and too many teams were cutting. The cutters explained that our original estimate did not account for felling the trees, cutting them to length, and slabbing the bark from the sections. Our estimate accounted only for ripping the timber from the slabs. John was unable to reach a solution, so he paid for enough timber to get the Kia builders started. Negotiations were put on hold for a month to give everyone time to come up with other alternatives.

Upon my return from annual leave, the project team discussed the situation with the Waghena Committee representative over the radio phone. We decided that the original agreement was unworkable and that a new one would have to be negotiated. We thought it would be best to base negotiations on an objective standard, so we researched the prices paid to chain saw operators who cut timber for the eco-timber export market. Based on the price that exporters pay producers for timber ($500-600 per cubic meter), John Pita negotiated a price of $550 per cubic meter when he met with the cutters back in Waghena. (This price was midway between our original estimate and their demands.)

This incident was a valuable learning experience for everyone involved. John, in particular, learned how to negotiate within a project setting. The communities learned that they could not abuse the project for personal gain; by being flexible, all parties could have their needs met. The incident also demonstrated to the project team and Management Committee the need for clarity in all details of an agreement. This is especially true in a society where written contracts are seldom used and poorly understood, and agreements are generally verbal.

The delays resulting from the timber issue caused a chain reaction. The builders were angered because they could not meet their end-of-March deadline for completion and had to spend additional time away from home. Reports were received that one of the Committee members who had permission to use the project canoe for construction purposes was taking it for personal use. The community perceived his actions as an abuse of position and resented his getting undeserved benefits.

Even the COs were voicing their discontent. A message sent through John Pita indicated that they were unhappy with their pay for working on the monitoring survey. They believed that they should be treated like the two senior fisheries officers on the team, who were receiving danger allowance, hard tour allowance, and a $50 per diem, in addition to their regular pay. I explained to the COs that the fisheries officers had many years of experience, and, as team leaders, were responsible for the safe and successful implementation of the survey. I also pointed out that the Management Committee would have to decide what was fair. I wanted the COs to understand clearly that, while the project team appeared to have decision-making power, only the Committee did and that the team's job was to implement the Committee's decisions. The team promised that the issue would be considered at the April 1995 meeting.

A New Approach to Problem-Solving

Before the Management Committee met again, our project team discussed strategies to address the problems that had surfaced. We decided against a confrontational approach and chose instead to address the issues underlying the problems. We were concerned that the communities and their representatives were losing sight of the project's direction. An attitude of "What can I, as an individual, get out of the project?" rather than "How can the community, as a whole, benefit?" was beginning to surface. Committee members were hesitant to take responsibility for their decisions. When discussing the project with their communities the committee members used language such as "Olketa long projek talim olsem" ("The project managers say this"), rather than "Tink tink belong mifala komiti olsem" ("The Committee has decided this"). Talking in this way did not instill a sense of community ownership, but one of outsiders making project decisions, and therefore it was all right to take advantage of the situation.

In our search for a constructive approach to these issues, we hit upon an idea: starting the next Management Committee Meeting with a one-year review of the project's goals, accomplishments, problems, direction, and needed changes.

At April's Management Committee meeting, the one-year review confirmed that sustainable management of the area's resources was the communities' primary incentive for involvement in the project and that they strongly supported it. The Committee identified the need for activities to increase community understanding of project goals and the meaning of sustainability. The members emphasized the importance of regular community consultations and meetings to accomplish this. Educational and public awareness materials, such as fact sheets and pamphlets about specific management issues and a project newsletter, were suggested. The newsletter could inform the communities about project activities, research results, provide a forum for discussing sustainable management, and identify those who had either helped the project or broken management regulations. The members recognized and acknowledged the problems being experienced, but believed they were to be expected and that the achievements far outweighed them.

To dispel any misconception that unlimited money was available, we informed the Committee members about the time and effort invested in raising and managing project funds. By our sharing the actual proposals and budgets with the Committee members, they suddenly realized how complex the project really was. By describing the process of accounting for project funds and the limitations on how money could be spent, the members gained a sense of shared responsibility for prioritizing project activities.

Demonstrating the Benefits of Cooperation

We wrapped up the first day of the April 1995 Management Committee meeting with a game. The objective was for two competing teams of five players each to assemble five small geometric puzzles, each consisting of four-to-seven pieces. Each team was given an identical set of puzzles. The pieces of all five puzzles were scrambled and distributed unequally between five envelopes, each containing two-to-six pieces of various puzzles. An envelope was given to each player. (It was important that players were given different numbers of pieces, representing the uneven distribution of resources.) The players were not allowed to talk and could not take a puzzle piece from other team members. They could, however, give away pieces to help other team members complete their puzzles. The game ended when one team completed all five puzzles. After playing the game, the Committee realized the importance of the principles of cooperation and teamwork, and that even those partners with limited resources (puzzle pieces) provide contributions essential to project success.

Later in the meeting, as specific issues and problems arose, the Committee was able to apply the principles of the game. For example, the construction group realized it was not working in isolation and that each group depended on the others to complete the field station. The Committee also agreed on a standard procedure for using project equipment and the specific consequences of misuse.

The Committee could now appreciate the perspective of donors, who expect community in-kind contributions and a long-term strategy for project self-sufficiency as a return on their investment in conservation and development. From this broader outlook, the Committee was willing to consider options that would support project self-sufficiency.

The discussions continued with the partners represented on the Committee describing their respective project roles. To help clarify the roles and responsibilities identified by each partner, we considered the issue of accountability and some of the consequences of not taking responsibility seriously, such as disagreements, one partner doing the work of another, and project failure. The Committee arrived at a common understanding of what taking responsibility means -- being accountable for one's actions at the individual, community, project, and donor levels.

During the discussions, off-hand remarks involving land disputes, accusations of stealing resources, and laying blame on others surfaced. Such criticisms provoked tension among the three communities and caused misunderstandings. For example, when a Melanesian Committee member blamed the people of Waghena for breaking regulations and spoiling resources, John Rabaua pointed out that individuals, not an entire community, do these things. He stated that the community as a whole does not condone and cannot monitor the behavior of individuals when they travel outside their village. By the end of the meeting, however, everyone agreed that they would deal with the individuals responsible for problems and not blame a whole community.

Training the Conservation Officers

The April 1995 meeting closed by scheduling the opening of the Arnavon Marine Conservation Area for August 22. To prepare the COs for their upcoming tour of duty, June and July were dedicated to on-site technical training in conservation area management. John Pita took responsibility for training the COs in turtle monitoring techniques when the annual turtle survey began in June. An Australian training specialist in resource management presented an introductory program during the first half of July.

The final pre-opening biological monitoring survey would complete the COs' training. Just before the survey began, however, John Pita announced in a letter, "Ed, it's monitoring time again, and you have a big problem!" Although the issue had been discussed by the Committee and the COs had been given danger allowance on the second survey, they were not satisfied and again demanded extra pay. They threatened to quit working on the survey if their demands were not met. Moses and I advised John to inform the COs that making demands was inappropriate behavior, and that they were expected to work on the survey. They were instructed that the proper way to handle their complaint was through the Management Committee at its next meeting. It appeared the COs were testing who had the project authority.

Reinforcing Lessons

In early August, SPREP held a workshop for projects funded under their South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Program (SPBCP). Two members of the Management Committee, along with John Pita and Nathaniel da Wheya, attended the week-long workshop that explained the principles of community-based management and SPBCP financial reporting. The workshop reinforced the lessons in responsibility and accountability and increased the members' understanding of fiscal management. After hearing the workshop report, which was presented at the August Management Committee meeting, Committee members took more interest in monitoring project finances. They now wanted to decide carefully how to spend limited funds and began weighing the relative advantages of allocating money in different ways. They also requested a quarterly financial update from the project team. The message was reciprocal accountability: if we requested their accountability, they expected ours.

Opening the Conservation Area

August 22, 1995 marked the most significant event in the project's history: the opening of the Arnavon Marine Conservation Area. The celebration culminated a two-year effort of diverse partners learning to work together to achieve a common goal. People canoed through heavy seas from as far as 12 hours away to join in the official ceremonies. Completing the field station, training local men as COs, and establishing a plan for sustainable enterprise development provided local communities tangible evidence of SIG and TNC commitment. Both the provincial and national governments were impressed that these three communities could organize themselves and participate in making a project of this complexity a reality. The project partners were proud of their efforts and looked forward to continued progress in addressing conservation and sustainable development issues in the region.

Planning a Sustainable Enterprise

Building sustainability into an enterprise development plan is a relatively new concept in the Solomon Islands. Project partners believed it was necessary to use outside experts to help design a viable and sustainable enterprise. In January 1995, an enterprise development specialist from Telesis, a U.S.-based business consultant firm, conducted an enterprise feasibility study. Focusing on economic sustainability and viability, the specialist recommended that our project communities replicate the Rural Fisheries Enterprise Project, a deep-water fin-fish enterprise already implemented in several Solomon Island communities.

The Management Committee was enthusiastic about the proposal, but warned that we should carefully consider the sustainability issue, which was given little emphasis in the Telesis report. Recognizing that this was a conservation project, the Committee did not want to compromise the project's intentions in the communities' eyes. The Committee members believed their role should be to monitor the sustainability of the enterprise and also recommended that it be diversified to include the plentiful reef fish and invertebrates, when their populations recover.

When The Nature Conservancy reviewed the Telesis recommendation, it too was concerned about the sustainability issue. TNC discovered that other deep-water fisheries projects in the Pacific were not sustainable over the long-term because stocks of snapper and other fin-fish were depleted more rapidly than expected. TNC contracted Gary Preston, a regional fisheries expert, to review the enterprise proposal and make recommendations that would improve chances for sustainability. Preston also recommended the need for a diversified fisheries. Along with the fin-fish, he suggested including high-quality tuna because the population dynamics better lend to sustainable management and there is an equivalent market value.

Often, it is useful to seek several informed opinions at the design stage to ensure the greatest potential for success. In the Arnavon project, each review strengthened the proposed enterprise and clarified its sustainable focus.

A Broken Promise

Two events occurred at the opening of the conservation area that alerted me to a serious problem that could threaten the area's future. During conversation, one of the COs referred to an injury he had received while lifting a giant clam onto the MV Daula research vessel. Then, the Committee member from Posarae arrived without the village chiefs, stating that the seas were too rough for them to travel. Later, however, he pulled me aside and explained that the chiefs were angry because they thought the project was involved in harvesting clams from reef Posarae claimed off Isabel. This was the first we had heard about ICLARM harvesting giant clam-breeding stock during the last biological monitoring survey. Not only was the promise not to harvest resources broken, the clams were harvested from disputed reef claimed by both Posarae and Kia.

At the August Committee meeting, with the threat of Posarae pulling out of the project, our project team and Committee distanced ourselves from ICLARM, which had acted without informing us of its intentions. Our concern was that the CO's involvement during the final days of the survey implicated the project and damaged the growing trust between partners.

The Committee radioed ICLARM from the new field station to gather more of the facts. Dr. Bell said the clam harvest had been planned by ICLARM's clam-farming project as an activity separate from the monitoring and therefore did not require approval from the Arnavon project. Dr. Bell had depended on the fisheries officer in charge of monitoring to ensure that the activities were kept separate and negotiate an agreement with all the appropriate landowners. He was unaware of any land dispute, and apologized for his instructions having been so poorly carried out.

The Committee outlined its view of the situation in a letter to ICLARM that criticized its actions and requested a letter of explanation and apology to the chiefs of Posarae, Kia, and the Committee. ICLARM was asked not to make payment for the clams until a satisfactory agreement had been negotiated between the disputing landowners. The Committee volunteered the Project Coordinator to act as mediator.

Our negotiations resulted in deciding that the land dispute needed to be settled separately from the clam harvesting issue in land dispute court and that ICLARM would hold payment for the clams in a trust account until the case was settled. This decision transferred the thorny land-dispute issue from ICLARM to the landowners themselves. It was satisfactory to both Posarae and Kia because it neither strengthened nor weakened either community's position in the dispute. Although Posarae had threatened to pull out of the project, it trusted the process enough to work through the Committee.

Continuing To Build Capacity

At its August 1995 meeting, the Management Committee had also discussed the benefits of people from all project levels attending workshops and conferences. Attending these meetings would help build confidence, enthusiasm, and understanding of the project's aim. It would also provide opportunities to learn new skills and serve as a forum for sharing ideas with members of other projects. When the September 1995 workshop on designing and implementing socioeconomic monitoring plans for BCN-funded projects was announced, the Committee selected team members to attend who were working in relevant areas but had no prior monitoring experience. Although the participants left the Solomons apprehensive (and two with no shoes), all returned excited about applying what they had learned.

In October 1995, The COs participated in a second technical training to broaden their knowledge of environment and conservation and strengthen their new resource management skills. Training sessions held on preparing and making presentations about their work to community and school groups helped the project address the need for more community outreach. During their month off-duty, the COs were encouraged to organize community awareness activities and could earn up to 10 days of pay doing this.

Selecting a New Project Coordinator

After two years as TNC's Field Representative and Arnavon Project Coordinator, I decided to leave the program to return to forest-related resource management. Because of the participatory structure that had evolved over the past two years, it was important that the Committee have input into selecting my replacement. TNC's most promising candidate was brought to Honiara to interview with the Committee at its December 1995 meeting. The process, similar to that of selecting the COs, involved the Committee discussing the criteria it would use to evaluate the candidate's suitability. The interview focused on the candidate's willingness to respect the decision-making process; ability to work as a team player with the communities, COs, and other project partners; and experience in marine resource management. The Committee members appreciated TNC's show of respect by including them in the selection process, which confirmed to them the effectiveness of the project's community-based approach.

Claiming Responsibility: Coming Full Circle

Over the past two years, the subject of generating project income through community contributions had been raised periodically. The typical response was that, if the project had been community generated, the community would have provided the resources the project needed. (Usually, to support a project, a community would hold "bring and buy" fund-raisers and organize work groups to gather materials and provide labor.) So it came as a pleasant surprise in April 1996 that the Management Committee announced to the new Project Coordinator it was now time to consider how the project could begin raising money independent of outside funding. The Committee decided to sell the large megapode eggs collected from the conservation area. The megapode, a unique, chicken-size bird living on the Arnavons, buries its eggs in large communal nests where they incubate in the warm sand. Management prescriptions close the harvest of these eggs for six months annually. It was decided that, when the season opens each year, the COs will collect the first harvest and sell these highly desired eggs to the communities. This simple decision demonstrates the communities' willingness to claim responsibility for protecting their resources.

A Community-Designed Enforcement Strategy

To enforce the regulations of the conservation area's management plan, the communities and Management Committee members agreed it was essential to establish a system of both punishments and incentives. Leaders from the three communities believed that the management plan's regulations needed the "bite of the law" to strengthen compliance. The leaders explained that traditional respect for the chiefs' and elders' authority had eroded, and community sanctions would have little effect.

After a series of discussions, an enforcement strategy evolved that accommodated the concerns of community leaders and integrated positive incentives. The strategy included the following elements:

  • Education and awareness activities to inform community members about project regulations and their purpose, the project's sustainable management objectives, and suggestions for alternative methods for sustainable resource use.

  • A project newsletter to inform communities about those individuals who break management regulations. (Such public embarrassment would provide a mild sanction to offenders.)

  • Referring offenders to their respective community authority for punishment according to traditional means.

  • Use of the Provincial Ordinance that legislates fines and/or prison terms for individuals who break the conservation area's regulations. The project COs would report infractions to the provincial police, who would investigate and prosecute the offenders. The Committee further recommended that the COs be empowered to first issue citations and on-the-spot fines for infractions of the regulations. If the fine were not paid, the case would be turned over to the police.

Conclusions

This case story has highlighted the significant events that led to the establishment of the Arnavon Marine Conservation Area. Particular attention focused on the formation of the Management Committee and the participatory process that developed to build stakeholder commitment and strong partnerships. We attempted to identify techniques and strategies that were useful at the Arnavons and that could be broadly applied in other conservation and sustainable development projects. Participatory strategies need to start early in a project's life so that participation becomes the foundation upon which the rest of the project is built.

The Arnavon project continues to evolve with the enthusiastic support of all partners. Satisfied with the accomplishments achieved through active participation, project partners are looking forward to using skills already developed and learning new ones to continue moving the project forward. The current challenges being addressed include establishing a sustainable fisheries enterprise in this remote area, expanding resource management practices developed at the Arnavon Islands to other community-managed reefs, and strengthening community education and awareness activities. The participatory approach will continue to be an important part of this effort.

--->

WHY BIODIVERSITY   FIELD STORIES   PARTICIPATE   RESULTS   MARKETSPACE

ABOUT THE NETWORK   WHAT'S NEW   LEARNING MATERIALS   SEARCH   LINKS   SITE MAP   HOME