BCNet
   THE ROLE OF A FIJIAN COMMUNITY IN A BIOPROSPECTING PROJECT

By William G. Aalbersberg, University of the South Pacific; Isoa Korovulavula, SPACHEE; and
Diane Russell, Biodiversity Conservation Network (with John E. Parks, Ecotrack Consulting)

Overview

During the colonial era in Fiji, the rights of native Fijians were taken into consideration to a greater extent than in many other colonies. As migrants from other countries and laborers primarily from India moved in to Fiji, a large proportion of the land was reserved for the indigenous Fijians. This land could not be sold or otherwise permanently alienated. As a result of this policy and the continuity of local political structures, indigenous Fijian villages have deep social and ecological grounding. There is a tremendous sense of place. Landowning mataqali or family groups continue to manage lands in their territories, and often that control extends as far into the sea as local boats can go. Government consults with chiefs on fishing licenses and other permits for use of the resources, and outsiders pay leases to the mataqali for such uses as hotels, dive areas, plantations and even access roads.

The picture is not totally benign, however, with respect to biodiversity conservation. While the forests and coral reefs of Fiji house many plants and organisms with medicinal potential, there are both internal and external pressures on these resources. Internally, the population grows and intensifies resource use for commercial and subsistence purposes. Land leases and extractive licenses are a source of income for the mataqali, but lessees do not have incentive to conserve. Waste disposal is a problem. Externally, industries such as logging, coral harvesting and mining encroach on the land and sea resources. The Fiji government is concerned that communities are not getting a fair share of the revenue from these extractions.

Conservation groups seek ways to help communities to husband their biodiversity in the face of these pressures. These groups know that it is not enough to tell people to conserve. There must be incentives, coupled with awareness of the benefits of conservation. As many of the pressures revolve around increasing commercialization and need for cash, enterprises that generate cash benefits to communities are often part of incentive packages. But community-based enterprises such as small-scale ecotourism and the processing of forest products are risky endeavors with steep start up and maintenance costs. Biodiversity prospecting has been identified as an alternative that offers substantial cash benefits with minimal risks and start-up costs.

This piece illustrates how the bioprospecting venture described in the other case studies on this project, informed by the concerns expressed above, sought to work with a community in Fiji to maximize the economic and conservation benefits. A key feature of this story is the determination of the main partners to work patiently through each step of the process and retain a vision of an equitable bioprospecting agreement with long term benefits for all partners. One result achieved already is significant advance at the national and institutional levels in policies about bioprospecting. Another is the boost given to ongoing conservation and development initiatives in the community.

The USP-BCN project proposal originally sought to involve two Fijian communities in the bioprospecting activities: Namosi in a rainforest area, and Verata on the coast. When the project budget was reduced, the project was only able to work in Verata, although the idea of involving Namosi has not been forgotten. This section describes some of the key activities undertaken with Verata people during the life of the project, and how the community has come to view bioprospecting and other environmental issues. It focuses on the role of community leadership in Verata in mobilizing not only its own community but serving as a model for others as well.

Verata

Verata is a tikina or county comprised of eight villages within the province of Tailevu, on the eastern shore of Viti Levu. It is a highly important locale in Fiji, being one of the first sites where Fijians consider their ancestors to have settled. The chiefly families retain great prestige, and Verata people maintain ties with many other mataqali throughout the land. Activities carried out in Verata thus have resonance throughout the country. In addition, Verata is not far from Suva, so there is very active participation of Suva residents from Verata in the development of their area. The project has been able to draw on Suva dwellers' participation along the way. Most critically, however, the project has been able to work with local leaders who care deeply about the way resources are managed and have learned new skills in the process.

The box below presents some information about the land and population of Verata. A new census in 1997 and socioeconomic monitoring planned for February 1998 will give us more precise information about the community.


VERATA DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECOSYSTEMS
Population (1995 census): 1571 residents in 319 households. In addition, there are 643 urban residents with rights in Verata
Number of villages: 7
Number of mataqali: 49 live in Verata directly controlling a total of 503 ha of land
Total area of Verata: 95 km2 (marine) + 140 km2 (terrestrial) is total area of Verata tikina and qoligoli (traditional marine management area)
Main revenue generating activities: Selling yaqona (kava) and dalo (taro), harvesting sea creatures such as beche de mer, mud lobster, fishing, land rents
Key habitats: coral reefs, mangroves, riverbanks, shoreline, garden areas and secondary forest


The relationship between Verata and USP is woven from many threads. One strand goes back to the early 1970s to the relationship between USP Professor of Natural Products Chemistry Bill Aalbersberg and his teacher of Fijian during Bill's stint as Peace Corps Volunteer. Another strand was added in 1993-1995 with the Community Based Biodiversity Conservation surveys carried out by USP professor of Pacific Islands biogeography Randy Thaman.

As the idea of a bioprospecting project was conceived within USP, partnership with Verata seemed a natural choice. The project team, which by then included the South Pacific Action Committee on Human Ecology and the Environment (SPACHEE), contacted traditional and government authorities to vet the idea of a bioprospecting project that would use their resources. The team then met with the community to discuss the concept and the nature of participation. These meetings precipitated a lot of questions about the benefits and risks of the proposal.

Resource Management Workshops

During the planning phase of the project, SPACHEE organized three participatory workshops in Verata that focused on natural resource management. These workshops included a one-day environmental awareness workshop in all the seven villages, a participatory rural appraisal workshop in Ucunivanua (the Chiefly village in Verata), and a community integrated resource management workshop held in Kumi and Ucunivanua.

The two main objectives of the one-day workshops [need dates], organized and conducted by SPACHEE together with the Department of Environment, were to identify the ten most important problems in the village and opportunities/solutions to these problems. One of the significant results of these workshops was the willingness of the villagers to be open in discussing broad range of environmental issues. The major environmental issues raised by most the villages were:

The workshops screened environmental videos as well as videos of the village environmental issues. These videos sparked intense discussion about problems and solutions. The participants sketched their own village and area maps to show where resources, activities, problems and opportunities are located, to see the dimension and scope of issues to be investigated, and to know the boundaries of resources. The maps included information such as:

A participatory rural appraisal (PRA) workshop was held for a week in June 1996. Representatives from six of the seven villages in Verata came to the workshop. The main focus of the workshop was biodiversity conservation. Participants looked at the ecosystem role of habitats such as mangrove and coral reefs in their areas, after which participants ranked community problems. They prepared a community action plan for their own villages at end of the workshop. Resource people from some government agencies, NGOs and USP came to assist in the PRA workshop.

The organizers felt that, on the whole, the series of one-day workshops and the PRA were an effective way of raising environmental awareness because community members actively participate in the discussion as well as coming up with resolutions. It was not a one-way communication.

SPACHEE came again to Verata in July 1996 to help the community design a resource management plan. The overall objective of this workshop was to assist villagers to develop the skills needed to plan the sustainable commercial and subsistence use of their natural resources, including the protection and rehabilitation of those resources (in particular plants and animals) that are rare, endangered or of particular cultural, economic or ecological importance.

The initial pilot villages were Ucunivanua and Kumi Villages, with the remaining five villages in Verata to be covered after the first two workshops have been evaluated. The workshop was held overnight in each village to take advantage of informal discussions at night and to avoid hurrying to return to Suva. The aim was to develop a model that can be adapted for rapid application to many villages.

The participants included a wide range of men and women, older and younger people who could play a central role in the promotion of the protection and sustainable use of resources and biodiversity. Representatives from other villages in Verata were also invited. This workshop was supposed to train them to be facilitators in their villages.

The main issues discussed were: the concepts of sustainable development; the importance of the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity and ethnobiology as natural and cultural capital (the bank account) needed for the development and maintenance of this generation and of future generations; and the need for community-level management and planning of the use of natural resources. First, there was a brief discussion of the nature and importance of biodiversity and ethnobiology and its management as a basis for sustainable village development, and the distribution of lists of plants and animals and uses generated during the 1993-1995 Community Based Biodiversity Conservation surveys. There was also some discussion on the types of development that seems to be unsustainable and destroying the biodiversity of the area.

One of the most important outcomes of this particular workshop was the development of an integrated resource management plan. On the last day of the workshop the villagers compiled their own resource management plan. This integrated resource management plan covered both terrestrial and marine resources.

Project Relations with Suva Based Committee

The community of Verata is not only a locale but also a network of kin and neighbors that stretches from the ancestral homelands to the cities of Fiji and on to the rest of the world. Verata people remain by and large concerned about and involved in the development of their lands, and their heritage. Thus the Suva-based Verata Development Committee got involved at an early stage of the project to advise project planners.

The group met regularly on an ad-hoc basis. Professor Aalbersberg or a SPACHEE representative often attended these informal meetings, at first to explain the idea of the project. Later, once the group had agreed to the project and assisted in getting approval for it from the paramount chief, the group provided advice on the conduct of the project.

Biological Monitoring

During the first year of project implementation (1997), BCN consultant John Parks of Ecotrack Consulting, together with SPACHEE and WWF/South Pacific, held a workshop to train community members in biological monitoring. This workshop employed local concepts of resource use, ecological principles, and scientific sampling and analysis to develop a monitoring program that would be totally implemented by community teams.

The monitoring program attracted the interest of NGOs and government officials who were unaware that community members could learn and practice skills involving scientific measurement and data analysis. Consequently, a second workshop was organized for government, NGOs and other individuals interested in the methodology. Held in Suva, with a field trip to Verata to observe community-based monitoring in action, the workshop was facilitated by the community monitoring team with the help of Parks and SPACHEE. It was a great success. One government official remarked that "In sixteen years of government service, I have never attended a workshop in which I worked like this with members of NGOs. I had previously viewed their intentions with suspicion but now realize that they can be valuable partners in our conservation work."

Training for Community Sample Collectors and Collection Activities

Each village was invited to appoint two members interested in and knowledgeable about local plants to become sample collectors. About ten people, several of whom had been part of the biological monitoring training, assembled at the training site. Mr. Marika Tuiwawa, a botanist in the Biology Department at USP, had worked with Professor Aalbersberg to develop a list of plants to be collected based on these desired by SIDR and those identified in Verata by Professor Thaman's rapid rural assessments. Sixty-five plants were collected in one day and a half days of the first meeting, and another forty on a collection day a few months later. Verata has a much richer marine than terrestrial biodiversity, as much of the land consists of grasslands and secondary forests.

In November 1997, two of the members of the collection team were asked to participate in a People and Plants Workshop organized by the WWF-South Pacific and conducted by ethnobotanist Dr. Gary Martin. Participants learned how to prepare voucher specimens and use them to develop a community register of their important plants. It is anticipated that in 1998 two villages in Verata will prepare a register of fifty key plants.

Pohnpei Presentation

At the biological monitoring workshop, two key community leaders -- Ratu Pio Radikedike of Ucunivanua, and Tomitiani Boginivalu of Navunimono -- were identified as team leaders for monitoring. These leaders have proven to be a source of inspiration not only within their own locales, but more widely in the Pacific conservation community, as a result of their presentation on community biological monitoring during the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme's (SPREP) 6th Conference on Nature Conservation in the Pacific, September 1997 in Pohnpei, FSM.

Verata was on the map as a pioneer village for community resource management.


WHY BIODIVERSITY   FIELD STORIES   PARTICIPATE   RESULTS   MARKETSPACE

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