The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary by Environmental Change Research Group

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary Perspectives from iTaukei in Viti Levu, Fiji Pre-release English version only The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Credits Photos Design

Tristan Pearce Roger Kitson Matthew Brown Renee Currenti Danielle Rietberg Mikayla Cover Vicky Oâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Rourke

ÂŠ 2017 Nadroga-Navosa Provincial Council, Sustainability Research Centre at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia. Pre-release English only version Pearce T, Manuel L, Rietberg D, Brown M, Kurisaru I, Leon J, Currenti R, Cover M, Kitson R and Jarihani B (2017). The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary: Perspectives from iTaukei in Fiji. Sigatoka: Joint publication of Nadroga-Navosa Provincial Council and Sustainability Research Centre at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia.

ECRG

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary Perspectives from iTaukei in Viti Levu, Fiji Pre-release English version only

We dedicate this report to the research participants who openly shared their experience and knowledge of the Sigatoka River estuary. They have truly provided the human face of the Sigatoka River estuary.

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Table of Contents Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.0 Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.0 Sigatoka River Estuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.0 Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5.0 Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.0 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 7.0 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Acknowledgments First and foremost, the research team would like to thank the research participants for their participation and for sharing their experience and knowledge of the Sigatoka River estuary. A full list of participants, organised by village, is provided in Table 1. The team would like to thank the Nadroga-Navosa Provincial Council for welcoming us to your province and guiding us throughout the research. The team would like to specially thank Roko Tui Nadroga Mr. Villiame Burenivalu for supporting this research and making us feel welcome in Nadroga-Navosa. We would like to thank the following individuals and organisations for their guidance, participation and efforts. Thank you Craig Powell and Teresa Rietberg for initiating the research, guiding us throughout the process, and for your continued support. Thank you Mereoni Mataika, Kiniviliame Ravonoloa, Sr Lanieta Burasia Matavesi, Danny Rietberg, and Bob and Coral Kennedy for your assistance during the research, your intellectual contributions and for your continued support, and Angie and Paulini Lalabalavu for your hospitality and for sharing your experience and knowledge of the Sigatoka River estuary. Thank you, Dr. Jeremy Hills, Director, Institute of Marine Resources at the University of the South Pacific, Suva, for your partnership and in-country support. The research was funded by a University of the Sunshine Coast Fellowship grant.

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Tables Table 1. List of Workshop Participants Nasigatoka

Venaisi Tove, Adi Nasagale, Sitiveni Namoumou, Ananaiasa Naqaolevu, Savenca Batimala, Watile Tuinagigia, Ilaitia Ikurisaru

Nasama

Lela Lewanitura, Ita Masiwawa, Luke Kurinasama, Iliesa Hanimo, Solomoni Masiwawa, Napolioni Vitau

Vunavutu

Adi Lanieta Burasia Mataresi, Venina Naiqaqi, Ilaisa Nayacalevu, Virisine laca, Marika Makulau, Ivamera Matavesi

Laselase

Alipate Nainoca, Kulae Senikaboa, Ulaiasi Nainoca

Nayawa

Ratu Jone Vagudruli, Manoa Tamaya, Alesi Tamaya, Peniasi Vakili, Litia Tamaya, Wakesa Radinioloi

Kulukulu

Table 2. List of Research Teams Nasigatoka

Tristan Pearce, Lui Manuel, Ilaitia Kurisaru (Tulai), Danielle Rietberg, Mikayla Cover, Renee Currenti

Nasama

Tristan Pearce, Lui Manuel, Ilaitia Kurisaru (Tulai), Danielle Rietberg, Mikayla Cover, Renee Currenti

Vunavutu

Tristan Pearce, Lui Manuel, Ilaitia Kurisaru (Tulai), Danielle Rietberg, Mikayla Cover, Renee Currenti

Laselase

Tristan Pearce, Lui Manuel, Ilaitia Kurisaru (Tulai), Danielle Rietberg, Mikayla Cover, Renee Currenti

Nayawa

Tristan Peace, Lui Manuel, Kiniviliame Ravonoloa, Mikayla Cover, Renee Currenti, Matthew Brown, Javier Leon

Kulukulu

Tristan Pearce, Lui Manuel, Danielle Rietberg, Mikayla Cover, Renee Currenti

John King, Isoa Chongsui, Maureen Garcia

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Executive Summary Fijians continue to live in close association with their environment and obtain much of their income and sustenance from a healthy environment. There is growing concern, however, that the health of the environment is being adversely affected by a range of forces operating at local to global scales, including climate change, unsustainable land-use practices, and resource exploitation. To date, the focus on managing these environmental impacts has primarily been on understanding the biophysical changes and their impacts on the environment, with little attention given to the potential impacts on people, their health, livelihoods or culture. The Sigatoka River estuary is the lifeblood of iTaukei (Indigenous Fijians) who live there, the importance of which extends to others who purchase or trade for the fruits, vegetables, fish and shellfish that the estuary provides. The estuary also has the attention of international mining companies who see the estuary for its large volumes of sand containing magnetite, a source of iron for steel making. Dome Gold

Mines holds a mineral exploration licence in the estuary that covers an area of 2,522.69 hectares on the plains and the mouth of the Sigatoka River, the river itself and an area offshore. Dome proposes to employ low-cost dredging methods to remove the mineral sand from the river and strip mine other areas including Koroua Island and part of the Sigatoka Sand Dunes. The validity and objectivity of the Environmental Impact Assessment report commissioned by Dome is questionable as it fails to consider adverse social impacts the proposed mining development, including dredging, are likely to have. This report responds to this knowledge need and documents iTaukei social values (uses and values) of the Sigatoka River estuary and threats to these values. The Nadroga-Navosa Provincial Office and the Sustainability Research Centre at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia, in cooperation with the Marine Institute at the University of the South Pacific, villages and other partners, conducted 31 face-toface interviews and participatory mapping with iTaukei in five villages

â&#x20AC;&#x153;â&#x20AC;ŚAnd I repeat: no development on land or at sea in Fiji takes place if there is any risk to the environment. It is a central tenet of our Green Growth Framework and national development plans. And we are very proud to have drawn this responsible line in the sand.â&#x20AC;? Prime Minister of Fiji Voreqe Bainimarama, 6 June 2017

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

(Nasigatoka, Nasama, Vunavutu, Laselase, Nayawa) and one settlement (Kulukulu) to document social values (uses and values) of the Sigatoka River estuary and threats to these values. These interviews were conducted between 11-25 April 2017 under the guidance of the Nadroga-Navosa Provincial Office. In the interviews, the project team assisted participants in recording their social values of the Sigatoka River estuary and sources of threats to these values on a large georeferenced satellite image of the estuary. Participants reported monetary values (e.g. selling shellfish), non-monetary values (e.g. subsistence agriculture and fishing, spiritual values), sources of threat (e.g. point sources of pollution) and areas under threat (e.g. proposed mining development). Taken together, these data show the human face of the Sigatoka River estuary and bring to attention sources of threats to iTaukei livelihoods. The data show that the entire Sigatoka River estuary is important to the lives and livelihoods of iTaukei including the mouth of the river, inland streams that flow into the river, the river itself, and offshore areas.

Participants derive their main sources of subsistence and income from agriculture, fishing and shellfish collection, much of which takes place on or in close proximity to the river. In particular, Koroua Island is a place of importance to many participants for agriculture and shellfish collection. In addition to the empirical values of the river estuary, participants also attributed non-empirical values to the river. The river estuary is overlayed with cultural heritage and spiritual values; some values are connected to physical locations while others are virtual in space. The river mouth, including Tabu vuto – the place where the water always stays clear, and Vila ni Yalo – where the spirits of people who are alive are seen before they pass away, are examples of places of spiritual importance. Threats to iTaukei social values of the Sigatoka River estuary include current and potential future sources of threat, both episodic like dredging and chronic like point sources of pollution. Many participants

“There is sometimes a price to pay in terms of short-term financial gain and this is a price that we are not prepared to pay.” Prime Minister of Fiji Voreqe Bainimarama, 6 June 2017

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

identified flooding and sedimentation of the river as sources of threat. The river has become shallower and the channel between the mainland and Koroua Island has become narrower, which inhibits people’s movement by boat and effects fishing. The common belief is that increased sedimentation and resulting flooding is caused by poor land-use practices upstream. Proposed mining development, including dredging was the most frequently recorded threat to social values. There was a great deal of uncertainty among participants about the intentions behind dredging and foreseeable effects on river ecosystem health and services. It is clear that iTaukei lives and livelihoods are intimately connected with the Sigatoka River estuary and that sources of threat, namely proposed mining development including dredging, could have

“When you damage God’s environment, no money in this world can repay that.” Peniasi Vakili, Nayawa village, 13 April 2017

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

devastating impacts on river ecosystem health and services, with insurmountable consequences for iTaukei livelihoods. In June 2017, Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama said, “We do not believe that putting the health of our environment first in any way jeopardises our development. On the contrary, maintaining the pristine quality of our natural surroundings is front and centre of every development decision we make.” This research shows that the health of the Sigatoka River estuary and the health of the iTaukei who use it are jeopardised by a suite of threats, most notably proposed mining development, including dredging. The research findings reported here are intended to inform evidence-based decision making and contribute to Fiji’s Green Growth Framework and national development plans in a manner that protects the health of the environment and the livelihoods of iTaukei.

1.0 Introduction Fijians have a growing concern about adverse impacts to their environment, health, culture and livelihoods stemming from various forms of environmental change, particularly climate change and resource exploitation. Climate change poses possibly the greatest threat to the Fijian environment and people, and its potential impacts are expected to be wide-ranging, complex and largely negative. At the same time that the climate is changing, Fiji is confronted with the pressure of natural resource exploitation such as commercial fishing, forestry, agriculture and mining. Most of these activities result in negative outcomes for the people who depend on the environment and its services for their lives and livelihoods. To date, the focus on managing these environmental impacts has primarily been on understanding the biophysical changes and their impacts on the environment, with little attention given to the potential impacts on people, their health, livelihoods or culture. Similarly, little attention has been given to iTaukei needs with regard to environmental management decision making to understand the potential consequences of resource exploitation for iTaukei lives. This report responds to this knowledge need and documents iTaukei social values (uses and values) of the Sigatoka River estuary and threats to these values.

The specific objectives are to:

map the spatial distribution of iTaukei social values of the Sigatoka River estuary;

map the spatial distribution of perceived threats to the Sigatoka River estuary;

examine the influence of perceived threats on social values by quantifying “hotspots”; and

i dentify opportunities to improve environmental management of the Sigatoka River estuary.

This report is a partnership between the Nadroga-Navosa Provincial Council, Sustainability Research Centre at the University of the Sunshine Coast, and the Institute of Marine Resources at the University of the South Pacific. Our goal is to bring a “human face” to the issue of resource development in the Sigatoka River estuary. The contents of this report are intended to contribute to the development of more productive, equitable environmental management decision-making in Fiji that better reflects and supports the needs, concerns and livelihoods of local peoples.

Explanation of social values

Social values are defined here as the importance of places, landscapes, and the resources or services they provide as defined by individual and/or group perceptions and attitudes towards a given place or landscape. In this sense, social values are taken to include the importance people attach to goods such as food products and activities such as recreation.

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

2.0 Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is the process of assessing the likely environmental, social and other relevant effects of a development proposal and identifying options to minimise these effects. By definition EIAs acknowledge the importance of assessing social impacts in conjunction with the biophysical. Furthermore, it is generally agreed that effective assessments of social impacts involve working with the people who will likely be effected by the development proposal. In this regard, public participation in EIAs is considered an integral part of the assessment procedure, to compliment technical expertise with local knowledge and use of the environment. However, despite the importance of public participation in EIA, many EIA processes fail to account for the effects of development proposals on human livelihoods. Fiji operationalised its environmental legislation in the Environmental Management Act of Fiji 2005 (EMA). The EMA established a mandatory EIA process for proposed developments in Fiji that trigger the requirement for an EIA during the screening phase. Despite the operationalisation of EIA in Fiji, challenges to its application have been acknowledged. These challenges include: (1) shortfalls in human resources; (2) inadequate quality control of reporting; (3) insufficient

enforcement and compliance monitoring; and (4) minimal public engagement and participation1. Efforts are needed to improve public engagement and participation in EIA in Fiji. This report responds to this challenge and uses public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS) to map social values of the Sigatoka River estuary. PPGIS is a field within geographic information systems that seeks to combine public participation with geospatial techniques at the local scale. Despite the numerous applications of PPGIS for the mapping of social values in the context of land-use planning, such an approach has rarely been explicitly considered for use as a decision support tool in EIAs. When PPGIS has been applied to map social values, it has most often been done at regional or national scales in developed countries. There is an expressed need for such approaches to also be applied in developing countries, including Pacific Island countries, where data on social values are often completely missing and natural resources are often under competing pressures from traditional and new stakeholder interests. This report is the first time that PPGIS has been used in Fiji to identify the spatial distribution of social values of the environment for potential use in EIA.

Bradley, M & Swaddling, A 2016, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Addressing environmental impact assessment challenges in Pacific island countries for effective management of deep sea minerals activitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, Marine Policy.

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

3.0 Sigatoka River Estuary The Sigatoka River is the second largest river on Viti Levu, the largest flood discharge capacity of the Sigatoka River to reduce flood damage. island in the Republic of Fiji. The headwaters of the Sigatoka River rise Additionally, Australian mining company Dome Gold Mines has been in the wet, inland area of Viti Levu and runs its course predominately granted a mineral exploration licence in the estuary with intent to obtain through the drier area, depositing broad alluvial terraces. These terraces a full mining lease in 2017. Dome’s SPL 1495 Sigatoka Ironsands Project in the middle and lower reaches of the river provide highly fertile land covers an area of 2,522.69 hectares on the plains and the mouth of the suitable or agricultural production. Subsequently, the Sigatoka Valley is Sigatoka River, the river itself and an area offshore (Fig. 1). known as Fiji’s “salad bowl” due to its high production of fresh produce, accounting for approximately 80% Fiji’s vegetable production. Additionally, the sediments eroded from the magnetite-bearing volcanic and intrusive rocks inland have formed what is known as the largest most prominent undeveloped iron sand deposit in Fiji at the river mouth. The Nasigatoka district at the Sigatoka River estuary is comprised of seven villages (Nasigatoka, Yavulo, Nasama, Vunavutu, Volivoli, Nayawa and Laselase, and several surrounding settlements (e.g. Kulukulu) with a combined population of 2,733. The iTaukei within this region depend heavily on the river for their lives and livelihoods. The dominant livelihood activities include farming, fishing, hotel employment and tourism, where such activities produce a mixed subsistence and cash economy. In recent times, the Fiji Ministry of Agriculture has signed an agreement with the China Railway First Group for flood mitigation work. This work includes the Sigatoka River Dredging Project aimed at improving Fig. 1 Arial image of Sigatoka showing the yellow outline of Dome Gold Mines the drainage of agricultural land and increasing the Sigatoka Ironsands Project area. The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

4.0 Methods This report draws on 31 face-to-face interviews and participatory mapping with iTaukei to document social values of the Sigatoka River estuary and threats to these values. Researchers conducted interviews and participatory mapping with participants from five villages (Nasigatoka, Nasama, Vunavutu, Nayawa, Laselase) and one settlement (Kulukulu) between the 11th-25th of April 2017. The villages and settlement included in the research were selected because their residents live in close association with the Sigatoka River estuary and derive some degree of sustenance from the river, and the availability of participants. Future research on social values of the Sigatoka River estuary should also include participants living in Yavulo and Volivoli. The research was conducted in accordance with ethics approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of the Sunshine Coast (approval reference: A/15/751) and from the University Research Committee at the University of the South Pacific (approval reference: Dr Tristan Pearce/2017/).

Back row: Lui Manuel, Craig Powell Front row: Danielle Rietberg, Tristan Pearce, John King, Mikayala Cover, Renee Currenti

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Lui Manuel conducting participatory mapping in Laselase village

4.1 Interview Sample

village prior to interviews, led by representatives of the Nadroga-Navosa Provincial Council, to discuss the research with village representatives, obtain feedback and agree on a day to conduct interviews. Interviews were undertaken by four university researchers together with two representatives of the Nadroga-Navosa Provincial Council, and were conducted in Fijian and English. 17 interviews were conducted in the bure of the respective village and 14 interviews were conducted at participantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s homes. Interviews began with reviewing a project description and signing a consent form, both in writing and verbalised by the interviewer. Interviews last from 20 minutes to 1.5 hours. A total of 31 interviews were transcribed. The interview protocol involved five parts.

We sought people whose means of livelihood are linked to the Sigatoka River estuary. Using non-proportional quota sampling, our sample included 31 participants from a range of ages and genders whose livelihoods were directly or indirectly connected to the estuary (Table 3).

4.2 Interview Design We created a semi-structured interview protocol to enable participants to share how they value and use the Sigatoka River estuary. A sevusevu (an offering of yaqona as a show of respect) was conducted in each

Table 3. Characteristics of the interview sample Nasigatoka Age

Nasama M

18-28

Vunavutu M

29-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

Nayawa

3 3

3 1

1 1

9 3

80+ Total

Total

70-79

Kulukulu

Laselase

0 5

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Step 1 Each interview began by collecting basic demographic

Step 4 The interviewer asked questions about threats to the river

information about the participant, i.e. name, age, gender, ethnicity, household characteristics, occupation/means of livelihood. This was followed with open-ended questions regarding what the participant values, e.g. “How is the Sigatoka River important to you?” The use of open-ended questions allowed participants to communicate more personally relevant values, as opposed to those used in a predefined typology. Participants were also asked what a ‘healthy’ Sigatoka River means to them and if they believe management of the river needs to be improved or changed.

ecosystem and services that people value. Participants were asked draw red polygons around areas that are threatened and/or are sources of threat.

Step 5 The interviewer concluded the interview by thanking the participants for their time and effort. A photograph was taken of each participant’s map with the monetary, non-monetary and threat values, and notes on associated types of values and threats. The clear vinyl sheets were removed from the base map and labelled with a unique identifying number for analysis.

Step 2 The interviewer unrolled a 120cm x 166cm laminated georeferenced satellite image of the study area at a scale of 1:10,861.88. A clear vinyl sheet was overlayed and secured to the image for the participant to record their information on. The participant was asked to locate areas they receive their income from by drawing polygons around the identified area using a green permanent marker. The interviewer then asked what activity or value is associated with each area identified.

Step 3 The interviewer asked open-ended questions regarding non-monetary values. To assist participants in discerning areas of non-monetary value, prompting questions derived from predefined typology were used, e.g. “are there any areas that are special to you for sacred, religious or spiritual reasons?” Participants were asked to outline areas of non-monetary value using blue permanent marker. Participatory mapping interviews in Nasigatoka village

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

4.3 Data Analysis 4.3.1 Narrative analysis Interviews data were analysed using latent content analysis. Each interview was transcribed and then coded using NVivo qualitative data analysis software following the basic structure of monetary value, nonmonetary value, and threats. Additional themes within each of these categories were uncovered during analysis and coded. Numerical data were inputted into an Excel spread sheet to generate basic descriptive statistics.

4.3.2 Spatial analysis Our goal for the spatial data analysis was to identify the presence of overlapping information known as ‘hotspots’ between participants of five villages and one settlement and present the data visually on maps. Digitisation and data analysis were performed using ArcGIS (www.arcgis.com). The photographs taken of each participant’s map (n=31) were categorised by village/settlement before the data were georeferenced and manually assessed for spatial correctness. Four

shapefile categories were created to reflect the data collected during the interview stage: monetary, non-monetary, sources of threat, and areas under threat. A digital replica of each hand drawn polygon was created using the ArcGIS software by precisely tracing the outline of the polygons situated on the electronic copy of photographs. This process was conducted for all 31 maps. In total 105 shapefiles and 387 polygons were digitised and prepared for hotspot analysis. Hotspot analysis and map production involved the following steps. First, the categories underwent calculations to express each shapefile (monetary, non-monetary, sources of threat, and areas under threat) as a numeric value from 1-4, respectively. Second, the shapefiles were converted to rasters and reclassified, creating 107 unique raster files. The third and final step was adding each raster together. This was performed by separating the rasters into their respective categories and subsequent village/settlement, before placing them within a single algorithm for calculation. The resulting outputs of the calculation produced four hotspot maps per village/settlement. Cumulative hotspot maps were created for each category to represent the total data from all 31 participants.

Hot spot analysis Hotspot analysis uses vectors to identify the locations of statistically significant locations. For the purposes of this research, we consider a ‘hot-spot’ to be polygons with a minimum total overlap count equal or greater than two. This means that if two or more participants identified an area of importance to them, it would be considered a ‘hot-spot.’ The more participants that identify a single area increases the intensity of a ‘hot-spot.’ The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

5.0 Results 5.1 Monetary Values

KEY FINDINGS All participants described that agriculture, fishing and shell-fish collection were first valued for subsistence and second for income if there was excess Excess agriculture produce, fish and shellfish (crabs and kai) are sold or exchanged at the Sigatoka market, roadside market stalls, and within and between villages Koroua Island is valued for agricultural land, shell fish collection and a source of materials for craft making, some of which are sold for income Participants collect sand at specific locations near the river for making clay and pottery that is sold to tourists A healthy Sigatoka River estuary and sand dunes are important sources of income from tourism revenue

Produce for sale at the Sigatoka Market

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

0 1-2 3-5 6-8

Fig. 2 Map showing areas identified by participants as having monetary value. The darker shades of green indicate that more participants identified the same area as important. For example, eight participants identified areas on Koroua Island that they valued for income from agriculture, and this area is identified with a darker shade of green. Two participants identified an area in Olosara settlement where they collect sand to make clay for pottery, and this area is coloured a lighter shade of green. The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

5.1.1 Agriculture Eight (26%) participants drew green polygons over areas that they, and/or others in their village, use for agriculture and that are monetarily important to them. Agricultural land in Nasigatoka district is owned by respective village clans - mataqali. These clan lands are further divided into individual household farms - teitei, within which an array of root crops, vegetables and fruits are grown in the first instance for subsistence. However, these teitei double as a source of food and income for many households and excess seasonal produce is sold or exchanged at the Sigatoka market, roadside market stalls, and within and between villages.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;We grow lemon trees and mandarin treesâ&#x20AC;Ś when it is ripe we go and pick it and sell it on the stall marketâ&#x20AC;? Venaisi Tove, Nasigatoka village

Fig. 3 Solomoni Masiwawa of Nasama standing in the coconut plantation on Koroua Island

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Villages and clans who have land on Koroua Island (also known as plantation island), have access to a coconut plantation (Fig. 3). This plantation is a source of materials for craft making, food and income. Income is derived from selling the crafts (i.e. baskets, brooms, fans) and coconuts to tourists. In addition, the plantation also presents a potential future source of income to the villages, as they intend to sustainability harvest the plantation for coconut timber. One participant explained that to be a sustainable practice that would not affect other values and uses of the plantation, a replacement tree

would have to have been planted and reach fruit bearing age before a mature coconut tree could be cut down.

5.1.2 Fishing iTaukei villages hold customary marine tenure areas known as qoliqoli (pronounced ‘go-lee go-lee’). Qoliqolis are traditionallyowned fishing grounds that are passed down from generation to generation. Within the study area there are two qoliqoli, the Modudu qoliqoli (Laselase and Nayawa village), and the Nasigatoka qoliqoli (Nasigatoka, Yavulo, Vunavutu, Nasama and Volivoli village). Despite not being officially recognised, settlements such as Kulukulu also have access to these qoliqoli as they are closely related to the respected qoliqoli owners. Fishing was the most prolific activity identified by participants within the Sigatoka River mouth area. 31 (100%) participants cited fishing as being for subsistence purposes, but noted that fishing also held monetary value as excess catch was sometimes sold within and between villages and at the markets. To sell fish within the village or at the local markets a fisher must obtain a permit from the registered owner of the qoliqoli and have the state issue a fishing licence. Fishing methods range from hand line, net fishing, diving and deep sea fishing.

“Majority of women who use net got a lot of fish, yeah we sell it too…. We sell it in the village… some they don’t catch fish, they buy the fish” Kulae Senikaboa, Laselase village Fish for sale at the Sigatoka Market

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

5.1.3 Shellfish collection Similar to fishing, shellfish collection is a prominent activity typically conducted for subsistence purposes, but was still associated with monetary value. 15 (48%) participants drew green polygons around areas used for shellfish collection and that are monetarily important to them. In particular, participants attributed monetary value to crab and kai (freshwater mussels). 23 (74%) participants identified the channel between the mainland and Koroua Island as being an important place to collect crab for food and income (Fig. 4). Five participants, all women, identified selling crab as a particularly important source of income for their households.

Fig 4. Crab for sale at the Sigatoka Market

â&#x20AC;&#x153;when we have a lot of crabs in Koroua, we use it as a family use and we also need money, we also need money for our daughters and sons to go to school for the to buy something for them. We cannot just eat it and eat it, we have to sell it too, for the money, because of the money, we need money to.â&#x20AC;? Kulae Senikaboa, Laselase Nine (29%) participants drew green polygons around areas used for kai collection and that are monetarily important to them or people in their village. As kai are freshwater mussels they are not found in the mixed waters of the estuary, rather in fresh water north of the Sigatoka bridge.

Kai for sale at the Sigatoka Market

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

5.1.4 Raw materials for handicrafts Four (13%) participants drew green polygons around areas used for collecting raw materials to make handicrafts that are sold to tourists. In particular, people collect sea shells for jewellery making, coconut leaves for basket, matt and fan making, and sand for clay and pottery making. Participants in Nayawa village noted that pottery was the main source of income for the village.

5.1.5 Tourism Four (13%) participants identified the Sigatoka River estuary as a source of income from tourism revenue. Tourist groups come to the villages on day trips to experience village life and learn about iTaukei culture. Some villagers demonstrate how they make clay, pottery and weave matts, and have completed items for sale. One participant explained that the whole Sigatoka River is important for tourism now and in the future and the success of tourism depends on the health of the river. Tourists want to see a healthy environment and experience how people in the villages use the river for sustenance.

Alesi Tamaya and Wakesa Radinioloi, Nayawa village

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

5.2 non-Monetary Values

KEY FINDINGS Participants identified the entire Sigatoka River estuary as being important for subsistence agriculture, fishing and shell-fish collection including the mouth of the river, inland streams that flow into the river, the river itself, and offshore areas Over half of the participants have their primary agricultural land on Koroua Island Shellfish including crab, kai and prawns are a staple in people’s diets and an important source of protein The Sigatoka Sand Dunes and the spit at the mouth of the river are favourite places to picnic, swim, fish and spend time with family All participants attach spiritual values to the river. The mouth of the river is known at ‘Tabu vuto’, a sacred place

Teitei, farming, on Koroua Island

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

0 1-4 5-8 9-12 13-16 17-20 21-24

Fig. 5 Map showing areas identified by participants as having non-monetary value. The darker shade of blue indicates that more participants identified the same area as important. For example, 24 participants identified areas near the river mouth as important, and these areas are identified with a darker shade of blue.

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

5.2.1 Subsistence – agriculture, fishing and shellfish collection

Fresh fish

Collecting bait fish in the Koroua channel near Vunavutu village

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

The term ‘subsistence’ refers to the production or collection of food at a level sufficient for one’s own use or consumption. When asked why the Sigatoka River was important, all participants responded that the river was important for food to feed themselves and their families. 31 (100%) participants drew blue polygons over areas that they value and use for subsistence food collection or production. All participants described that agriculture, fishing and shell-fish collection were first valued for subsistence and second for income if there was excess. One participant described the river as “his refrigerator” reflecting the importance of the river as a food source (Peniasi Vakiki, Nayawa). All participants drew blue polygons over areas that they used for agriculture with 17 (55%) participants identifying Koroua Island in particular as the area they valued the most for agriculture production. Fish is the main source of protein for the villages and all participants drew blue polygons over areas that they value and use for subsistence fishing. Participants identified the entire Sigatoka River estuary as being important for subsistence fishing, including the mouth of the river, inland streams that flow into the river, the river itself, and offshore areas. As mentioned previously, fishing methods range from hand line, net fishing, diving and deep sea fishing. An example of an important fishing activity is the seasonal fish cigana (pronounced thing-ana, white bait) that come once yearly around Easter time. Under customary law, this particular fish is only allowed to be used for subsistence purposes.

Shellfish, crab, kai and prawns, were identified by 23 (74%) participants as valued for subsistence. Like fishing, shellfish collection occurs throughout the river estuary, including on Koroua Island. Shellfish is a staple in people’s diets and an important source of protein.

“The river is very important for our health… life for every day is coming from the river…the land because we plant food there, the water because we catch our fish there.” Napolioni Vitau, Nasama village

5.2.2 Recreation 23 (74%) participants drew blue polygons over areas that they use and value for recreation, including swimming and picnics. In particular, 19 (61%) participants identified the spit at the mouth of the river and the sand dunes as where they go to swim, picnic, play rugby and spend time with family. Participants were passionate about the sand dunes and the spit as places where they have shared good memories with family, having picnics, fishing, swimming, playing games and enjoying themselves. Six (19%) participants identified the eastern shore of Koroua Island as where they value for recreation, to picnic, swim and fish. Another three (10%) participants noted areas on the river other than the spit, sand dunes or Koroua Island that they value for swimming and bathing, especially when the village runs out of water. Sigatoka Sand dunes and coastline where 19 (61%) participants identified as important for recreation

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

The Sigatoka Sand Dunes are important to participants for recreation, cultural heritage and a sense of place

5.2.3 Cultural heritage sites 26 (84%) participants drew blue polygons over areas that they valued as cultural heritage sites. These included old village sites, Batiri, Koroua, Lomolomo, Vuvuawi and Muasara, burial grounds, special occasion fishing sites, other historical sites and places of significance. Three (10%) participants drew blue polygons over areas offshore near the mouth of the river and identified them as important places where traditional fish drives take place. This is where villagers continue to collect fish for the chief using traditional fish drive methods â&#x20AC;&#x201C; yavirau. Three (10%) other participants drew blue polygons over areas near the mouth of the river and over the sand dunes noting them as areas of archaeological

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

importance. They described the entire sand dunes as the place where their ancestors once lived, the Lapita people, and preferred to leave those areas alone as to not disturb any remains.

5.2.4 Sense of place/home Participants were asked to identify places that are particularly important to them, their favourite places on the map. The wide-ranging distribution of these polygons shows the diversity and complexity of how people value and use the river. These places denote locations that participants value and use the river for personal reasons beyond any specific monetary or subsistence use, cultural or spiritual value. These

Sigatoka River

places included, for example, the east shore of the river mouth where one participant described as a nice place that they enjoyed spending time, fishing, relaxing and feeling connected to their home, the east and south shore of Koruoa Island, and several locations along the river mouth, spit and sand dunes.

5.2.5 Spiritual 13 (41%) participants attached spiritual values to the river. The term ‘spiritual’ refers to something relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things. Participants referred

to some of these areas as ‘tabu’ (pronounced tam-boo) which in Fijian means forbidden, prohibited and implying a religious sanction, but is now also used for a legal prohibition, such as no admission, sacred, holy, and/or unapproachable. Tabu areas of particular importance to participants include: Cakaudrove, Korolevu, Qara Ni Qio, Rock Tanoa, Tabu vuto, Vila ni Yalo and Wai Ni Kutu. Cakaudrove refers to the half-submerged reef or sunken reef on the east shore of the river and where old village sites were once located. The area is now covered with mangroves. Of particular spiritual significance is Korolevu, which means ‘big village’ and refers to one of these ancient villages. Korolevu is a sacred place where ancestors are buried. The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Qara Ni Qio (shark cave) is one of several shark caves, deep depressions on the floor of the river, where bull sharks go to give birth. There are more shark caves up the river that are also considered tabu areas. Rock tanoa (rock kava bowl) is a rock located near the shore south of Nayawa village. The legend is that there were three white sharks that lived in the river. The smallest one usually bit people and caused lots of problems. The two other sharks carved a tanoa bowl (kava bowl) from a rock and filled it with kava and told the smallest shark to drink and then leave the river and never come back. The smaller shark drank the kava and went and lived in the Tuva River. He was exiled from the Sigatoka River because he was causing so many problems. He has become so furious that he can now bite people in the bowls that they clean their hands with and in the shower. The two remaining sharks still live in the Sigatoka River at the mouth of the river and are identified by two rocks, Tabu vuto. 10 (32%) participants drew blue polygons over the mouth of the river to identify Tabu vuto as a sacred place. Tabu vuto means the water never gets brown. This part of the river mouth always remains clear, even during times of flood when the water can become extremely turbid. The rocks are sometimes referred to as Vau quru waqa (stone crusher) and it is believed that the sharks that live there guard the river mouth and prevent boats coming into the river who do not have appropriate permission from the relevant chief. Participants shared stories of boats trying to enter the river mouth but being smashed on the rocks because they did not have permission to enter. Also in the river mouth is an area known as Vila ni Yalo (spirits pass through), a place where the spirts of people who are alive are seen before they pass away. The spirit first goes to a pond located on the east side of

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

the river mouth, Wai Ni Kutu, to bath themselves before making their way through Vila ni Yalo and to the outer ocean. These, and other tabu areas identified by participants, are spiritually important and are considered to be ‘off limits’ to any activity that might disturb them.

5.2.6 Biodiversity/wildlife Six (19%) participants drew blue polygons over areas that they valued for biodiversity and wildlife. An area under the bridge is valued as a bull shark nursery, and the mangroves in the Koroua channel and elsewhere on the river are valued as habitat for fish, crabs and other aquatic life.

“We have to keep the Sigatoka river clean; it is you, it is me, it is us. We have to keep it (river) just like you would keep yourself, clean, tidy, look after yourself properly, that’s how you have to look at the river, cause many things there can help us a lot.” Kulae Senikaboa, Laselase village

5.2.7 Coastal protection Seven (23%) participants drew blue polygons over areas that include the sand dunes on the west side of the river that they value for coastal protection. These participants regard the sand dunes as a barrier between the ocean and the villages, protecting the villages from storm surges, tsunamis and other forms of coastal inundation.

5.3 Threats 5.3.1 Sources of threats

0 1-2

KEY FINDINGS Participants identified ongoing dredging activities as having adverse impacts on river ecosystem health and services that are important to their livelihoods Point sources of pollution contaminate creeks that run into the Sigatoka River and the river itself Sand mining threatens the integrity of the Sigatoka Sand Dunes and social values attributed to the dunes

3-5 6-8 9-13

Fig. 7 Map showing areas identified by participants as sources of threat. The darker shades of red indicate that more participants identified the same area as a source of threat. For example, 13 participants identified the lower portion of the river as having been negatively affected by recent dredging, and this area is identified with a dark shade of red.

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

5.3.1.1 Dredging 16 (52%) participants drew red polygons over the mouth of the river, the river itself and the east shore of the river mouth that have been negatively affected by recent dredging. The recent dredging activity that participants referred to is the dredging undertaken by the China Railway First Group near the mouth of the river. The most visible impact of dredging described by participants is the large spoil pile on the east shore near the mouth of the river that has destroyed a favourite place for many participants to picnic, fish and collect crab. Participants consider dredging a threat because of direct impacts on ecosystem health and river hydrology and indirect impacts on their livelihoods. Seven (23%) participants noted that dredging has had negative effects on the small crabs who live in the mangroves in the dredging area, on shore birds, and on fish breeding grounds. Four (13%) participants noted that since dredging, the texture of kai (freshwater mussels) has become tougher, possibly because salt water is now able to move further up the river. Four (13%) participants described bigger fish, including bull sharks, now entering the river and scaring the smaller fish, which people catch for subsistence. One participant described a small creek near Nasigatoka where they used to collect eels drying up since the dredging commenced.

Pile of material on the east side of the river mouth from dredging undertaken by the China Railway First Group in December 2016

China Railway Groupâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s dredging equipment on the Sigatoka River

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

5.3.1.2 Point source pollution 20 (65%) participants drew red polygons over point sources of pollution that either contaminate the Sigatoka River directly or pollute streams that flow into the Sigatoka River. Point source pollution refers to any single identifiable source of pollution from which pollutants are discharged. Participants described this pollution as negatively effecting fish and shellfish that people collect for food and bait, and threatening the integrity of the river for swimming, with implications for human health. Identified point sources of pollution include: the septic tanks at the Sigatoka hospital; leaking oil from generators at the Fiji Electricity Authority; runoff, waste, and contaminates from businesses in Sigatoka town (i.e. carwash, restaurants, car mechanic garage, hotels); the sewage treatment plant; runoff and waste from the fruit factory; and village piggeries that border the banks of the river; Septic tanks at the Sigatoka hospital - nine (29%) participants drew red polygons over the hospital where waste might be polluting nearby creeks that drain into the Sigatoka River. These creeks are used by local people for collecting fish and shrimp. There are reports of defective septic tanks leaching effluent into these creeks, alongside reports of discarded hospital waste such as pillows, blankets, diapers and other bio-hazardous material polluting the creeks (Fig. 8). Leaking oil from generators at the Fiji Electricity Authority â&#x20AC;&#x201C; three (10%) participants identified oil from diesel generators and other contaminants present on site at the Fiji Electricity Authority that are potentially draining into and polluting the surrounding creeks. There have been reports of oil being visible on the surface of the water of the nearby creek.

Fig. 8 Waste next to the Sigatoka Hospital and adjacent to a creek that runs into the Sigatoka River

Runoff, waste and contaminates from businesses in Sigatoka town (i.e. carwash, restaurants, car mechanic garage, hotels, laundry) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 13 (42%) participants identified point sources in Sigatoka Town that are polluting nearby creeks and the river. The creeks in Sigatoka town are visibly polluted, they have smelly algae growing on them and are strewn with garbage. This pollution kills the small fish in the creeks and contaminates the Sigatoka River. For example, one participant explained that the car garage near Nayawa village is polluting the creek where she used to catch tilapia and prawns, but she can no longer do so because of the pollution (Fig. 9). The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Sewage treatment plant â&#x20AC;&#x201C; seven (23%) participants drew red polygons over the area where the sewage treatment plant is located on the east shore of the river. Participants are concerned that the treatment plant often leaks, spilling untreated waste directly into the river, and then onto the reef. One participant said that the sewage treatment plant was a major polluter on the river and caused severe damage to the reef and offshore fishing. Runoff and waste from the fruit factory â&#x20AC;&#x201C; four (13%) participants drew red polygons over the area where the fruit factory is located. Participants said that the fruit factory has an outlet pipe that flows directly into the river. This pollution adversely effects the health of the river and participants are concerned that it harms fish, shellfish, and makes the river unhealthy to swim in. Piggeries â&#x20AC;&#x201C; six (19%) participants drew red polygons over areas where piggeries border the banks on the west side of the river. Participants explain that waste from the pigs goes directly into the river as well as when people wash their pigs in the river (Fig. 10). As a result, people no longer swim in those parts of the Koroua channel and there is concern about the possible health implications of eating fish that feed on the faecal matter from pigs.

Fig. 9 Polluted creek in Sigatoka Town that runs into the Sigatoka River

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

open drainage channels that then flow into the river, contaminating the water. Two different participants also explained that some people throw their garbage onto the banks of the river and directly into the river when they cannot afford, or choose not to pay, the $20 fee for garbage collection.

5.3.1.4 Mineral exploration and extraction

Fig. 10 Polluted creek in Sigatoka Town that runs into the Sigatoka River

5.3.1.3 Village pollution Two (6%) participants noted concern that a lack of septic tanks and appropriate sewage management in the villages was a threat to the health of the river. Sewage drums often overflow and leak into the

One participant drew a red polygon over a small creek that flows into the Sigatoka River from the east where he collects bait. Gravel extraction from the creek has been ongoing and threatens the integrity of the creek and the viability of the creek to be used for collecting bait. Seven (23%) participants drew red polygons over areas on the Sigatoka sand dunes where the dunes are threatened by sand mining. The participants described sand mining as a threat to the integrity of the sand dunes, potentially compromising the ability of the dunes to provide coastal protection to bordering villages and settlements. One participant explained that the vibrations from the sand mining activities across the road from the national park have scared away nesting turtles. The participant used to collect the turtle eggs to eat but since the sand mining commenced, the turtles have not returned to nest on that part of the beach. One participant expressed concern about mineral exploration activities on the river mouth and the sand dunes. They described the individuals as â&#x20AC;&#x153;intrudersâ&#x20AC;? who come and take samples in search of minerals without knowledge or care of the cultural importance of the area to local people. The participant described feeling violated when they see mineral exploration activities.

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

5.3.2 Areas under threat

KEY FINDINGS Participants identified flooding and sedimentation as key threats to their use of the river. The common belief is that flooding is caused by increased sedimentation from poor land-use practices upstream There is a great deal of uncertainty and concern among participants about the potential negative effects that planned future dredging could have on river ecosystem health and services Proposed mining, including dredging threatens the health and services of the entire Sigatoka River estuary including the mouth of the river, inland streams that flow into the river, the river itself, and offshore areas Increasing population in settlement areas is expected to increase fishing pressure, crop theft, and damage to areas used to collect sand for pottery making Invasive species have, and are expected to continue to, negatively affect river ecosystem health and services

Bridge constructed by Dome Gold Mines from Vunavutu village to Koroua Island

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

0-1 2-3 4-7 8-9 10-14

Fig. 11 Map showing areas identified by participants as under threat. The darker shades of orange indicate that more participants identified the same area as under threat. For example, 16 participants identified areas in the river mouth as under threat from proposed dredging, and these areas are identified with a dark shade of orange.

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Fig. 12 Erosion on the eastern side of Koroua Island

shallower due to run-off from poor agriculture and forestry practices upstream making the river more prone to flooding. Three (10%) participants explained their frustration with trees being cleared from the hillsides upstream, which has resulted in erosion and soil and debris entering the river and settling in the river mouth. Seven (23%) participants described how sedimentation has promoted the growth of mangroves in the Koroua channel making it less accessible for boats and fishing (Fig. 13). Three (10%) participants noted that when the river flooded in the past, people used to open the river mouth manually by digging a channel in the sand. They said that this no longer occurs and may be the reason why they have experienced more severe flooding in recent years. One participant stressed that flooding is a natural part of the system and has always been part of their life.

5.3.2.1 Flooding, sedimentation and erosion 17 (55%) participants drew red polygons over areas of the river to indicate a threat from flooding. Flooding has damaged agricultural lands and destroyed crops, including on Koroua Island, and has damaged houses and other infrastructure in some of the villages. High water levels have also caused erosion on the river banks, including on the east shore of Koroua Island, resulting in loss of agricultural land (Fig. 12). One participant noted that the wake from the Sigatoka river boat tours is also contributing to shoreline erosion especially when the water level is high. 16 (52%) participants identified sedimentation of the river from upstream sources as the primary cause for flooding. Participants explained that the river used to be deeper but has now become

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

â&#x20AC;&#x153;flooding is part of our life. It comes, it goes, it comes, it goes.â&#x20AC;? Adi Nasagale, Nasigatoka village

5.3.2.2 Planned future dredging 16 (52%) participants drew red polygons over the mouth of the river, the river itself and the east shore of the river mouth that are threatened by proposed future dredging activities. These participants were deeply concerned about the lack of public consultation before dredging commenced. Participants felt that a proper environmental impact assessment had not been conducted and that they had not been involved in the decision-making process. This lack of consultation upset

Fig. 13 Koroua channel

participants who felt misinformed about the dredging activities, and unsure of the potential effects of dredging on ecosystem health and services. Participants were unsure what the lasting damage of dredging would be, citing concerns about salt water intrusion further up the river negatively effecting kai, the water becoming muddy, changing wave dynamics at the mouth of the river, and longer term effects on fish breeding habitat.

5.3.2.3 Proposed mining Six (19%) participants identified proposed mining development, including dredging at the mouth of the river, the river itself, Koroua Island, the spit, and the sand dunes as a serious threat to river

ecosystem health and services, and their livelihoods. Participants were deeply worried that proposed mining would destroy Koroua Island leaving them, and their children, with nowhere to plant crops or raise animals. They also worried that there would be no more mud crabs and therefore no more income from selling crabs. The participants shared a general discontent with the prospects of mining, frustration with the lack of clear, honest information from mining company representatives, and worry that the river and their livelihoods would be ruined if mining was to happen. One participant, for example, explained that a mining company came and offered to build a bridge from the village to Koroua Island and the villagers were under the impression that the bridge was for their benefit so that they could have easier access to their farms The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

on the island. What they later learned was that the bridge was for the mining company so that they could access Koroua Island for mineral prospecting purposes.

“From here [mouth of the river] right up to where the river begins…they want to do the mining there, and where will we go…big problem…Why not leave it as it is, leave the minerals alone”

crops from village farm plots. One participant explained that the development of houses in the Olosara settlement area is threatening her source of sand to make clay for pottery. Four (13%) participants identified invasive species as threatening the health of the Sigatoka River. These invasive species include: mahogany trees planted on the shore of the river and whose leaves soak up water and kill surrounding vegetation; and the rhinoceros beetle that is damaging coconut trees on Koroua Island.

Alipate Nainoca, Laselase village

5.3.2.4 Population increases in settlement areas Six (19%) participants drew red polygons over settlement areas that they perceive as threats due to increased fishing pressure, crop theft, and damage to areas used to collect sand to make clay and pottery. The populations of the settlement areas are increasing and more people are seeking to fish and collect food on the river. Participants explained that people from the settlements come and fish in the river in the qoliqoli customary held marine tenure areas without permission. This is seen as a violation of customary law and potential for overfishing to occur. Another participant shared that during the off-season, the nearby Outrigger Hotel cuts staff, meaning that for a few weeks each year those people who live in the settlement areas have no source of income. These people then add pressure to fishing and agricultural resources. Some people from the settlement areas collect fruit from trees along the river and sell them and others have been caught stealing

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Boy on raft in the Koroua Channel near Vunavutu village

VENAISIS TOVE

46 years

PARTICIPANT PROFILE

Nasigatoka village

Venaisis has a farm on Koroua Island that she tends to and when there is excess produce she sells it at the Sigatoka market or to other people in the village. She typically grows and sells cassava, dalo, banana, yam, lemon and mandarin. She also plants dalo by a small creak nearby Nasigatoka village. She collects coconuts from the plantation on Koroua Island for the oil which she uses in every day cooking and the leaves for making crafts. She also collects sand to make clay and pottery from a location on the sand dunes near the river mouth (green circle on map), and shells on Korotogo beach, which she also uses to make crafts that she sells to tourists who come to the village twice per week on village tours. Venaisis fishes the whole river estuary, including the Koroua channel and an area offshore Korotogo, mostly for subsistence but sometimes sells excess fish within the village. She values the area offshore Korotogo for swimming and foraging, and the cemetery in Nasigatoka where her husband is laid to rest. She identified flooding as a threat as flood waters destroy her crops on Koroua Island, damaging her main source of food and income. She believes that dredging is both good and bad: it is good because it will make the river deeper and sharks and bigger fish will come further up the river, but it is also bad because the dredged material dumped on the eastern side of the river has already killed vegetation and a good place to collect crabs. She explained that dredging had also dried up a small creek near the village where she used to collect eels but no longer can.

Venaisis Tove, Nasigatoka, individual map showing social values and threats

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

ISOA CHONGSUI

55 years

PARTICIPANT PROFILE

KULUKULU

Isoa has been fishing the Sigatoka River estuary for 40+ years. He explained that the river used to be deep but it is now very shallow and only people with local knowledge can navigate the river safely at low tide. He primarily fishes at the mouth of the river and offshore and as a licensed fisherman he fishes for subsistence but also for income. The main difference between fishing when he was younger and today is that the fish he is catching are smaller and there are fewer of them. Isoa also collects crabs at the southern end of the Koroua channel, some for subsistence and some for income. He identified places of importance on the river including, recreation spots at the mouth of the river and the sand dunes, and two graveyards, one located on the eastern side of the river mouth. He said that the river is getting too shallow because of sedimentation from poor land-use practices upstream and this is a threat to his fishing activities. From his perspective, the current dredging is okay, he hasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t observed any negative impacts yet, but he realises that there is a great deal of uncertainty and the potential for unforeseen consequences. He identified point sources of pollution threatening river ecosystem health and fishing activities, including discharge from the sewage treatment plant, runoff from Sigatoka town, and waste water discharge from hotels into the ocean (red polygons on map). He also noted that the sand dunes are encroaching on his land because of persistent south east trade winds, but he has government permission to remove sand within 40 meters of his property and sell it.

Waves breaking on the shore near Kulukulu

Isoa Chongsui, Kulukulu, individual map showing social values and threats

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

SOLOMONI MASIWAWA

54 years

PARTICIPANT PROFILE

Nasama village

Solomoni values and uses the Sigatoka River estuary for subsistence. He has a strong connection with Koroua Island where he has a farm and the Koroua channel where he fishes and collects crabs and prawns. He has a strong spiritual connection with the river estuary, respects customary laws like qoliqoli marine tenure areas, and identified areas on the river that are of particular importance, specifically the whole river mouth, Tabu vuto, including the two rocks that guard the river mouth. The river mouth, including the spit is one of his favourite spots to fish. Solomoni identified sedimentation of the river as a threat, particularly in the Koroua channel, which has filled with sediment and consequently mangroves inhibiting boat travel and handline fishing. He pointed out that Koroua Island used to be two islands, Nukunuku Island and Koroua Island, but the channel between the two islands has been filled with sediment. Point sources of pollution, namely discharge from the sewage treatment plant, contaminated runoff from Fiji Electrical Authority, and leaking septic tanks at the hospital has damaged areas for fishing, and baitfish and shellfish collection. Flooding and sedimentation are sources of threat and Solomoni suggested removing some mangroves from Koroua channel to make it wider and improving land-use practices upstream to reduce sedimentation. He is uncertain about the motivations of current dredging activities but he has been told that it might help with flooding mitigation and make the river deeper like it used to be. â&#x20AC;&#x192;

Solomoni and Ita Masiwawa

Solomoni Masiwawa, Nasama, individual map showing social values and threats

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

MANOA TAMAYA

PARTICIPANT PROFILE

Nayawa village

Manoa fishes the entire river for subsistence including the mouth of the river, the river itself, and offshore areas depending on the season, but not the Koroua channel which is outside the Modudu qoliqoli customary held marine tenure area. He collects crabs and sici on the eastern bank of the river near the river mouth and also fishes on the outer reef. This is also near where a Yavirau (fish drive) occurs for special occasions. Manoa noted that there is a bull shark nursery near the Sigatoka bridge, the shark is the totem for Nayawa, and several cultural and spiritual sites on the river, including the old village sites of Batiri and Korolevu. Manoa explained that agricultural activities upstream, particularly the use of chemicals, and also sedimentation from logging and damage to riparian zones, are harming aquatic life in the river. He is also concerned that people living in the Olosora settlement are not respecting qoliqoli customary held marine tenure areas, are fishing in tabu areas, and are fishing using poison. Gravel extraction from a small creek north of Nayawa is damaging the area where he collects bait and a newly built road on the east side of the river is raised above the height of the land so now the surrounding area floods during heavy rain. He does not believe that dredging is the solution to flooding and is dismayed that they dumped dredging materials on what was a nice spot for picnic and collecting crabs. Instead, he suggests that they should return to old practices for flood mitigation and manually â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;break the spitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; so that water can come and go. Manoa is also concerned that customary laws are not being respected, and the government believes that they own the river, allowing people to fish even if they put a tabu on certain fishing areas to ensure a healthy fish stock for the future.

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Participatory mapping interview in Nayawa village

Manoa Tamaya, Nayawa, individual map showing social values and threats

ALIPATE NAINOCA

50 years

PARTICIPANT PROFILE

Laselase village

Alipate’s last name, Nainoca, means the people of river, emphasising his family’s historical relationship with the Sigatoka River. Alipate fishes the entire river including the mouth of the river, the river itself, and offshore areas, except for the Koroua channel which is outside the Modudu qoliqoli customary held marine tenure area. He fishes first for subsistence and will sell excess fish at the market. He identified several cultural heritage sites, including burial grounds and old village sites, and places of spiritual value, identified on the map with blue circles. Spiritual values underscore everything that happens on the river and Alipate explained that certain spots are tabu, and others are to be respected and left alone. Alipate is concerned that ongoing dredging threatens river ecosystem health, and in turn will be bad for fishing and could harm significant spiritual sites. Additionally, he believes that proposed mining development, including dredging would be devastating for river ecosystem health and services and identified the entire river, including onshore areas, as under threat from proposed mining. Other threats include coral mining, coastal erosion and sedimentation from poor land-use practices upstream, invasive species like Mahogany trees on the shoreline, and point sources of pollution like discharge from the sewage treatment plant. He suggests that they should return to old practices for flood mitigation and manually ‘break the spit’ so that water can come and go. The old derelict bridge should also be removed as it is trapping sediment and blocking water flow in the river.

Alipate Nainoca and Dr. Tristan Pearce, Laselase village

Alipate Nainoca, Laselase, individual map showing social values and threats

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

ADI LANIETA BURASIA MATARESI (SISTER LA)

PARTICIPANT PROFILE

Vunavutu village

The entire Sigatoka River including the mouth of the river, the river itself, offshore areas, and Koroua Island are important to Sister Laâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s livelihood, for both subsistence and income. Koroua Island is particularly important and people from Vunavutu and surrounding villages have several farms and plantations on the island. Koroua Island is vital for growing food crops, some which are sold for income at the market. She, and others in the village, collect crabs and prawns on the southern end of Koroua channel and kai from north of the bridge, which are used for subsistence and also sold for income. Flooding is a threat to the village and agricultural land on Koroua Island but Sister La is adamant that dredging the river will not solve the flooding problem and will instead cause long term harm to the river. Pollution from Sigatoka town is a major problem and contaminated runoff from restaurants, car washes and garages is going into creeks and then the river, harming fish and shellfish that people depend on for their livelihoods. She is concerned about poor agricultural practices upstream including the use of chemicals that contaminate the river, and the removal of riparian zones which increases sedimentation in the river. Sister La is deeply concerned by the lack of consultation with villagers about dredging and proposed mining development, and dismayed that current dredging and mining exploration activities are operating under the approval of past Ratus and against the wishes of people today. She is vocal in her opposition to proposed mining development, including dredging, as it would destroy Koroua Island, desecrate the sand dunes and have irreversible impacts on river ecosystem health and services and iTaukei livelihoods. She proposes that there should be monitoring of agricultural practices upstream and chemicals used, and villages must be meaningfully consulted in all development proposals.

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Danielle Rietberg, Sister La and Mikayla Cover, Vunavutu village

Adi Lanieta Burasia Mataresi (Sister La), Vunavutu, individual map showing social values and threats

6.0 Conclusions This research documents iTaukei social values (uses and values) of the Sigatoka River estuary and threats to these values. The data show that the entire Sigatoka River estuary is important to the lives and livelihoods of participants including the mouth of the river, inland streams that flow into the river, the river itself, and offshore areas. Participants derive their main sources of sustenance (income and subsistence) from agriculture, fishing and shellfish collection, much of which takes place on or in close proximity to the river. In particular, Koroua Island is a place of importance for agriculture and shellfish collection. In addition to the empirical values of the river estuary, participants also attribute non-empirical values to the river. The river estuary is blanketed with spiritual values; some values are connected to physical locations while others are virtual in space. The river mouth, including Tabu vuto â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the place where the water always stays clear, and Vila ni Yalo â&#x20AC;&#x201C; where the spirits of people who are alive are seen before they pass away, are examples of places with spiritual significance. Threats to iTaukei social values of the Sigatoka River estuary include current and potential future sources of threat, both episodic activities like mining and dredging, and chronic sources like point sources of pollution. What is certain is that these threats all result in adverse consequences for iTaukei social values of the river. The data show that the combined sources of threat affecting river ecosystem health and services could push parts of the system to tipping points, at which some ecosystem services would fail with adverse consequences for the iTaukei who depend on them for the lives and livelihoods. For example, proposed mining development, including dredging has the potential to decimate agricultural land on Koroua Island, and push the agricultural

component of the system to a tipping point in which the land would no longer be able to produce food for iTaukei farmers. Similarly, any mining, shipping or dredging activity at the mouth of the river would have insurmountable consequences for iTaukei health as participants attribute subsistence and spiritual values to the river mouth. The research found that the information provided to iTaukei about dredging and mining was misleading and inaccurate. The EIAs conducted for both developments are incomplete and would fail even the most basic review criteria. iTaukei were led to believe that dredging would mitigate future flooding and have minimal impact on river health when no hydrological study has ever been conducted for the Sigatoka River estuary. The scientific literature on dredging in river estuaries shows that dredging increases the salinity of the river and the size of the intertidal area, which in the case of the Sigatoka River, would negatively affect kai, an important source of food and income for iTaukei. Dredging also increases the concentration and transport of suspended sediments, which negatively affects fish, water quality, and coral reefs. Dredging is the main method of mining proposed by Dome Gold Mines. iTaukei values of the Sigatoka River estuary are under threat. Dredging and mining exploration in the estuary should be halted until iTaukei are provided with accurate and transparent information needed for evidence-based decison making. The research findings are intended to contribute to Fijiâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Green Growth Framework and national development plans in a manner that protects the health of the environment and the livelihoods of iTaukei.

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

5.3 THREATS 5.3.1 Sources of threats 0

1-4

1-2

KEY FINDINGS5-8 9-12

identified13-16

Participants 17-20 ongoing dredging activities as having 21-24 adverse impacts on river ecosystem health and services that are important to their livelihoods

3-5 6-8 9-13

Point sources of pollution contaminate creeks that run into the Sigatoka River and Figure 5: Map showing areas identified by participants as having non-monetary value. The darker shade of blue indicates that more participants Fig. 7 Map showing areas identified by participants as sources of threat. The darker shades of red indicate that the asriver itself identified the same area as important. For example, 24 participants identified areas near the river mouth important, and these areas are identified with a darker shade of blue. 0

Sand mining threatens 1-2RIVER ESTUARY THE HUMAN FACE OF THE SIGATOKA the integrity of the Sigatoka Sand Dunes3-5 6-8 and social values attributed to the dunes

more participants identified the same area as a source of threat. For example, 13 participants identified the 0-1 lower portion of the river as having been negatively affected by recent dredging, and this area is identified with2-3 a dark shade of red. 4-7 21 8-9 10-14

THE HUMAN FACE OF THE SIGATOKA RIVER ESTUARY

Fig.2 Map showing areas identified by participants as having monetary value. The darker shades of green indicate that more participants identified the same area as important. For example, eight participants identified areas on Koroua Island that they valued for income from agriculture, and this area is identified with a darker shade of green. Two participants identified an area in Olosara settlement where they collect sand to make clay for pottery, and this area is coloured a lighter shade of green.

Fig. 14 Four maps showing non-monetary (blue) and monetary (green) social values of the Sigatoka River estuary, sources of threat (red) and areas under threat (orange). Note the areas on each map identified with a darker colour and compare the location of these areas among maps. It is clear that most areas identified by iTaukei has having high social value are15already threatened or are under threat. THE HUMAN FACE OF THE SIGATOKA RIVER ESTUARY

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

THE HUMAN FACE OF THE SIGATOKA RIVER ESTUARY

7.0 Recommendations How can we improve environmental management and decision making for the Sigatoka River Estuary? Recognition of human social values (uses and values) of the Sigatoka River The Sigatoka River estuary is a dynamic social-ecological system. As such, we need to consider both the social and ecological components of the system. This involves documenting both tangible (e.g. agriculture, fishing, shell-fish collection, cultural heritage sites, recreation areas) and intangible values (i.e. spiritual values). Additionally, human health is closely linked with river health and should also be considered broadly to include physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing. If the goal is to achieve sustainability in the system, then these values must be considered when discussing any development that could affect the river ecosystem.

Consider cascade effects A cascade effect is an inevitable and sometimes unforeseen chain of events due to an act affecting a system. Take for example the activity of dredging. Dredging is supposedly being undertaken on the Sigatoka River to assist with flood mitigation. Some Fiji government spokespeople claim that if you deepen the river there will be more room for increased volumes of water during flood season; however, no hydrological study of the potential effects of dredging on the Sigatoka

River estuary has ever been conducted. The act of dredging disturbs the river floor, which likely affects anything living on the floor, including fish and shell fish, and it disturbs the water, which likely affects anything swimming in the water. This in turn affects villagers who depends on the fish and shellfish for their sustenance. Furthermore, the material that is dredged needs to be placed somewhere, and in the case of recent dredging on the Sigatoka River, that place was somewhere that participants valued for collecting crab, fishing and recreation. Consideration also must be given to the longer-term effects of dredging on ecosystem health and services.

Meaningful engagement of iTaukei in decision-making There is a need to engage the people who will be affected by a decision, in the decision-making process. This means engaging local people, regardless of cultural or social status, early and throughout the decision-making process. It is too often the case that local people are engaged once a decision has already been made as a way of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;informingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; them of what is to take place. In the case of dredging on the Sigatoka River estuary, participants felt that a proper environmental impact assessment had not been conducted and that they had not been involved in the decision-making process. This lack of consultation upset participants who felt misinformed about the dredging activities, and unsure of the potential effects of dredging on ecosystem health and services.

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Communicate accurate and transparent information about proposed activities and developments There was a great deal of uncertainty among participants about the reasons for dredging and the foreseeable outcomes. Most participants thought that the dredging was for flood mitigation but some postulated that the dredging could be a ploy by the mining company to get access to raw material. The uncertainty about dredging created confusion, worry, mistrust, and anger among participants, all of which could have been avoided if local people were engaged early and throughout the decision-making process and the information communicated was accurate and transparent.

Sigatoka Rivermouth

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

There is a looming uncertainty among participants about proposed mining development, including dredging. Participants were aware that Dome Gold Mines was actively exploring an area on the plains at the mouth of the Sigatoka River, the river itself and an area offshore but did not know what the intentions of the mining company were. Participants did not have knowledge of what an iron sands mine looks like and had no idea what the mining company actually wanted to do, despite a description of the proposed mining plans on the company website. This is of particular concern, because mining would have devastating effects on river ecosystem health and services, and the lives and livelihoods of iTaukei today and in the future.

Children in Nasama village

The Human Face of the Sigatoka River Estuary

Contact Lui Manuel, Conservation Officer Nadroga-Navosa Provincial Council lui.manuel@govnet.gov.fj Dr. Tristan Pearce tpearce@usc.edu.au

ECRG

The Human Faceat of the Sigatoka Estuary Looking west along the beach the base of the River Sigatoka Sand Dunes