School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning

Bachelor of Arts (International Studies)

Remembering the past and envisioning futures: The search for alternative livelihoods on Kia Island, Fiji

Teagan Scarlett Student Number: 3203559

Abstract
The adaption of alternative livelihoods towards addressing developmental concerns and promoting sustainable resource management has increasingly become an attractive approach taken by various agents policy workers, governmental and non-governmental organisations, for example. However, the various interventions that have been undertaken seem to yield a mixture of varied results, with some interventions not meeting the wants and needs of the population they were intending to target, and with only a small amount of alternative livelihood approaches serving to achieve their intended aims. In either case, the significant dearth in published literature which illustrates the steps taken towards developing alternative livelihood approaches is something that can be acknowledged. If debate and discussion about how the actors involved are carrying out the selection and implementation of these activities is neglected, this can only serve to propel the production of more failed projects in the long term. This research aspires to counter the shortfall in the alternative livelihoods discussion by focussing on the preliminary phase of identifying workable alternative livelihood solutions, and how these are realised at a community level. It focuses on research undertaken within the not-for-profit organisation Community Centred Conservation (C3) on Kia Island, Fiji, during the preliminary phase of alternative livelihoods research. The research employs focus group discussions and prolonged engagement within the community in order to determine a clear understanding of community values, wants and needs, as well as to develop a first-hand understanding of the contextual, environmental and social realities on Kia Island. Within recent decades, with the introduction to Kia Island of middlemen who buy fish directly from the local fishermen to sell to the markets on the mainland (more commonly referred to as fishing agents), this has seen the provisions which are collected from the Great Sea Reef that surrounds Kia become a major income-provider for Kians, witnessing a shift from a community deriving their livelihoods from the land and fishing for sustenance purposes, to a community engaging in fishing to secure primary income generation. The findings of this research reiterate that the occupational variety that Kians experience is now extremely concentrated towards one occupation, which is fishing. This supports that through nurturing the expansion of opportunities available to the community to diversify income-generating activities, this would aid in the prevention of exceeding ecological thresholds in the marine environment. A number of ideas and suggestions offered by community members sparked interesting discussions during focus group sessions, and many ventures that people had considered implementing or that people were fond of seeing initiated on Kia were discussed with enthusiasm. It was determined that the relatively easy income provided to locals on Kia (more commonly referred to as fishing agents), alongside the associated risks apparent when implementing new income-generating activities and the lack of knowledge held concerning the management and operations of alternatives were all identified as current deterrents in entering alternative occupations. It was also determined that supporting and assisting community members with access to information regarding the proper management, setup and operation of activities may aid in generating interest in undertaking alternative activities, as this was a similar sentiment held by many participants within focus groups. 2

An economically and environmentally sustainable recommendation offered to encourage alternative livelihoods is the promotion and support of mutually-beneficial income-generating projects on Kia. An example of an activity identified which aligns well with Kias environmental landscape and the desires of the community include a community woodlot initiative, which would in turn provide wood-fuel for community bakeries, among other mutually-beneficial ventures which are recognised in the research. This study aims to encourage the involvement, participation and ownership of the steps taken and yet to be taken towards developing meaningful and long-term alternative livelihoods by the community members of Kia. This research also hopes to provide insight into the steps taken to secure community views and insights and to encourage participation in this preliminary study into developing alternative livelihoods on Kia.

SOCU 1042 International Research Project

Declaration Sheet
SOCU 1042 International Research Project Title: Remembering the past and envisioning futures: The search for alternative livelihoods on Kia Island, Fiji.

Declaration: I, TEAGAN SCARLETT declare that this report is entirely my own work and has not been submitted in whole or in part for assessment in any other course either at or outside RMIT. Where the work of others is used to substantiate assertions or elaborate upon field data collected by myself this is acknowledged and cited according to the format required in the BA (International Studies) Style Guide.

I also give my consent for BA (International Studies) program to use this research report as an
academic resource. This consent extends to the publication of this essay on internal websites. OR The contents of this report need to remain confidential.

Signed: TEAGAN SCARLETT Print Name: Teagan Scarlett Student No. 3203559

Received by: . Date:

NOTE: Two copies of the International Research Project Report must be presented to the Course Coordinator; one bound hard copy to be submitted to the reception desk in building 37 level 2; another emailed electronically. Both copies of the report will be retained by the BAIS program, unless the information contained therein needs to be treated as confidential in which case both copies of the report will be destroyed after examination.

Acknowledgements
This study would have hardly been realised if it were not for my time spent on Kia Island through placement with Community Centred Conservation (C3). Nor would it have been realised without the unequivocal warmth, inclusion and acceptance received with the widest, openest arms by the communities of Kia; I sincerely believe that I will struggle to again find a place where so instantly a stranger is accepted, fed, watered, sharing jokes and leaving as a member of the family as one finds themselves on this special island. I would like to thank Maleli Qera, my superior, my friend and my translator, for all of the help and hikes that he has aided me with in making this research possible. I would also like to thank my sisters on the island, Monika Stalio, Julianna Measures, Michaela Larsson and Laura Walsh; you kept my smile wide, and each day brimming with sunshine even when the hurricane came close to arriving at our doorstep. I would also like to thank my supervisor Dr. Roberto Guevara, whose support and guidance always came with great relief and great appreciation during the course of this project.

Contents
Abstract Declaration Sheet Acknowledgements Contents List of Figures List of Tables List of Abbreviations Chapter 1 Introduction 1.2. Kia Island 1.3. Aims and Objectives 1.4. Rationale and Significance 1.5. Scope and Limitations Chapter 2 Literature Review: Adapting alternative livelihoods 2.1. Background 2.2. Risky Assumptions 2.3. Are alternatives the solution? Chapter 3 - Methodology 3.1. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) 3.2. Document Analysis 3.3. Participant Observation 3.4. Focus Group Discussions 3.5. Ethical Considerations Chapter 4 - Results 4.1. Discussing Alternative Opportunities 4.2. Assessing Activity Feasibility from the Perspective of Community Members Chapter 5 - Discussion Chapter 6 - Conclusionand Recommendations Bibliography APPENDIX 1 Alternative Livelihoods Focus Group Structure APPENDIX 2 Checklist for Research Exempt from Ethical Review Reflective Report 2 4 5 6 7 7 7 8 10 11 12 13 15 15 17 18 21 21 21 22 22 25 26 27 29 33 36 39 42 44 Error! Bookmark not defined.

List of Figures
Figure 1: Location of Kia Island and its villages 11

List of Tables
Table 1: Activities elected as most feasible by participants Table 2: An example of key points raised during focus groups 27 30

List of Abbreviations
AIG Alternative income-generating activity AIGOs Alternative income-generating opportunities GSR Great Sea Reef MPA Marine protected area NGO Non-governmental organisation IGA Income-generating activity SLA Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

Chapter 1 Introduction
Both in the past and increasingly in the coming future, those whom derive their livelihoods from the coast have, and will be, confronted with a diverse range of volatile conditions which communities will increasingly have to adjust and adapt to. These volatile conditions which face coastal communities worldwide range from extreme weather conditions to coastal erosion, from increased competition for dwindling marine resources to a booming increase in the worlds population within coastal zones said to rise 75% by 2020 (IPCC 2001, cited in Turner, 2007). Amongst unsettling facts are also those which dictate that approximately 200 million fishery-dependant people currently reside and rely on resources in areas that are vulnerable to human-induced climate change (Allison et. al 2005).

To some degree the effects of each of the above concerns havent been left unfelt by the coastal communities residing on Kia Island, an island which resides approximately 24km offshore in the Northern Province, Macuata District of Fiji. This study was conducted through collaboration with the marine conservation NGO Community Centred Conservation (C3), and is preliminary research undertaken towards identifying possibilities to develop alternative livelihoods on Kia Island. This research intended to work directly with community members on Kia, firstly to develop a deeper understanding of their livelihoods, but also to allow them to identify their own strengths, weaknesses, thoughts and aspirations as a community in order to uncover opportunities that exist for the development of alternative livelihoods. It was recognised that developing alternatives was doomed to failure if the activities did not align

with the communitys wants and needs socially, economically or environmentally.

C3s Fiji and South Pacific programme commenced in 2011, where Kia Islands location was identified as significant due to its position directly beneath the Great Sea Reef (GSR). For generations the GSR has provided Kians with a bountiful supply of food and resources; however in recent decades the presence of fishing agents on the island has seen a shift from Kians fishing for subsistence purposes, to fishing heavily for income generation. In the past, where Kians once undertook fishing as an activity conducted alongside agricultural pursuits, increasingly the fishing effort has shifted to serve communities as a primary income-earner. At this present time, with the island beginning to witness an expansion in its population, and with fish populations and other resources already under noticeable pressures, diversifying the options available to the community to generate income is one way that could avoid over-exploitation of these resources.

Working towards sustainable management of the marine resources on Kia is not only an issue which encompasses conservation matters; the identification of alternative livelihoods will also be a significant step in alleviating some of the other broader issues which accompany the increasing harvest of marine resources for income. Whilst conducting research and living amongst the community on Kia, I realised that since the time that fishing agents had first became operational on the island (during the 1960s), the rapid changes and pressures to resources that people had noticed over the years was one problem that seemed to encompass many others. One issue that was particularly apparent were the social implications which arose from
9

increasingly burdened resources. People had noticed that over the years they were needing to spend longer and longer out at sea to catch fish, and this was having an effect on the amount of time dedicated to family duties and other tasks on the island. Increasingly women and even children also have been involved in the fishing effort, and often especially young children are left to be supervised by their siblings whilst parents fish, where these older siblings are found to be assuming supervisory roles while they are still very young. Through diversifying the opportunities available for Kians to generate incomes, this will not only aid in sustainable resource management, but also potentially provide benefits socially for community members.

1.2. Kia Island

With a total population of 262 (Biumaiwai 2010, raw data), residing on an island approximately 2km squared (C3, 2011c; cited in Hepworth, 2011), the population of Kia is divided between the three villages of Yaro, Ligau and Daku (shown in Figure 1). Yaro, the largest of the three villages with a population of 143 (Biumaiwai 2010, raw data) is where C3s base is located. The populations of Ligau and Daku comprise of 79 and 40 respectively (Biumaiwai 2010, raw data).

10

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

1.3. Aims and Objectives

Aim: To identify possibilities for workable alternative/supplementary incomegenerating activities in Kia; ones which align with the wants, strengths and visions of the community, and ones which work harmoniously within and support Kias natural resources.

Objectives: To explore with different groups the possibilities for workable incomegenerating activities on Kia, discussing the communitys strengths and weaknesses as well as the perceived strengths and weaknesses of Kias resources and environment to support these activities. To provide a base foundation of community views and perspectives towards these issues to ensure that future livelihoods projects are more likely to be actualized/implemented successfully.

11

1.4. Rationale and Significance

The effects of an increasingly globalized society has seen even isolated island communities experience the pressures of the rising cost of goods and shifts from traditional norms towards modern lifestyles, and along with this also comes the pressures of continually generating incomes which reflect and support these changes. The already noticeable pressures on the marine resources around Kia Island, although not yet at critical levels, suggest that continual increases in the fishing effort on Kia will not be sustainable. As a large majority of Kians derive their primary income directly from fishing, this research will be significant in determining options for diversifying incomes in order to relieve stress on the marine resources, as well as to ensure sustainable futures.

Any intervention undertaken within a community will be an inherently complex matter; one where the intended results are less likely to be realized or their intended effects wholly fulfilled if the communitys ideas, values, strengths and wishes are not understood or taken into account when these decisions are enacted. The community has to aspire to amend an issue for any real change to be lasting and effective. This research will be significant in that it aims to actively involve the community, to understand the communitys perception of their livelihoods and their environment, and to use discussions with community members to identify ideas for workable alternative and supplementary livelihoods; ones which Kians believe will suit their surroundings and that will complement their livelihoods.

12

This will be the first research undertaken on Kia towards developing alternative livelihoods, and will be essential in developing a basic understanding of how community members regard their situation and to determine options which are perceived as possible, achievable and worthy of implementation from the viewpoint of community members.

1.5. Scope and Limitations

Because the focus groups were conducted in the participants native Fijian dialect with the aid of a translator, the answers collected were mostly gathered via translation. A limitation of this is that any discussion between participants was not fully understood by the researcher, nor was how the translator framing questions fully known. To minimise the risks posed to data quality and ensuring there were consistency in interview procedures, the translator was a Programme Officer for C3 who was aware of the aims of the project and interview techniques (such as not presenting leading questions) before commencing focus group sessions.

The presence of a researcher to participants also may affect responses gathered, with participants not wanting to fully disclose their true thoughts about particular issues with the researcher (instead advising what they believe the researcher wants to hear, etc.). An advantage of conducting focus groups will be that because the participants will be amongst groups where there is an assumed level of comfort, and the participants will feel at ease with discussing topics at hand freely. However, the advantage of conducting focus groups to explore views is also inherently its limitation, which is that they are based purely upon group discussion rather than individual statements made by each person alone (Newing, 2011:53-54).
13

Also, due to the nature within Fijian culture to not regard time with the same sense of punctuality that Westerners hold notoriety for, in some cases a level of flexibility may need to be accounted for within the timeline for data collection. Focus group sessions which involve larger groups of participants may result in longer discussions, which may also result in participants easily tiring or losing interest. Ensuring that the facilitator is alert, skilled and aware of all of the questions at hand will help to propel discussions forwards to minimize this.

14

Chapter 2 Literature Review: Adapting alternative livelihoods

2.1. Background
Before examining the literature which investigates the positive and negative attributes apparent when developing alternative income generating opportunities (AIGOs), we should first become familiar with exactly what alternative livelihood approaches entail, and why the approach has gathered momentum as an appealing developmental strategy with various actors within government and non-governmental sectors. Within various development, conservation and policy strategies, the promotion of alternative livelihood initiatives has increasingly gathered popularity over the last three decades as an approach to diversify economic opportunities and increase the socio-economic levels of a group of people, a community , a region, etc. (Crawford, 2002). Alternative livelihood initiatives are usually designed as an approach to increase the economic opportunities within poor and isolated communities, elevate the socio-economic status of rural fishers, reduce resource dependencies (for example reducing fishing pressure on overexploited fisheries), and have also been a recommended approach for fishing communities that have been displaced by marine protected areas or due to scarcity of fishery resources (Gell & Roberts , 2003; Sievanen et.a l, 2005; Yap, 1999). The purpose for why the varying groups involved in initiating alternative livelihood projects choose to pursue them has been noted by Ireland (2004) to fall into two broad categories; the first being where the end goal is heavily
15

geared towards the protection and preservation of the marine and coastal environment by means of actively stopping people from using these resources. The second category involves groups whose end goal is to achieve sustainable resource use in an area, but who instead aim to build the capacity of the local people so that they are able to utilise their coastal and marine resources in a way which reflects sustainable practices and not undermine the future use of their resources. The literature also reveals that one of the most common drivers towards why various actors engage in implementing alternative livelihood initiatives also aligns well with the situation experienced on Kia, which is when a community is experiencing a rapidly expanding population. The increasing population pressures experienced not only in Kia but in other coastal areas that are dependent upon limited opportunities for income-generation are expected to also experience pressures to their limited coastal resources if their situation continues. An interesting point offered which opposes the opinion that population pressures can be harmful, is that whilst population expansion occurs, evidence also points to the fact that population pressure can also stimulate increased innovation, and opportunities for improved livelihoods and environmental management (DFID, 2002, as cited in Ireland, 2004). Whilst this is true, because of the isolated nature of Kia, the availability of the fishing agents on the island (agents either representing a fishing company or who are self-employed that buy fish directly from the fishermen of Kia to sell on the mainland) and the swift nature that income can be generated when necessary, all of these factors have rendered innovation and diversification of IGAs (income-generating activities) on Kia in recent years almost benign (Personal Communication). The unique situation experienced on Kia suggests that if no

16

actions were to be taken to diversify IGAs aside from that of fishing, then pressures upon the areas fish populations will undoubtedly escalate.

2.2. Risky Assumptions

In cases similar to Kia where diversifying the economic options available would be a beneficial process in allowing the community to effectively support their livelihoods as well as sustainably manage their resources, there are still many risks inherent in the process of diversification. Although [AIGOs are] now emerging as an important strategysuccess has been limited to date (Campbell, 2006:287) among the various actors initiating these projects, mainly due to the complexity of initiating and sustaining diversified livelihoods [being] often underestimated (Haggblade et al., 2002, as cited in Campbell, 2006). Sievanen et. al (2005) asserts that the application of alternative livelihood strategies can often be based on a myriad of assumptions formed by program designers, project managers and senior policy makers that are often incorrect, and this can jeopardise interventions even before they begin. These assumptions noted in Sievanen et. al (2005) are significant; they describe that firstly, it is often assumed that small-scale fishers are poor and that this is the reason why they incline towards resource overexploitation. Secondly, they note that a large assumption is that fishers will be willing to pursue more lucrative economic opportunities in place of fishing. And thirdly, they note that it is assumed that through the engagement of fishers in other livelihoods, this will reduce pressures on fishery resources. The suggestion that small-scale fishers are poor tends to arise in much of the literature (Allison & Ellis, 2001; Campbell, 2006; Pauly, 1997); however, after living and conducting research in a rural Fijian coastal community, and after deep analysis into the literature, the
17

assumption that all small-scale fishers are among the poorest of the poor can be called into question (Crawford, 1999; Pollnac et. al, 2001; Sievanen et. al, 2005). The presumption that fishers will also be willing to alter their livelihoods in order to pursue alternative ones is an assumption that needs to be treated with care; research in Southeast Asia suggested that fishers may refuse switching to alternative occupations due to job satisfaction (Pollnac et. al, 2001), and another study found that while some households had reduced their fishing effort since becoming seaweed farmers, others had not, and others had even invested income gained from seaweed farming into purchasing fishing gear (Sievanen et. al, 2005). One study in Kenya found fishers were to be more likely to assume new livelihood activities if their material level of wealth was at a higher level and if their households were already undertaking a greater number of occupations (Cinner et. al, 2008). This suggests that in this context Kenyan fishers wanted to minimize their exposure to risk as much as possible. Risk minimization should be a goal for actors initiating AIGOs, as fishers will be more than likely to revert back to fishing if the alternatives offered present too much risk. Plainly substituting one income-source for another is no solution (Allison and Ellis, 2001).

2.3. Are alternatives the solution?

As alternative livelihood initiatives have gained popularity as a developmental approach, sadly so too has the effort of developmental agencies concentrating on the selection of alternative activities from an ever-growing menu-list of ideas devised by outsiders, rather than allowing communities to assess their own strengths and weaknesses to determine solutions which reflect positively on where they want their lives to be going (Campbell, 2006; IMM, 2003; Ireland, 2004). Many interventions sadly plan to initiate developmental
18

schemes which only focus upon short-term projects, which largely underestimate the time necessary to build the capacity of the people who are expected to take up and replace these activities with their current activities. Particularly in cases where the agency concerned is motivated by aiming to reduce the exploitation of an areas natural resources, the priorities and needs of community members themselves tend to be given much less importance than that of the protection of a particular resource or area (Campbell, 2006). Despite the amount of literature that describe the common failings apparent where initiating alternative livelihood strategies, much of the literature also uncovers research which demonstrates that taking an approach towards alternative livelihoods can provide a viable and fruitful initiative within a community, as long as they are undertaken under correct circumstances aligned with the communitys wants and needs (Allison & Ellis, 2001; Allison & Horemans, 2006; Asong, 2000; Campbell, 2006; Cinner, 2008; Sievanen, 2005). A key element which seems to affect the likelihood of success of an intervention seems to be how well the complexity of a communitys livelihood is understood and incorporated into the design of the project. The approaches should be implemented in participatory ways, incorporating the different wants, needs and aspirations of the various stakeholder groups, and should build the capacity of the community to respond to change so that they will continue to innovate and maintain the viability of their livelihoods (Campbell, 2006:290). During stakeholder consultations undertaken in Ireland (2004)s research, she identified that there seems to be recurring elements present in successful alternative livelihood activities. These included features such as skills and knowledge were established and developed within the community, long term
19

technical assistance was provided, alternative livelihood activities were identified by the community members themselves (where this was the case community members were more likely to find solutions to the constraints they faced), the activity brought equal or superior economic returns than a previous activity, etc. (Ireland 2004:34). By keeping determinants such as these in mind, the likelihood of implementing a successful and beneficial policy or development project should be much greater.

20

Chapter 3 - Methodology
3.1. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA)
Because integration with the community and participatory approaches are key elements in determining the adaption of meaningful and relevant AIGOs that represent the strengths, wants and needs of community members, the methodological approach was designed drawing inspiration from a conceptual framework that aims to assist policy creation and developmental approaches called the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (see Carney, 1998, 2003; Scoones, 1998), which has been further adapted by Allison and Ellis (2001) to apply directly to fishery communities. With the underlying guideline articulating that the approach seeks to identify what the poor have rather than what they do not have and *to+ strengthen peoples own inventive solutions, rather than substitute for, block or undermine them (Allison & Ellis 2001:378), elements have been taken from this approach in informing methodological design for this research to avoid options being selected from outside the sphere of community desire and involvement.

3.2. Document Analysis

For the purposes of this research, a mixture of data and documents made available by C3, particularly socio-economic data previously collected by the NGO will be re-analysed in order to add depth by providing a quantitative element to this research. As Merriam (1988:118) states, documents of all types can help the researcher uncover meaning, develop understanding, and discover insights relevant to the research problem, and it is expected that through the triangulation of methods between document analysis, participant observation and focus group discussions, this will assist in achieving a deeper
21

understanding of the research as well as assisting the researcher in validating and contextualising her observations.

3.3. Participant Observation

Whilst working with the NGO Community Centred Conservation (C3) and during the course of data collection for this research, my time was spent living amongst the community of Kia, integrating with the communitys daily life and social activities. Not only did this allow for an in-depth understanding of the communitys immediate social, economic and environmental realities, but informal discussions and observations were also beneficial in adding an extra element of depth and understanding to the collected data. Newing (2011:8596) describes participant observation as a relatively unstructured interactive method for studying people as they go about their daily routines and activities, and that through active engagement this enables researchers to build a picture of the way things are done and develop a deeper understanding of who these people are, how they think and how they differ among themselves. She describes that through shared experiences, you would learn, as a child has to when growing up, the meanings of objects words and activities, and the underlying motivations and rationale for certain behaviour, so that where people may find difficulty with expressing or explaining their behaviours or feelings, through engagement with people and observation, a researcher can allow a humane and sympathetic approach to understanding people within their daily contexts (Newing, 2011:87).

3.4. Focus Group Discussions

Conducting focus group sessions formed the primary method of data collection for this research. Because no research has previously been conducted in
22

relation to alternative livelihoods on Kia, and because this research will fundamentally form a preliminary assessment for the NGO Community Centred Conservation (C3), by conducting focus group discussions it proved to be an effective way of having contact with many different groups in the community and involving them in the decision-making process. OLeary (2005) discusses that focus groups are a useful methodological tool in gathering people together to collaborate towards a common goal. The group discussions that were held did seem to reflect OLearys suggestions and proved useful not only in integrating the community members in collaborating ideas towards an issue, but also in gathering a broad understanding of any contrasting views that were held and encouraging deeper analysis, reflection and explanations about why a certain idea or opinion was expressed. Patton (2002:386) also describes that one of the advantages of focus groups is that it is "enjoyable to participants, drawing on human tendencies as social animals." Two focus group sessions were conducted in each of the three villages of Kia (Yaro, Ligau and Daku); one each for men and women. Because only men have been interviewed in previous socio-economic surveys conducted on Kia, and women have been increasingly involved in the fishing effort (whether for sustenance or commercial purposes), it was felt an important step to equally hold both male and female focus group sessions in order to build accurate representation. In doing so this also held additional benefits; it allowed for participants to speak openly and freely in groups where there was an assumed level of comfort, and allowed for easy distinction between any trends among male and female groups. It was expected that saturation of data would be reached by the end of the six focus group sessions (where patterns or areas of consensus are recognised, and the production of more data will produce little new information or understanding: Newing, 2011:75), where for the most part
23

it was; however it never failed to surprise when even during the latter rounds of discussions, each village and group seemed to offer creative and original thoughts and would present something completely new to the alternative livelihoods discussion. A warm-up activity was initiated at the beginning of each discussion where participants were asked to think about the way people lived, sources of income, food and environmental changes fifty ago on Kia (1962), to discuss changes that they thought to have occurred between then and now, and then to discuss possibilities for change fifty years into the future (2062). Scoones (1998:10) also notes that taking an historical approach should be central to any analysis when developing livelihood strategies and assessing the sustainability of different options, and because no documentation exists depicting Kias past during the timeframe discussed, this activity served in building a rich understanding of the way Kians lived their lives at that time, illustrating perceived changes that have taken place between then and now and also served to eliminate any preformed assumptions or researcher bias. A similar method also proved to be effective in Turner et. al (2007)s research, where they state that their primary intention in comparing former/future fish consumption was to obtain respondents perceptions of change, rather than historically accurate data (Turner et. al, 2007:5). Thinking into the future in this research also allowed for insight into how community members visualise Kias future, which is an important step in identifying alternative livelihood activities which align with the communitys visions for the future. Data collected from focus group discussions were analysed by identifying repeating trends, patterns and relationships across the sessions, by noting how often an activity was discussed among particular groups, as well as by
24

comparing how participants perceived that activity to be beneficial within Kias natural and social contexts. To collect this data the discussions were recorded through the use of a dictaphone, and notes were taken when needed to assist alongside recordings.

3.5. Ethical Considerations

As focus group sessions required the participation of community members, some ethical considerations had to be acknowledged prior to the commencement of the study. The focus groups were run on a voluntary basis, so ensuring that all participants had knowingly consented prior to participation and that they were aware of exactly what the focus group discussions would entail prior to commencement were all important steps. It was also important to ensure that participants were aware that they were able to withdraw at any time, that their identities would be withheld, and that replying was completely voluntary during the sessions.

25

Chapter 4 - Results
Six focus group sessions were conducted in total (excluding the pilot focus group session held in Yaro); one focus group each for men and women in each of the three villages of Yaro, Ligau and Daku. The total number of participants was 41, consisting of 24 men and 17 women with ages ranging from 19-71 and 20-62 respectively. The mean age of the male and female participants involved in focus group sessions was 41.51 years old. Results from an earlier conducted socio-economic survey which consisted of 49 interviewees revealed that 82% of those that were interviewed engaged in fishing to secure their main source of income; this also proved to be a consistent actuality with most participants who were involved in focus group sessions, where the majority also undertook fishing to secure their primary source of income. Data collected from the recently conducted socio-economic survey was also analysed to calculate occupational multiplicity (defined as the sum of the different types of occupations conducted by one household; see Crawford, 2002:9-10) on Kia. The occupational portfolio in the socio-economic household surveys consisted of 17 occupations, with households conducting between 1 to 4 occupations. Occupational multiplicity on average was quite low, with a mean 1.65 occupations per household, compared for example to a mean 3.2 found across 14 coastal communities in Papua New Guinea (J.E. Cinner, unpublished data, cited in Cinner et al. 2005a) or a mean 4.7 found among three islands studied in the Lau Island group, Fiji (Turner et. al, 2007).

26

It must also be noted that at the time which the group discussions were held, government surveyors had recently visited Kia to survey a plot of land which is said to be advertised to prospective builders of a hotel. Talk of the proposed site for the hotel permeated all of the focus group discussions greatly, and was mentioned consistently in every focus group session held.

4.1. Discussing Alternative Opportunities

In each focus group session participants were asked to brainstorm ideas for alternative ways to generate income which they thought would work on Kia. They were then asked to discuss the advantages and disadvantages that each activity would bring, and then whether they thought the activity would be a sustainable source of income by itself, or whether they would have to do this activity alongside another activity to generate a sustainable source of income. The activities that were identified the most across all six focus group sessions were vegetable farming and poultry farming (which were raised for discussion in five focus group sessions), followed by beekeeping and a bakery (discussed in four of the sessions) and handicrafts, goat farming and seaweed farming (which were discussed in three focus group sessions). Participants were also asked to elect which activities they felt would be most feasible to implement on Kia (results listed in Table 1).

27

Table 1

Activities prioritised as most feasible by participants:

Women Yaro Women Ligau Women Daku 1. Handicrafts, bakery 1. Handicrafts 1. Weaving handicrafts Men Yaro 1. Beekeeping 2. Vegetable farming 2. Hotel 2. Vegetable farming 2. Poultry farming 3. Seaweed farming 3. Bakery 3. Vegetable and fruit farming 3. Bakery, hotel, poultry farming, snorkelling venture Men Ligau Men Daku 1. MPA for snorkelling 1. Sandalwood farming/Silviculture 2. Surfing tourism venture 2. Goat farming 3. Seaweed farming 3. Bakery

There are some trends that were identified among focus groups. Aside from the pilot focus group that was held involving young male participants, no male groups discussed handicrafts as an alternative activity, but all three female focus group sessions elected it as what they believed would be their most feasible venture. It was noticed that the discussion of tourism ventures only generally occurred within male focus group session, with the exception of the focus group session involving men from Daku, who did not raise any discussion involving tourism ventures (possibly due to Daku being the least populated and modernised of the three villages). The male focus group sessions conducted in Yaro and Ligau were similar in that they discussed with enthusiasm many ideas for tourism ventures that could be implemented on Kia. Women tended only to discuss the proposed hotel and other ventures benefiting from the hotel through its creation of an easily accessible market, such as for vegetable farming, handicrafts (selling and providing skills for workshops) and entertainment groups.

28

It was interesting that although beekeeping as an alternative activity was one of the most discussed ventures (raised for discussion in four of the focus group sessions held), it was only selected as one of the most feasible ventures by one focus group. Among other factors, this may also be due to participants believing that they lack immediate knowledge on the undertaking beekeeping as a business venture (with some participants enquiring and asking questions about the particulars of beekeeping during focus group sessions). Discussion involving the instalment of a village bakery took place in both male and female focus groups conducted in Yaro, the female focus group held in Ligau, the male focus group held in Daku, and was prioritised as one of the most favourable business ventures by the women of Yaro, and one of the third most favourable business ventures by women of Ligau, men of Yaro and the men of Daku. Its favourability among a variety of participants, both male and female, demonstrated that if implemented, this activity would most likely be successful in involving many different members of the community. Other activities such as poultry farming, seaweed farming and vegetable farming were also elected among the top three feasible activities decided upon by both male and female focus groups, which also demonstrated that these activities would be successful in involving a broad range of community members.

4.2. Assessing Activity Feasibility from the Perspective of Community Members

Along with identifying possibilities for alternative livelihoods on Kia, participants were also asked to discuss foreseeable benefits and advantages that an activity could provide, as well as potential drawbacks or shortcomings that the activity may also possess.

29

Many interesting and significant points were raised concerning all alternative activities that were offered for discussion, and listed below are some of the key points that were identified relating to the activities that were most frequently discussed during focus groups. Although tourism ventures was not among the activities that were the most frequently discussed, considering the activitys popularity among male focus groups and the frequency of participants deliberating the future of the proposed hotel on Kia Island, its discussion points were included in the table below.

30

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

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

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

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

Beekeeping
- Could provide a good source of income for families. - Could provide people with a source of food. - Could relieve stress on fishing and allow people to spend more time with their families. - Would be easy to operate, and easy to carry out as a village project. - A beekeeping scheme exists in Labasa which could provide support for people choosing to perform beekeeping on Kia. - Can aid in the pollination of fruit crops. (One focus group even proposed that beekeeping could be performed as a combined project alongside the planting of fruit trees to help regenerate the number of old fruit trees that have been lost to fires on the island). - Beestings may often occur. - One focus group explained that they had heard that honey has to be extracted every time it is produced, otherwise the queen could migrate. They were concerned that improper

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

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

Advantages

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

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages

31

steal them (which occurs occasionally with peoples personal crops).

Possible markets

- Bread can be supplied to the whole island, as well as the hotel once it is in place.

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

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

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

- Fruits and vegetables could be sold on the island amongst other villages - Could be sold in the markets on the mainland in Labasa. - The hotel would also be a potential market, and now would be the optimal time to being planning and growing plants so that they would be ready for when the hotel is instated. - Because of the weather patterns, weather conditions, the seasonal nature of vegetables, and the amount of water required to produce a successful vegetable garden, participants determined that this activity would best serve people as a supplementary activity.

management could lead to failure of the project. - People would require more information to be able to implement and run beehives successfully. - The hotel could provide an ideal market, as well as people on Kia.

church activities, due to tourist influences and larger earnings.

enough space to implement this kind of activity on Kia.

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

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

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

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

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

Primary / Supplementary activity

32

Chapter 5 - Discussion
Because occupational multiplicity (the sum of the different types of occupations conducted by one household; Crawford, 2002:9-10) was found to be very low on Kia at a mean 1.65, and highly concentrated towards one occupation (fishing), this indicates that the promotion of alternative occupations and the creation of opportunities to diversify incomes would be highly helpful in the prevention of exceeding ecological thresholds in the marine environment. Many studies point to the instability experienced environmentally and economically when increased specialisation and reliance is directed towards a low number of occupations (Adger, 2000; Allison and Ellis, 2001; Armitage, 2005; Turner, 2007; Walker et. al. 2002); not only can this be viewed to reflect Kias current situation, but also as a lesson in initiating alternative livelihood opportunities. If specialisation is encouraged in few occupations, then reliance on natural resources and other commodities may have implications for future economic stability. In the case of Kia, many community members spoke with enthusiasm about the numerous ideas which they had to generate income. Only in recent decades have Kians become so heavily dependent upon fishing to secure their incomes, and this has only been made so readily possible through the presence of fishing agents on the island. Because it is relatively simple to earn a decent income when it is needed on the island, this has deterred any need for creative application towards new income-generating ventures. Understanding the community, how they feel about these issues and what solutions they wish to see arise from these initiatives will be the first significant step towards implementing alternative livelihood activities that are relevant
33

and meaningful to Kians, and will also act as a significant step towards differing from Sienaven et. als (2005) described assumptions which are mistakenly and commonly held by development agents and policy designers. These assumptions include that small-scale fishermen are predisposed towards resource exploitation due to their poor nature, that community members will want to pursue more lucrative livelihood options other than fishing, and that the engagement of fishers in alternative livelihoods will ultimately fulfil the goal of diminishing resource exploitation. Ensuring that these assumptions are acknowledged and understood from the commencement of project design will be an imperative step towards realising lasting and meaningful solutions for Kians. Secondly, if the project design embodies the key determinates found to be recurring in successful alternative livelihood initiatives in Irelands (2004) study, this may also aid in increasing the likelihood that alternative livelihood solutions will be lasting and successful. Ensuring that skills and knowledge are developed and established within the community, long-term technical assistance is provided, that the activity brings equal or superior returns than the previous activity, and that all alternative activities are chosen by community members themselves so as to ensure that the community will be more likely to find solutions to problems faced themselves (Ireland, 2004:34) will determine that the long-term sustainability of a project within a community will be possible. The literature has shown that the role which C3 must assume amongst the community cannot be one which imposes ideas nor selects ventures from a menu list of alternatives. For initiatives to be successful, the role of C3 must be one which encourages creative thought and participation amongst the
34

community, affording members of the community with support and access to information to minimise risk and to maximise chances of implementing longterm and meaningful alternative solutions.

35

Chapter 6 Conclusion and Recommendations

There will not be one sure-fire solution to easing the current pressure that exists on fish populations, but diversifying options that are available to people on Kia may assist in contributing to part of the solution.

Many Kians who participated in focus group sessions seemed happy with the idea of the diversifying incomes and participating in alternative incomegenerating ventures; the key factor seemed to be whether enough money could be made to support needs and operate the venture easily without much expenditure. A lack of knowledge about the management and operations of business ventures was also another reason identified as deterrence to entering into different income-generating activities. Supporting community members through assisting them with access to information regarding proper management, setup and operation of activities may advance genuine interest in undertaking alternative activities.

An economically and environmentally beneficial way to promote sustainable alternatives to fishing would be to encourage and to support the creation of mutually-beneficial ventures. Examples which align well with Kias environmental landscape and the desires of community members include a community woodlot initiative, which would in turn reinvigorate Kias natural landscape, as well as provide wood-fuel to sustainably implement village bakeries; poultry farming ventures where manure is used to tend to vegetable farming plots; pandanus plantations, where pandanus can be sold to other community members as well as provide a sustainable source of pandanus to manufacture handicrafts; or a beekeeping scheme conducted in tandem with a
36

fruit-farming project, to encourage the pollination of fruits. All of the products of the potential activities mentioned above could be sold on to the proposed hotel, as well as onto other community members or to markets on the mainland.

The proposed hotel will also present the opportunity for interested parties in the community to initiate tourism ventures in order to supplement and sustain livelihoods. Many innovative ideas offered during focus group sessions were discussed with enthusiasm, with ideas including snorkelling tourism ventures, surfing tourism ventures (with WWF (undated:37) stating that the area around Kia Island has some of the best surfing waves in the world), trekking and sightseeing tourism ventures, the provision of a bure (traditional
Ligau Focus Group: (In relation to building a bure to provide accommodation) Cause most people really want to come to Kia, but the only problem *is+ place where to come and stay (quote from anonymous participant, Ligau).

Fijian hut) for backpackers, etc. The WWF (undated) survey which focuses on biodiversity and coastal habitats situated along the GSR that surrounds Kia Island recommends that the promotion of non-extractive economic options, such as eco-tourism, should be encouraged and developed in this region. One focus group discussed that an advantage with promoting tourism ventures on
37

Kia Island is that it would encourage proper monitoring and management of the islands natural resources. It was discussed that, for example, if a snorkelling tourism venture were to be initiated in the MPA, where some people currently still fish against regulation, it would motivate people to properly manage and take care of this area. Beginning with small projects and expanding activities naturally will be the desired approach taken to minimise the various risks involved; the risks involved with shifting people to a new income-generating activity and the risks involved in trialling an activitys long-term financial, social and environmental sustainability.

Also, initiating some of the longer-term activities which could largely benefit the community environmentally and economically in the future could also prove to be highly advantageous for future generations of Kia if implemented now. These could include vegetable and fruit farming as discussed above, but also longer-term nut and timber crop ventures such as beginning sandalwood, mango, mahogany, teak, citrus tree farming projects, etc.; ventures that may take ten to twenty years to develop, but will be highly beneficial for Kias future generations.

38

Bibliography
Adger. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography 24 (3): 347-364. Allison, E. Ellis, F. 2001. The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy 25, pg. 377-388. Allison, E. Horemans, B. 2006. Putting the principles of the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach into fisheries development policy and practice. Marine Policy 30, pg. 757-766. Armitage, D. 2005. Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environmental Management 35:703-715. Asong, R.H. Mabunay, Ma. L., Aure, D., Seraspe, E., Braganza, R., Corda, D.E. 2000. Alternative livelihoods in a coastal village. University of the Philippines in the Visayas, Philippines. Biumaiwai, F. 2010. Census conducted by Filomena Biumaiwai (village nurse) in 2010. Unpublished data. C3. (Online). http://www.c-3.org.uk [Accessed July, 2011]. C3. (2011). Socioeconomic household surveys. Unpublished data. Campbell, J. Whittingham, E. and Townsley, P. 2006. Responding to Coastal Poverty: Should we be Doing Things Differently or Doing Different Things? Environment and Livelihoods in Tropical Coastal Zones. CAB International, 2006. Carney, D. 1998. Sustainable rural livelihoods: What contribution can we make? Papers presented at the Department for International Developments Natural Resources Advisers Conference, July 1998. Carney, D. 2003. Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Progress and possibilities for change. Department for International Development. [Online] Available at: http://www.eldis.org/vfile/upload/1/document/0812/SLA_Progress.pdf [Accessed 1/03/2012]. Chambers, R., Conway, G. 1991. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. Institute of Development Studies Discussion Paper 296. Cinner, J.E, Marnane, M.J., McClanahan, T. 2005a. Conservation and community benefits from traditional coral reef management at Ahus Island, Papua New Guinea. Conserv Biol 19, pg.1714 1723. Cinner, J.E. Daw, T. McClanahan, T.R. 2008. Socioeconomic factors that affect artisanal fishers readiness to exit a declining fishery. Conservation Biology. [Online] Available at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.82175!cinner%20et%20al%20resubmitted%20080409%20%20socioecon%20and%20fishery%20exit.pdf [Accessed 1/02/2012]

39

Crawford, B. 2002. Seaweed farming: An alternative livelihood for small-scale fishers? Coastal Resources Centre. [Online] Available at: http://imcafs.org/download/Alt_Livelihood.pdf [Accessed 13/02/2012]. Creswell, J. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Department for International Development. 2002. Better livelihoods for poor people: The role of agriculture. Consultation document, May 2002. [Online] Available at: http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20100423085705/http://dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publicatio ns/agricultureconsult.pdf [Accessed 4/04/2012]. Gell, F.R. Roberts, C.M. 2003. The fishery effects of marine reserves and fishery closures. WWF-US, 1250 24th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA, 2003. Haggblade, S., Hazell, P. and Reardon, T. 2002. Strategies for stimulating poverty alleviating growth in the rural nonfarm economy in developing countries. International Food Policy Research Institute and the World Bank, Washington, DC. Hepworth, L. 2011. Breaking or following the fishing rules and regulations: motivations, benefits and incentives for Kia Islanders, Fiji. University of Brighton. Heur, A. Navarette, D. van Bochove, J.W. Harding, A. Raines, P. Socio-Economic Study: Local Livelihoods, Use and Management of Coastal Resources and Efficiency of Marine Protected Areas in Panaon Island. Coral Cay Conservation. IMM. 2003. Sustainably Enhancing and Diversifying the Livelihoods of the Coastal Poor. SCLP Working Paper 7. An output from the SCLP project funded by DFID. IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Ireland, C. 2004. Alternative Sustainable Livelihoods for coastal communities a review of experience and guide to best practice. IUCN, The World Conservation Union. http://theidlgroup.com/documents/SustainableCoastalLivelihoods-IUCNOct2004.pdf Merriam, S.B. 1988. Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Newing, H. 2011. Conducting Research in Conservation: Social Science Methods and Practice. Routledge. OLeary, Z. 2005. Researching Real-World Problems: A Guide to Methods of Inquiry. Sage Publications. Pauly, D. Small-scale fisheries in the tropics: marginality, marginalisation, and some implications for fisheries management. In: Pikitch, E.K., Huppert, D.D. Sissenwine, M.P. 1997. Global trends: fisheries management. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society, 1997.p. 40-9. 40

Pollnac, R.B. Pomeroy, R. Harkes, I. 2001. Fishery policy and job satisfaction in three Southeast Asian fisheries. Ocean and Coastal Management 2001; 44 (5):531-44. Scoones, I. 1998. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. IDS Working Paper 72, 1998. Sievanen, L. Crawford, B. Pollnac, R. Lowe, C. 2005. Weeding through assumption of livelihood approaches in ICM: Seaweed farming in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean and Coastal Management 48 (2005) 297-313. Syron, J. 2011. A Socio-economic assessment of Kia Island Fisheries. University College London. Turner, R.A. Cakacaka, A. Graham, N.A.J. Polunin, N.V.C. Pratchett, M.S. Stead, S.M. Wilson, S.K. 2007. Declining reliance on marine resources in remote South Pacific societies: ecological versus socio-economic drivers. Coral Reefs, 2007. 26:997-1008. Walker, B. Carpenter, S. Anderies, J. Abel, N. Cumming, G. Janssen, M. Lebel, L. Norberg, J. Peterson, G.D. Pritchard, R. 2002. Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Ecology 6:14. Wongbusarakum, S., Pomeroy, B., Loper, C., Vieux, C., Guilbeaux, M., Levine, A., Bartlett, C. 2008. SEM-Pasifika: Socio-economic monitoring guidelines for coastal managers in Pacific Island Countries. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Apia, Samoa. WWF. Fijis Great Sea Reef: The first marine biodiversity survey of Cakaulevu and associated coastal habitats. [Online] Available at: http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/gsr_fullcopy_1_1.pdf [Accessed 18/01/2012] Yap, W. 1999. Rural aquaculture in the Philippines. RAP Publication 1999/20. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Bangkok, Thailand, 1999

41

APPENDIX 1 Alternative Livelihoods Focus Group Structure Envisioning futures for alternative livelihoods in Kia.
INTRODUCTION: (Introduce yourself, and the background and purpose of your interview, present the general topics or themes to be covered SEM Pasifika). INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT: Hello, my name is ______ and I would like to take about 45 minutes of your time to brainstorm ideas for alternative livelihood opportunities that could be implemented on Kia, as well as peoples attitudes and perceptions towards these. Please be aware that the results collected from this focus group discussion will be kept completely confidential and your identity will remain anonymous. After the sessions, the results will be shared back to the community, with the hopes of continuing and encouraging an open dialogue and sharing of information regarding the improvement and management of Kias natural resources.

MAIN ACTIVITY - GROUP BRAINSTORMING TASK *(Before brainstorming begins, talk through how the discussion will operate, and ensure that it is made clear that because participants are volunteering their time and efforts they should not feel obliged to stay or respond to every question).

BRAINSTORM:

In Kia, what are some other possible activities that people could engage in (in order to diversify incomes)?
INSTRUCTIONS: Wait for initial ideas. If suggestions are given, separate into following categories. If no suggestions are offered, use the following categories as conversational stimulus. FARMING, AQUACULTURE, SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM SERVICES, OTHER FOR EXAMPLE: Vegetable farming

Farming

Bee keeping Suki Plantation

42

Once initial brainstorming phase has been exhausted, return to alternative/supplementary livelihood suggestions to analyse further, mind-mapping on separate paper with the following questions:

What would the advantages of this activity be? What would the disadvantages of this activity be? Do you consider this to be an alternative livelihood, or a supplementary livelihood? From the suggestions above, which activities do you think would be the most feasible on Kia? (Participants select 3 of their
most desirable activities, numbering them 1 (most favourite), 2 and 3).

43

APPENDIX 2 Checklist for Research Exempt from Ethical Review

If you intend to involve human participants in your research, please use this checklist to ensure your project is exempt from HREC review. A Research Project might be exempt from Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) review if both the following questions can be answered yes: 1. Does the RP only involve negligible risk i.e. where there is no foreseeable risks of harm or discomfort and any foreseeable risk is no more than inconvenience to the participants? Yes. (The National Statement describes inconvenience as the least form of harm that is possible for human participants in research. The most common examples of inconvenience in human research are filling in a form, participating in a de-identified survey or giving up time to participate in a research activity). 2. Does the project involve the use of existing collections of data, or records that already contain only non-identifiable data about human participants? Yes. Please continue with the following questions in order to ascertain if your project can be exempt from ethical review. 1. Are participants identifiable or re-identifiable? 2. Is some form of deception is involved? 3. Are participants aged less than 18 years? 4. Are participants cognitively or emotionally impaired? 5. Do participants belong to the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people, or similarly disadvantaged cultural/minority group? 6. Does the procedure involve any experimental manipulation or include the presentation of any stimulus other than question-asking? 7. Do the questions asked include sensitive personal and/or cultural issues? 8. Is there any power-dependency relationship between researcher(s) and participants(s)? Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

If you answered yes to ANY of the 8 questions above it means that your project cannot be considered exempt from review. If you are sure your project is exempt from review please complete the statement below: 'I certify that my responses to this checklist accurately reflect the subject and methods in the project: Remembering the past and envisioning futures: The search for alternative livelihoods on Kia Island, Fiji. I am about to undertake this project for International Research Project (SOCU1042). I believe I am now exempt from applying for ethical review of my project. Student name: Teagan Scarlett Date: 2/5/2012 44