ISSN 1818-5614

Refinement and analysis of coastal
fishery problems facing Makefu and
Alofi North villages, Niue, with
associated recommendations

By Sione Leolahi

IWP-Pacific Technical Report (International
Waters Project) no. 55





Global
United
Nations
Pacific
Regional
Environment
Development
Environment
Facility
Programme
Programme

---

SPREP IRC Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Leolahi, Sione.

Refinement and analysis of coastal fishery problems
facing Makefu and Alofi North villages, Niue, with
associated recommendations / by Sione Leolahi. ­ Apia,
Samoa : SPREP, 2007.

vi. 19 p. ; 29 cm. - (IWP-Pacific Technical report, ISSN 1818-
5614 ; no.55).

ISBN: 978-982-04-0379-6

1. Fisheries ­ Management ­ Niue,2. Fisheries ­ Economic
aspects ­ Niue. 3. Fisheries ­ Research ­ Niue. 4. Fisheries
­ Law and legislation ­ Niue. I. International Waters Project
(IWP). II. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment
Programme (SPREP) III. Title. IV. Series.

338.372

This report (originally written in 2005) was produced by SPREP's International Waters
Project, which is implementing the Strategic Action Programme for the International
Waters of the Pacific Small Island Developing States, with funding from the Global
Environment Facility. This study was funded by the International Waters Project.

The views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the publisher.

Cover design by SPREP's Publication Unit
Editing and layout: Mark Smaalders
Printed by: Marfleet Printing Co. Ltd., Apia, Samoa

SPREP
PO BOX 240,
Apia
Samoa
Email: sprep@sprep.org
T: +685 21 929
F: +685 20 231
Website: www.sprep.org

© Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme and the Government of
Niue, 2007

All rights for commercial/for profit reproduction or translation, in any form, reserved.
SPREP authorises the partial reproduction of this material for scientific, educational or
research purposes, provided that SPREP and the source document are properly
acknowledged. Permission to reproduce the document and/or translate in whole, in any
form, whether for commercial or non-profit purposes, must be requested in writing.
Original SPREP artwork may not be altered or separately published without permission.
ii

---

Contents
Abbreviations and acronyms.................................................................................................iv
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................... v
Executive summary ................................................................................................................. 1
Recommendations: ................................................................................................................ 1
1
Introduction.................................................................................................................... 3
2
Background..................................................................................................................... 3
3
Methodology ................................................................................................................... 4
4
Problem identification ................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Results of Makefu village meetings ................................................................................ 4
4.2 Results of Alofi North village meetings.......................................................................... 6
5
Solution options and recommendations ....................................................................... 7
5.1 Public awareness ............................................................................................................. 7
5.2 Domestic Fishing Act amendment .................................................................................. 8
5.3 Village Fishery Management Plans (VFMP) .................................................................. 9
5.4 Protected Areas (MPAs and TCAs) ................................................................................ 9
5.5 Fishing practices............................................................................................................ 10
5.6 Fish poisoning ............................................................................................................... 10
5.7 Coral death .................................................................................................................... 10
5.8 Translocation ................................................................................................................. 10
5.9 Waste management........................................................................................................ 11
5.10 Fuel Contamination and port waste management ....................................................... 11
5.11 Resource value ............................................................................................................ 11
5.12 Freshwater quality ....................................................................................................... 12
5.13 Tree planting................................................................................................................ 12
7.14 Assessment of development proposals....................................................................... 12
6
Makefu local project working group.......................................................................... 13
7
Alofi North local project working group ................................................................... 13
8
Lessons learned ............................................................................................................ 14
8.1 Meeting schedules ......................................................................................................... 14
8.2 Meeting times ................................................................................................................ 14
8.3 Village protocols and language ..................................................................................... 14
8.4 Village profiles .............................................................................................................. 14
8.5 Village resource management roles............................................................................... 14
8.6 Village facilitation process............................................................................................ 15
8.7 Equipment and materials ............................................................................................... 15
9
Conclusions................................................................................................................... 15
References .............................................................................................................................. 17
Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................. 18
Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................................. 19
iii

---

Abbreviations and acronyms

DAFF


Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries
DOE
Department
of
Environment

EIA
environment
impact
assessments
FAD
fish
aggregating
device
GEF
Global
Environment
Facility
IWP
International
Waters
Project
LPWG
Local
Project
Working
Group
MPA
marine
protected
area
NTC
National
Task
Committee
PCU
Project
Coordination
Unit
PEC
Priority
Environmental
Concerns
PSA
Participatory
Situation
Analysis
SPC


Secretariat of the Pacific Community
SPREP


Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme
SWOT
Strength,
Weakness,
Opportunities,
Threats

TCA
Temporary
Closed
Area
UNDP
United
Nation
Development
Programme
UNESCO


United Nations Educational Scientific Communication




Organisation
VC
Village
Councils
iv

---

Acknowledgments
The Niue IWP would like to sincerely thank the people of Makefu and Alofi North for their
valuable contributions in this phase of the project. The Village Council(s), Members of
Parliament, women and youth groups have been very supportive contributing their awareness
of the of both villages. Despite the effects and damage to the family lives and villages caused
by Cyclone Heta in January 2004, the commitment and effort to engage in the village meetings
is greatly appreciated.
Sincere appreciation is extended to the elders of both villages who were able to share their
traditional knowledge and the methods that made sustainable resource management successful
in earlier days. Without a doubt, the traditional sustainable management approaches practiced
in the past are what have allowed people today to continue to enjoy coastal resources.
Special thanks are extended to the two assigned local facilitators for their availability and
pleasant attitude who, with confidence, took on this phase of the project.
IWP would like to thank the two Members of Parliament, Village Councils (VC), Local Project
Working Group (LPWG), National Task Committee north west zone representative and village
members from both villages for all the informative inputs and high level of support.
Last but not least the funding agency -- the Global Environment Facility (GEF) -- and the
administrative agency -- the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme
(SPREP) -- are acknowledged for their financial and operational assistance. Without their
assistance, the community participation engagement would not have been able to take place.
Fakamonuina mai he Atua.
v

---

Executive summary
Sustainable costal fisheries are the prime focal area for Niue IWP, and are being addressed
through a pilot project in the adjacent villages of Alofi North and Makefu, on the island's west
coast. Along with other villages, these two identified the problems associated with their use of
the coastal fishery and the results were published in a report "Participatory Situation Analysis:
Summary Report of Village Consultations in Niue" (Niue IWP 2003). As with other Pacific
Islands, Niue's people feel their coastal waters are not as productive as they were in former
years.
Following the devastation of Cyclone Heta in January 2004, some of the project's momentum
was lost while people coped with more immediate needs, but in May 2004 two additional
meetings in each village were held to confirm the identified problems and identify potential
solutions. It is significant that only one problem was removed from the original list following
the cyclone and six new ones were added in each village. Oil spillage and sea track damage
were the only new problems common to both villages.
This report discusses solution options and makes recommendations to address most, but not all,
of the problems identified. Some of the solutions require input from regional agencies. Others
need action nationally to give legislative backing to some of the solutions. However, by most
of the recommendations involve the village people acting on their own or in consultation with
other, mainly government, agencies. In all 24 recommendations are made.
Recommendations:
1. IWP continue to publicise the activities being undertaken in the pilot project villages,
and promote sustainable coastal fisheries generally, through signage, posters,
brochures, newsletters and video filming as well as distributing relevant regional
publicity information.
2. The Fisheries Division continue to distribute publicity about the incidence of fish
poisoning (ciguatera) and, together with Alofi North Village, document the locations
from which ciguatoxic fish have been taken.
3. Alofi North and Makefu Village Councils advocate, through their members of
Parliament, for amendment to the Domestic Fishing Act to permit co-management of
coastal fisheries by villages and the Fisheries Division of the Department of
Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries.
4. IWP, with assistance of the Fisheries Division and the Crown Law Office, ensure the
Domestic Fishing Act is amended (and supporting documentation is prepared for
Cabinet and ultimately for consideration in the Legislative Assembly) to provide for
village and government co-management of village fisheries.
5. With backup support from IWP and Fisheries Division, Makefu and Alofi North
villages prepare and regularly review Fisheries Management plans for their respective
designated fishing grounds, and progressively trial marine conservation management
practices.
6. Following amendment to the Domestic Fishing Act, Makefu and Alofi North Village
Councils pass bylaws protecting the Vailoapu­Namoui Marine Protected Area.
7. The village councils recommend to cabinet the approval of the reservation of the
Vailoapu­Namoui Marine Protected Area in terms of Sec. 7 of the Domestic Fishing
Act.
8. The Local Project Working Groups (LPWGs) or Fisheries Management Committees
consider systems of temporary closures in their village fishery to ensure some areas
are always being left to reproduce.
1

---

9. Makefu and Alofi North LPWGs or Fisheries Management Committees work with
Fisheries Division to formulate a register of recommended fishing practices and
promote them by providing information and, if necessary, with bylaws that ban
unacceptable practices.
10. The LPWGs or Fisheries Management Committees ensure current fishing regulations
are publicised in the villages as a starting point for promoting sustainable coastal
fisheries.
11. That IWP and the two pilot project villages establish databases in which to record
cases of coral bleaching reported by divers and others, and undertake analysis to
determine any trends in the process.
12. That the villages work with Fisheries Division to understand the process and risks of
translocation of shellfish into their waters and consider whether to seek support from
the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) for such a programme.
13. Village Councils fund and arrange to have rubbish bins located at the road end of sea
tracks and ensure the rubbish collection contractor regularly empties them.
14. Village Councils seek assistance from the Environment Department to investigate
alternatives to plastic shopping bags.
15. The Department for Environment arrange for the disused fuel tanks at Sir Robert's
Wharf to be dismantled and removed from the seaside without spillage of residual
fuel into the marine environment.
16. Fisheries Division publicise the current laws and protocols regarding discharge of
wastes from ships and yachts moored in the harbour, with the aim of improving
voluntary compliance.
17. IWP and the Fisheries Division use SPC's socioeconomic survey as a baseline for
monitoring changes in harvest and use of coastal fish
18. Alofi North and Makefu villages adopt a system of all fishers recording their daily
catch of fish and reef resources, keep the records in the village and supply a copy to
the Fisheries Division (IWP) and make them available for input into any analysis or
study of the social and economic effects of fishery management, or for management
itself.
19. Near-shore fish aggregation devices (FADs) be established in Makefu and Alofi
North's coastal waters to target "baitfish" and associated species.
20. The Health Department be asked to help the villagers to monitor trends in the quality
of freshwater flowing into the sea through coastal caves or water lenses, by training
them in sampling and by undertaking the appropriate tests.
21. Villages establish an active programme of promoting good vegetative cover of all
bare ground areas near the coast.
22. IWP supports and promotes to Department of Environment, through its membership
in the NTC, regulations requiring proper evaluation of all major developments or any
with significant earthworks to ensure environmental impact assessments are
undertaken and where appropriate social and economic studies are done.
23. The Department of Environment (DOE) conduct capacity building and awareness
programmes in environmental impact requirements for village leaders.
24. The DOE work with Village Councils to publicise good practice in earthworks to
minimise the chance of sediment being deposited on the reef.
Many of the recommendations will involve IWP working with the village to take responsibility
for managing its own fishery. While the long term aim is for villages to be able to manage the
necessary interaction with other agencies themselves, some back-up support may be needed
after the end of the IWP (Dec 2006) and it is expected the Fisheries Division of DAFF will be
2

---

staffed to enable it to service these and other villages as they take on co-management of their
own coastal fisheries in a sustainable manner.
1 Introduction
The International Waters Project (IWP) in Niue is part of a Global Environment Facility
(GEF)-funded programme in 14 small island developing Pacific states. It is managed by the
Secretariat of Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) from its office in Apia,
Samoa through a Niuean National Coordinator, who reports to the local Project Manager, the
Director of Niue's Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF).
This report briefly summarises the background to the project in Niue and outlines the
consultation process undertaken. The lessons learned in working on a pilot project in two
adjacent villages on Niue's west coast are also documented. The document lists issues of
concern (problems) to those villages. Some options for dealing with those problems are
discussed and recommendations are made.
2 Background
Sustainable Coastal Fisheries was recommended as the prime focal area to be addressed by the
International Waters Project in Niue during the preparation of a National Priority
Environmental Concerns (PEC) assessment in November­December 2001 (Butler 2003). The
IWP National Task Committee (NTC) adopted that recommendation. The NTC also directed
that, if possible, integration of other IWP focal areas (e.g. marine protected areas, waste
management and water resources) should be included as pilot project opportunities.
Niue IWP carried out an island-wide village participatory situation analysis (PSA) from
September to December 2002 (Niue IWP 2003). During this process Makefu and Alofi North
stakeholder groups identified resource concerns encountered in their villages. At a National
Forum in April 2003 Members of Parliament and Village Council representatives from those
two villages presented their village situation reports, listing the concerns, and expressed their
interest in hosting village-level activities in the IWP pilot project.
Makefu and Alofi North were selected by the NTC to host the pilot project, based on a
strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis of the different villages.1 An
underlying factor that determined support for the selection of those villages was the presence
of the existing Vailoapu­Namoui Marine Protected Area (MPA). It is currently the only MPA
on the island, and the villages were unsure of their responsibilities towards it. It was felt that
the relatively high population in Alofi North and low population in Makefu would enable
lessons learned in the pilot project to be applied in other villages of varying sizes.
The establishment of an ecological baseline was contracted to marine biologist Dr David Fisk.
It began with a literature review in November 2003 (completed in April 2004, see Fisk 2007a).
A second phase took place in March 2004 (completed in June 2004, see Fisk 2007b), with
efforts to validate the problems perceived and the root causes postulated in the village PSAs.
At the same time underwater visual reporting and photographs on the reef flats were provided
showing the effects of, and damage caused by, Cyclone Heta that hit the island on Monday 5
January 2004. Belt transects were also established at eight reef locations and they were
monitored again in the third phase, when instruction in other survey methods was also
undertaken (completed in December 2004, see Fisk 2007c). Dr Fisk supervised the initial work
but subsequent monitoring is being undertaken locally.
Village profiles showing the stakeholders structures and functions were completed for both

1 Local IWP report to the Niue National Task Committee, dated July 2003, Recommendation for the pilot
project activities and site selection.
3

---

villages at the end of 2003, providing information on people's designated roles and
responsibilities in the two communities (Niue IWP 2004).
In May 2004 four meetings (two in each village) were conducted with the villagers, Village
Councils and the zone representatives for Makefu and Alofi North villages. Two Niuean
facilitators, one an Alofi North resident, were used to facilitate the meetings with support from
the IWP staff. Attendance of villagers at the meetings (held on Sunday evenings) was variable,
with 70% participation for Makefu and 30% for Alofi North. Household deliveries of meeting
notices made for 100% awareness in both villages. Some participants represented themselves
and others spoke for those not present in the meetings.
Throughout the meetings people were informed that if a pilot activity was effective in
addressing a priority concern and supporting more sustainable use of coastal fisheries, then it
might be replicated nationally and linked with other local initiatives.
3 Methodology

In addressing sustainable coastal fisheries issues, a key session involved brainstorming, where
the people described problems perceived in their coastal environment. Both IWP pilot villages
ranked resource depletion and habitant degradation highly. Some people in both villages
questioned the validity of the issues raised and considered some issues only assumptions,
which needed validation. Dr Fisk attempted this validation in his second phase report (Fisk
2007b).
The contributing root cause to resource depletion and habitant degradation was highlighted in
most meetings as "a lack of money".
4 Problem
identification
4.1 Results of Makefu village meetings
Meetings were held in the partly damaged women's cultural building. Originally twenty-nine
environmental concerns were identified during the brainstorming and the PSA process in 2002
(Niue IWP 2003). Six new problems resulted after the refinement meetings in 2004. They are
marked below with a +. The sea and land based issues identified were caused by people,
domestic animals or by nature.
The concerns were categorised into two areas, namely; marine-related issues and land-based
issues.
4.1.1 Concerns related to the sea
Fifteen issues were listed as marine-related concerns:
· Edible seaweed are not protected in any form (limu/sea weeds).
· Dying reef species (e.g. ugako or tube worms); people are unsure of the causes.
· Large sea birds are increasing in numbers (herons or motuku), these birds feed on
edible marine life depended on by the women. (Some fishers are scared of these
birds).
· Breaking and damage of the reef from poor harvesting practices.
· Poaching crayfish and land crabs (no management regime covers the designated
fishing grounds).
· Divers poaching over fishing grounds.
· Fishing without permission and using different fishing methods.
4

---

· Spear fishing considered as destructive fishing.
· Uncertain of the implication of closed areas (unsure of traditional laws).
· Bleaching caused by temperature changes, particularly during calms.
· Coral growth is closing up the pools.
· Scuba diving is a concern.
· Damage caused by Cyclone Heta is very high, are seeing declines of clams,
alili/turbo, fish and shellfish.
· Uncertain of the level of damage by Cyclone Heta and current status of the
resource.
· Economic value of the resources in the village is unknown.
4.1.2 Concerns related to the Land
The village identified nineteen concerns that were land-based:
· Poaching of land crabs.
· Rough and damaged sea tracks.
· Siltation: materials from road and land areas draining towards the sea.
· Storm water drainage systems from roads leading to the sea.
· No awareness signs or rubbish bins installed around the sea access to control
littering.
· Water drains mainly to the sea. Not enough properly designed storm water
drainage.
· Uncertain of quality of underground fresh water.
· No enforcement for disposing of dead animal along the roadsides.
· Uncertainty about fresh water contamination levels caused from use of chemicals.
· Some pigsties are located on the seaside. (Note: After the cyclone the village
advised there were now no pigsties on the sea cliffs).
· Some household septic tanks are still unsealed and others lacked water flushing
systems.
· Most people use chemicals such as weed killers for weeding sea tracks.
· Long drops are still used by some residents.
· Land crabs are run over by vehicles during migration to spawn.
· Cats and dogs feeding on spawning species.
· No guidelines in place for tourism usage in Avaiki chasm.
+ Uncertain level of oil spillage into the sea.
+ Uncertain by the level of sewage contamination and reef resource
degradation.

+ Poorly designed sea track development upgrading after Cyclone Heta
(siltation).
4.1.3 Issues that were not categorised
· Soaking of Fou tree (bark). Sea track should be developed for the women for ease
access.
· Storm surge protection.
5

---

· Develop a public policy by Government for future housing and village.
+ Development on a national scale, A town planner should be identified to assist
lessons learned from Cyclone Heta.
Makefu villagers have identified the need to establish the value of the resources in the village.
4.2 Results of Alofi North village meetings
The meetings were conducted at the Nuku Club, as the Tahitian relief team, assisting Niue with
the cyclone recovery, was occupying the village hall.
The concerns were categorised into three areas, namely the MPA, sea-related issues and land
based issues.
4.2.1 Marine Protected Area Vailoapu­ Namoui
Villagers from Alofi North emphasised the need to improve the role and responsibilities of the
village related to the Vailoapu­Namoui MPA. Four concerns were identified during the initial
PSA, and one issue was identified during the refinement meeting held in May 2004. Those
identified at the refinement meeting are marked below with a +.
· No village and landowners rights over the declared MPA.
· Uncertain of the principals related to the MPA.
· No bylaw from the Village Council to mandate MPA.
· No declared boundary delimits for the MPA.

+ What are the aims for the MPA when IWP is completed?
4.2.2 Concerns related to the sea
There were sixteen Issues identified for the concerns related to the sea:
· Netting of undersize fish.
· Increasing coral growth is narrowing small reef pools.
· More and more plastic bags are found in the sea.
· Fuel discharges around the wharf area are polluting reefs.
· Pollution in port by vessel and yacht sewage discharges.
· Rusting pipes and other solid waste material are seen around reefs.
· Oil discharges from vessels around the wharf area.
· Still a risk of using poisonous tree roots to fish.
· Uncertainty of ciguatera around the wharf vicinity.
· Lacking of strategies or plans to address resource and habitant degradation.
· Risks of over harvesting of marine resources due to sophisticated gear.
· Uncertain of coral bleaching and level of effects to reef ecosystems (sea
temperature changes).
· No information to determine undersize fish catches.
· Seasonal fishes are attracted by offshore FADs located too far for local fishermen
with canoes to target.
· Dead animals are often disposed into the sea.

+ People outside the village are fishing with axes and crowbars to harvest species in the
village.

6

---

4.2.3 Concerns related to the land
Sixteen issues were identified for the land-based issues:
· Long drop toilets are still being used.
· Water pipes are wearing out, affecting the water quality.
· Houses with asbestos damage from Cyclone Heta are a health risk.
· Uncertain of the water quality.
· Cemeteries and burial grounds are situated along the coastal cliffs.
· Siltation after heavy rains changed environment on reef flats.
· Sea tracks are poorly designed without environment impact assessments.
· Septic tank discharges and soak holes are using caves and crevices.
· Impacts from using fireworks and explosives in wharf construction.
· Crabs migrating to spawn are run over by traffic.
· Female uga and other land crabs are harvested during the seasonal migration to
spawn.

+ Fuel tanks at the wharf are leaking out to sea after Cyclone Heta.

+ Bare cliffs after Cyclone Heta are allowing silt to flow easily to the sea (e.g. the


Togalupo sea track is washing out to sea).

+ Historical cave at Alofi Wharf is used as storm drainage.

+ New fuel storage relocated at Tuila is a concern; groundwater and residents are
under
threat.
5
Solution options and recommendations
This section groups the concerns above and discusses the options raised during consultation.
Those that have backing from the communities and are reasonable with respect to human
resources, expertise and cost are recommended.
5.1 Public awareness
5.1(a) General awareness raising
The people of both Makefu and Alofi North understand there is a need to make the public
aware of the problems identified and the options available for solving them. They see a public
awareness programme as crucial to changing attitudes to coastal resources and their
management. Involving the people in assessing and then implementing the solution options is
essential for community "ownership" of the management process. A communications strategy
has been prepared with the PCU to guide the public awareness programme. Various methods
of public awareness raising can be used, but documentary type film clips suitable for video and
DVD reproduction have proved effective. IWP envisages developing further videos with local
people.
Signboards have been erected showing the pilot project area and others defining the MPA and
temporary closed area (TCA).
Adding to the locally-generated public awareness activities are regional public information
materials. A good example is the SPC publicity posters and pamphlets on ciguatera. This
regional public awareness information needs to be well publicised in the villages and
nationally.
7

---

Recommendation
1. That IWP continues to publicise the activities being undertaken in the pilot project villages, and
promotes sustainable coastal fisheries generally, through signage, posters, brochures,
newsletters and video filming as well as distributing relevant regional publicity information.
5.1(b) Awareness raising about poisonous fish.
Fish poisoning by ciguatera has become a problem in the past few years. Currently this only
occurs in an area around Sir Robert's wharf in Alofi. This is of particular concern for Alofi
North village. Region-wide understanding of ciguatera is good but eradication has been
impossible. Management of it elsewhere has focused on public information on its incidence,
and trying to avoid the degradation of coral habitat that favours the algae on which ciguatera
live. Close consultation with Fisheries Division is recommended so up-to-date information on
disease management can be implemented. Options for ensuring high awareness of ciguatera
range from distributing publicity material to establishing a register of sites where poisonous
fish have been harvested. A trap, tag and release programme to mark where fish from a
ciguatoxic area migrate is another option to consider.
Recommendation:
2. That the Fisheries Division continue to distribute publicity about the incidence of poisonous fish
(ciguatera) and, together with Alofi North Village, document the locations from which
poisonous fish have been taken.
5.2 Domestic Fishing Act amendment
Responsibility for fisheries management lies with the Fisheries Division of DAFF. Its primary
focus is on oceanic resources. There are laws and regulations affecting coastal fisheries, but
there are insufficient resources, and perhaps will, to actively manage these resources. Further,
individual villagers are the principal users of these areas and any control will require
community inputs into awareness raising and promotion. During consultation villagers were
critical of the central government's lack of commitment to managing the coastal fishery. A
number of the issues raised in the brainstorming can be better addressed by involving village
people in managing their own fishery resource in association with the Fisheries Division. The
Fisheries Division has supported village co-management through its promotion of the SPC
village fishery management planning process, but there has been little discussion at a political
level. Legislators need to hear from the people that they are ready and willing to take a greater
part in managing coastal fisheries.
For villagers to successfully co-manage the coastal fishery with Fisheries Division, the
Domestic Fishing Act will need amendment. Although the Village Councils Act permits
Village Councils to pass bylaws for resource management and facilities development, legal
advice suggests that costal fishery management should be contained in specific fisheries
legislation.2. If it is clear village bylaws can be used for village fishery management it opens
options for seeing that preferred fishing practices can be promoted and, if necessary, enforced
in the communities where the effects of damaging practices are felt. The types of practices that
could be promoted (using bylaws as a backstop, if voluntary compliance could not be
obtained), include:
· net fishing methods; types of net, mesh sizes, seasonal limitations and night
fishing;

2 See IWP Discussion Paper "Legislative Initiatives to Give Effect to the Draft Niuean National Management
Plan for Coastal Fisheries", included as Annex 1in Powell 2007b.

8

---

· other gear restrictions;
· size limits below which fish have to be released;
· total allowable catch for different species;
· licensing of fishers; and
· a requirement to record total amount of each species caught and return a log sheet
of total fish harvested to a fishing warden so the total harvest by the village can
be monitored.
Recommendations:
3. That Alofi North and Makefu Village Councils advocate, through their MPs, for amendment to
the Domestic Fishing Act to permit co-management of coastal fisheries by villages and DAFF's
Fisheries Division.
4. That IWP, with assistance of the Fisheries Division and the Crown Law Office, ensure the
Domestic Fishing Act is amended and supporting documentation is prepared for Cabinet and
ultimately for consideration in the Legislative Assembly, to provide for village and government
co-management of village fisheries.
5.3 Village Fishery Management Plans (VFMP)
Both villages were made aware of assistance provided by SPC to formulate fisheries
management plans with the Fisheries Division and Niue's village communities. The
information collected by IWP could be the starting point for a VFMP. Both villages have
decided to prepare VFMPs. Makefu and Alofi North inhabitants understood their plans would
have no legal backing unless the Domestic Fishing Act is amended to permit the designation of
village fishing grounds and provide the ability for Village Councils to make bylaws for coastal
fishery management. However, the need to first seek voluntary compliance with the plans was
endorsed.
Recommendation:
5. That, with backup support from IWP and the Fisheries Division, Makefu and Alofi North villages
prepare and regularly review Fisheries Management plans for their respective designated
fishing grounds, and progressively trial marine conservation management practices.
5.4 Protected Areas (MPAs and TCAs)
Having seen the damage Cyclone Heta did to their marine resources, the villagers wish to
ensure all species have a chance to mature and breed. People of both villages are committed to
the Vailoapu­Namoui MPA that crosses their common boundary, and would like to see it
receive more formal protection. They expressed disappointment with the central government's
lack of regulation of the area and felt the people regularly using adjacent areas should be more
involved in its management. They believed involving local people in caring for a reserved area
would be more likely to be effective than relying on an under-resourced government agency.
TCAs are an additional method of giving marine areas a chance to recover. Normally TCAs
are in place for one year, but the term can vary, and they are designed to capture the benefits of
the traditional fono. Alofi North has established a TCA and Makefu is considering one. When
those areas are opened up for fishing again new areas should be considered for protection.
The Vailoapu­Namoui MPA that was declared in 1996 has received external funding for study
and has been given regional publicity. However, it has not been given legal status by cabinet
approval. The villages wish to protect it with a village bylaw as well as seeking legal
recognition from central government. This dual declaration would give the villagers a sense of
"ownership"; if a violation were prosecuted the court would have to consider any legislation in
place, and not treat solely as a breach of a village bylaw.
9

---

Recommendations:
6. That, following amendment of the Domestic Fishing Act, Makefu and Alofi North Village
Councils pass bylaws protecting the Vailoapu­Namoui Marine Protected Area.
7. That the village councils recommend to cabinet the approval of the reservation of the
Vailoapu­Namoui Marine Protected Area in terms of Sec. 7 of the Domestic Fishing Act.
8. That the Local Project Working Groups (or Fisheries Management Committees) consider systems
of temporary closures in their village fishery to ensure some areas are always being left to
reproduce.
5.5 Fishing practices
People in the villages realise some fishing practices, often using modern gear, damage the
environment or lead to over fishing. They support having some restrictions on practices that
damage the reef environment and wanted to investigate the possibility of having policies on
harvesting methods and also limits on numbers and size of fish and reef organisms taken.
Those restrictions could be secured by bylaw.
Recommendation:
9. That Makefu and Alofi North Local Project Working Groups (or Fisheries Management
Committees) work with Fisheries Division to formulate a register of recommended fishing
practices and promote them by providing information and, if necessary, with bylaws that ban
unacceptable practices.
5.6 Fish poisoning
Although Alofi North villagers claimed there was still a risk of people using poisonous plant
root to stupefy fish, the activity is thought to be minimal. The Domestic Fisheries Act has a
provision banning the use of the stupefying methods. In the past people used the stupefying
method when fishing equipment was difficult to obtain. There are cases of people being
prosecuted for the use of toxic plant roots for fishing.
Recommendation:
10. That LPWGs (or Fisheries Management Committees) ensure current fishing regulations are
publicised in the villages as a starting point for promoting sustainable coastal fisheries.
5.7 Coral death
Coral is beneficial reef habitat for fish so its depletion is serious. It appears coral bleaching is
from natural causes, beyond the scope of coastal management. However, the monitoring of
instances of bleaching provides information that may assist management, and it should be
noted in the village resource database. Divers can be approached to assist with information on
bleaching occurrence.
Recommendation:
11. IWP and the two pilot project villages should establish databases in which to record cases of
coral bleaching reported by divers and others, and undertake analysis to determine any trends.
5.8 Translocation
Transplanting stock from elsewhere, to provide the brood stock for recruitment of a species,
can be another solution for villages to consider in conjunction with Fisheries Division. It really
only has application with species that remain reasonably stationary for at least their adult life.
It can be useful where an area has been depleted by a national disaster and should be associated
10

---

with some period of restricted harvest. SPC has an aquaculture programme that assists with
translocation. In a situation such as the impacts from cyclones this option can be an alternative
Recommendation
12. That the villages work with Fisheries Division to understand the process and risks of
translocation of shellfish into their waters and consider whether to seek SPC support for such a
programme.
5.9 Waste management
The Health Department is responsible for waste and rubbish management, while the recently
established Environment Department has overall responsibility for environmental quality.
Authorities have undertaken a public awareness campaign, erecting road signs as well as
distributing posters and pamphlets, but there is no law prohibiting dumping of rubbish in the
sea. The number of plastic bags that end up in the sea and on the coast is a concern. Villages
have requested provision of rubbish bins at the main sea tracks used by the public.
Recommendations:
13. Village Councils fund and arrange to have rubbish bins located at the road end of sea tracks
and ensure the rubbish collection contractor regularly empties them.
14. Village Councils seek assistance from the Environment Department to investigate alternatives
to plastic shopping bags.
5.10 Fuel Contamination and port waste management
The wharf storage tanks in the Alofi North area, damaged in the cyclone, are no longer used to
store fuel. They are in a high-risk area and the cost to dismantle them is high. Fuel is currently
shipped in containers and, on the island, is managed by the Bulk Fuel Corporation. Legislation
covering vessel oil spills, sewage and port waste is the responsibility of Environment
Department. Other organisations (such as the yacht club) maintain facilities for people to use at
the wharf.
Recommendations:
15. That the Department for Environment arrange for the disused fuel tanks at Sir Robert's Wharf
to be dismantled and removed from the seaside without spillage of residual fuel into the
marine environment.
16. That the Fisheries Division publicise the current laws and protocols regarding discharge of
wastes from ships and yachts moored in the harbour, with the aim of improving voluntary
compliance.
5.11 Resource value
Villagers of Alofi North and Makefu feel there is little documented understanding of the value
of the coastal resources they use every day. Because fishing and reef harvesting is so much part
of Niuean culture there are social as well as economic values to be considered. Any
socioeconomic assessment will need cooperation from the villagers as they have much of the
information needed. This work has been included in a socioeconomic study of the island by
SPC's PROCFish project. The report will include a subset of data for each village showing the
effect the coastal resources have on economic and social life of the village people. The
Fisheries Division intends to undertake this survey in subsequent years. Its success will depend
on the willingness of the villagers to give accurate information about what they take from the
sea and how it is used.
Having a clear picture of the social and economic value of the coastal resources would assist in
their management. Good decisions on any form of resource use can only be made when their
11

---

impact on people is accurately assessed.
The people of the two villages would like to expand their use of the coastal fish resources to
reduce dependence on reef gleaning. It is particularly important if reef areas are being reserved
from harvest. Installing FADs in the near-shore fishery could increase the catch of baitfish that
could then be used for local consumption or sold to commercial fishermen.
Tourism is another area that could be developed. It is an option with some limited potential to
reduce dependence on reef species for income generation. Much would depend on the skill and
knowledge of guides, but it would also depend on having areas that are continually plentiful
with fish or reef species. Of course tourism in the villages will be very dependant on the
island's ability to attract and look after tourists. Cooperation throughout the whole industry
will be essential. No specific recommendation is made.
Recommendations:
17. That IWP and the Fisheries Division use the SPC socioeconomic survey as a baseline for
monitoring changes in harvest and use of coastal fish.
18. That Alofi North and Makefu villages adopt a system of all fishers recording their daily catch of
fish and reef resources, keep the records in the village and supply a copy to the Fisheries
Division (IWP) and make them available for input into any analysis or study of the social and
economic effects of fishery management, or for management itself.
19. That near-shore FADs be established in Makefu and Alofi North's coastal waters to target
"baitfish" and associated species.
5.12 Freshwater quality
People in the villages have concerns about the quality of fresh water flowing from
underground caves and the effect it has on the reefs ecosystems. IWP can contribute by
assisting with training people to sample the fresh water. However, testing for relatively minor
amounts of biological and chemical contaminants requires laboratory processes and training.
The Health Department has such facilities for its domestic water testing. Further consultation
with the Health Department and Public Works Department on how villages can contribute to
freshwater quality testing along the coast is required. SOPAC may also be needed to assist in
training villagers in water sampling.
Recommendation:
20. That the Health Department be asked to help the villagers to monitor trends in the quality of
freshwater flowing into the sea through coastal caves or the fresh water lens, by training them
in sampling and by undertaking the appropriate tests.
5.13 Tree planting
Tree planting programmes to control siltation were discussed with the villages. The
Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries supplied the planting materials for the
village to organise planting. However, natural revegetation is achieving ground cover, and in
any future event planting should not be delayed.
Recommendation:
21. That villages establish an active programme of promoting good vegetative cover of all bare
ground areas near the coast.
5.14 Assessment of development proposals
The effects of development on the coastal environment concerned the villagers. They were
aware of sedimentation onto the reef flat from poorly maintained sea tracks, particularly after
the cyclone, and of the perceived impact of wharf development on the incidence of poisonous
12

---

fish. The Environment Act makes provision for regulations. A regulation could require all
major developments to have environmental impact assessments (EIAs). There is also an
understanding that even in cases where environmental effects may be minor, social or
economic effects need to be considered.
The Department of Environment administers the Environment Act and it is working with
SPREP to conduct training in EIAs prior to requiring them for all major developments, or ones
with significant earthworks. There is a need to raise awareness of the EIA process in villages
so people know what is expected of all developers and the process is open and transparent.
While the villages support regulation requiring EIAs for all major developments, or ones with
significant earthworks, they also believe social and economic assessments should be
performed. However, they are aware that maintenance standards also affect sediment
discharge. They believe codes of practice that minimise discharge of silt-laden water to the reef
should be promoted through training and publicity.
Recommendations:
22. That IWP support and promote to the Department of Environment, through its membership on
the NTC, regulations requiring proper evaluation of all major developments or any with
significant earthworks to ensure environmental impact assessments are undertaken, and
where appropriate, social and economic studies are done.
23. That the Department of Environment conduct capacity building and awareness programmes in
environmental impact requirements for village leaders.
24. That the Department of Environment work with Village Councils to publicise good practice in
earthworks to minimise the chance of sediment being deposited on the reef.
6
Makefu local project working group
As a result of the discussions a Local Project Working Group (LPWG) was formed in Makefu
village. It is made up of representatives from the women's group, fishers, youth and Village
Council (see Table 1).
Table 1: Makefu LPWG
Men Role
Women
Role
David Poihega
Village Council
Mary Anne Talagi
Fisher
Togia Saimone
Village Council
Fou Aso Tohovaka
Fisher
Charlie Tohovaka
Fisher
Vai Tuineau
Fisher
Darren Tohovaka
Fisher
Peta Poihega
Fisher
James Tohovaka
Youth
Silau Jamal Talagi
Youth

7
Alofi North local project working group
The Alofi North Local Project Working Group was formed with members of the village from
various sectors (see Table 2).
Table 2: Alofi North LPWG
Men
Role
Women Role
Rev Hawea Jackson
Pastor
Va'aiga Tukuitonga
Member of Parliament
Richard Hipa
Village Council
Rupina Morrissey
Hotel owner
Tutuli Heka
Village Council
Sue Touna
Fisher
Foutau Palahetogia
Fisher
Pati Palanite
Fisher


Takaese Togotogo
Fisher

13

---

8
Lessons learned
This section highlights some issues experienced during engagement with the villagers. Niue's
experience may be useful for agencies in other similar countries when consulting with
communities.
8.1 Meeting schedules
Influential people in both villages were best approached first through letters to let them know
about the importance of the village meetings and the reasons for them. Members of Parliament
and Chairpersons of the Village Councils were also visited, primarily to seek their support, but
also to brief them on the project, confirm their availability, and to plan out the timing and
venue for the meetings. The venue needed to have at least one wall to use for the electronic
presentations and pinning of the flip charts.
Radio announcements were used to remind people of the meetings. Each household in both
villages received meeting invitations with the programme and agenda attached. This ensured
100% awareness of meetings. However, nothing guarantees a high level of participation, as
demonstrated with Alofi North's 30% attendance rates, but at least all households had been
contacted. In general, meetings were easier to organise in villages with smaller populations.
8.2 Meeting times
Setting the dates and timing of the meetings must be done in parallel with the people's
availability. Most people work during the week and were not available on Saturdays, hence
Sundays were chosen (evenings, after church, were found to be most suitable). Elderly
stakeholders favoured Sunday evenings more than any other day. The preferred duration for
each meeting was approximately 3 hours (commencing at 5pm) or, in the case of Makefu
village, which has no afternoon church session, at 4pm.
8.3 Village protocols and language
Before starting meetings it is a standard cultural practice for the village pastor or a respected
elder, who may or may not be in an elected leadership position, to lead the meeting with an
opening prayer, followed by words of welcome by the Village Council representative or the
Member of Parliament. People can be offended if the elders do not address the opening.
Niuean language is encouraged, but English can be used from time to time to thoroughly
address an issue. Understanding the Niuean language is important for translation.
8.4 Village profiles
Information from the village profiles helps in understanding the stakeholders one is dealing
with and in arranging a successful meeting. In both villages in Niue the stakeholder structure
and roles were basically the same as in other villages islandwide. Village profiles are reviewed
from time to time to address changes such as organisation elections and new appointments.
8.5 Village resource management roles
It is unfortunate that the level of damage to the resources and the habitant by Cyclone Heta
could not be measured against pre-cyclone data.3 Comparing the situation before and after is
difficult without baseline data from before the event. Resource management is highly
dependent on resource status data and village capacity. The village people indicated inshore
marine resource monitoring capacity should be strengthened in both villages. Youth groups are

3 Editor's note: Fisk 2007b does make some comparisons.
14

---

ideal to train in resource monitoring, as it could have some input to their formal education, but
people making management decisions must also understand the process
8.6 Village facilitation process
Language must be clearly expressed or recorded by the facilitator, and interpretation of Niuean
to English be undertaken quickly and accurately, to properly document concerns raised. Some
issues or concerns may be raised when something else is being discussed, but it is important
they be properly noted. A facilitator who fully understands the concerns should be the
recorder, while a second facilitates the process.
8.7 Equipment and materials
Electronic equipment such as a laptop computer and PowerPoint projectors can make
presentations easier and can allow people to see what is being recorded, allowing people to
know that what is being recorded relates to what is said. Recordings on flip charts need to be
written up later, with the potential to misinterpret issues. Power supply connections available
in both venues made PowerPoint display possible.
9 Conclusions

A principal objective of the IWP in Niue is to enable the village people to understand their
fishery and take more responsibility for its management. Many of the solutions identified to
deal with the perceived problems involve action by the villagers, assisted by IWP staff and
staff of other government departments.
Twenty-four recommendations have been drafted that arise out of the discussion of possible
solutions. They fall into three general groupings. The first group involves mechanisms to bring
about effective village-based coastal fishery management. Of the six recommendations in this
group, two are to amend the Domestic Fishing Act, one supports VFMPs and three deal with
use of reserves or temporary closures to promote regeneration of fish species (Recs. 3 to 8).
The second group involves management (collection, analysis and dissemination) of
information. It includes general publicity on conservation management as well as using
specific data to better understand fisheries ecology and therefore fisheries management. The
limited management options for dealing with ciguatera result in distribution of information as
the sole mechanism recommended. In all, six recommendations involve collection and
distribution of information (Recs. 1, 2, 10, 11, 16 and 18).
Three recommendations involve analysis of information, either by the community or by
contracted experts (Recs. 9, 12 and 17).
The third grouping is works or activities related to works. As well as activities directly related
to managing fish and reef organisms, there were real concerns about land-based activities
affecting the habitat. Eight recommendations address works issues. Four of them deal with
managing sediment that may wash onto the reef, one of which aims to ensure proper evaluation
of works proposals (Recs. 21 to 24).
In an attempt to ease pressure on reef resources the villages sought the installation of near-
shore FADs, making it easier for canoe fishermen to target near-shore fish (Rec. 19).
The management of waste near the coast impacts on marine habitat. Three recommendations
deal with it, two of which are specific to works activities, while the other involves collection
and analysis of information prior to implement a major programme to change community
behaviour (Recs. 13 to 15).
Finally, the issue of fresh water contamination is addressed with a water-testing regime, to try
to establish whether freshwater is delivering chemical or biological contaminants to the coastal
15

---

waters (Rec. 20).
The recommended actions will assist the two communities of Alofi North and Makefu to take
greater responsibility for managing their coastal fishery, as well as some land-based activities
that affect the fishery. There will be an ongoing need for a government agency to assist the
villages in reviewing and amending their VFMPs as they become better acquainted with the
process and learn more about the resource and its management. The Fisheries Division will be
providing that service to other villages in Niue, and it is expected to do the same for Makefu
and Alofi North after the IWP finishes at the end of 2006. It is understood some increase in
staff capacity will be needed to ensure the momentum generated in undertaking co-
management in the VFMPs is not lost.








16

---

References
Butler, D. J. 2003. National assessment of environmental concerns of Niue. Apia, Samoa:
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme.
Fisk, D.A. 2007a. Niue sustainable coastal fisheries pilot project: literature review and pilot
baseline survey. IWP-Pacific Technical Report no. 38. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the
Pacific Regional Environment Programme.
Fisk, D.A. 2007b. Niue sustainable coastal fisheries pilot project: marine baseline survey.
IWP-Pacific Technical Report no. 39. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the Pacific Regional
Environment Programme.
Fisk, D.A. 2007c. Niue sustainable coastal fisheries pilot project: community-based
monitoring. IWP-Pacific Technical Report no. 40. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the
Pacific Regional Environment Programme.
Niue IWP. 2003. Participatory situation analysis. Summary Report of Village Consultations in
Niue.
Niue IWP. 2004. Host Community Profile Report for Alofi North.
Niue IWP. 2005. Host Community Profile Report for Makefu.
Powell, G. 2007. Review of environment-related legislation in Niue. IWP-Pacific Technical
Report No. 51. Apia Samoa: Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment
Programme.
Powell, G.B. 2007. Analysis of environment-related legislation in Niue. IWP-Pacific Technical
Report No. 53. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment
Programme.















17

---

Appendix 1

Makefu Village Meeting Participants 02/05/04

1. Reverend Faulkland Liuvaie
2. David Poihega (Vice Village Council Chairperson)
3. Charlie Tohovaka (North West Village Council National Task Committee rep)
4. Peta Poihega
5. Fou Tohovaka
6. Maryanne Talagi
7. John Tohovaka
8. Samoa Togakilo
9. Tomrick Tauetule
10. Sione Leolahi (IWP)
11. Ron Paulin (IWP)
12. Peta Misikea (Facilitator)
13. Herman Tagaloamailuga (Facilitator)

Makefu Village Meeting Participants 16/05/04

1. Reverend Faulkland Liuvaie
2. Hon Tofua Puletama (Member of Parliament)
3. David Poihega (Vice Village Council Chairperson)
4. Charlie Tohovaka (North West Village Council National Task Committee rep)
5. Semokolo Talagi
6. Ligimata Talagi
7. Lito Togiatama
8. Thompson Togiatama
9. M. Tuineau
10. Trudy Tohovaka
11. Moka Misihepi
12. Lovely Puletama
13. Iva Barry
14. L. Palemia
15. Aefe Talagi
16. Mary Anne Talagi
17. Kolose Talagi
18. Amanda Palemia
19. Finetea Patuua
20. Fou Aso Tohovaka
21. Nike Misikea
22. Uluvili Tohovaka
23. Iapeta Poihega
24. Maryanne Talagi
25. Sione Leolahi (IWP)
26. Ron Paulin (IWP)
27. Peta Misikea (Facilitator)
28. Herman Tagaloamailuga (Facilitator)
18

---

Appendix 2
Attendance at Alofi North Village Meeting 9 May 2004
1. Pastor Manu Latu
2. Richard Hipa (Chairperson of Village Council)
3. Tuli Heka (Vice Chairperson of village Council)
4. Sefeti Fatiaki (Village Council member)
5. Pao Palahetogia (Village Council member)
6. Talepita Talepita
7. Moka Heka
8. Foahala Foulagi
9. Roberta Sionesini
10. Sifa Tulepu
11. L. Latu
12. Morris Tafatu
13. Fiafia Rex (Fisheries officer)
14. Brendan Pasisi (Principal Fisheries officer)
15. Sae Hipa
16. Lilly Tafatu Hipa
17. Sione Leolahi (IWP)
18. Ron Paulin (IWP)
19. Logo Seumanu (IWP)
20. Herman Tagaloailuga (Facilitator)
21. Peta Misikea (Facilitator)
Attendance at Alofi North Village Meeting 23 May 2004
1. Pastor Latu
2. Va'aiga Tukuitonga (Member of Parliament)
3. Richard Hipa (Chairperson of Village Council)
4. Tuli Heka (Vice Chairperson of village Council)
5. Sefeti Fatiaki (Village Council member)
6. Charlie Tohovaka (North West Village Council National Task Committee rep)
7. Mrs Latu
8. Talepita Talepita
9. Mrs. Hiku
10. Morris Tafatu
11. Nike Misikea
12. Sifa Tulepu
13. Foahala Foulagi
14. Mrs. Foulagi
15. Sione Leolahi (IWP)
16. Ron Paulin (IWP)
17. Peta Misikea (Facilitator)
18. Herman Tagaloailuga (Facilitator)

19

---