Growing the Wealth of the Poor - World Resources Institute

Moreover, households in LMMA villages were more likely to relyon income from sources other than fishing, with 28 percent ofhouseholds in LMMA sites having alternative income sourcesversus only 17 percent in comparable, non-LMMA villages (vanBeukering et al. 2007:28). This increased diversification ofincome sources boosts resilience in the LMMA villages tothreats to future fisheries income from, for instance, theimpacts of reef degradation due to coastal pollution, severestorms, or climate change. This resilience comes with otherLMMA benefits as well, such as planning skills and closercommunity cooperation.Another advantage for LMMA members has been increasedconsumption of fish. Households in LMMA villages eat morefish because they catch more fish. Some 75 percent ofsurveyed households in Navakavu reported eating more fishthan 5 years ago, while 76 percent of households in the control(that is, non-LMMA) villages reported eating less fish (vanBeukering et al. 2007:31).The team also investigated whether the tabu had had anysignificant impacts on fishers. Some 283 fishers were extensivelyinterviewed about their activities, but no significantdifferences between LMMA and non-LMMA villages could bedetected in terms of the types of fish caught, fishingtechniques used, fishing frequency, or travel time to fishinggrounds (van Beukering et al. 2007:24). Yet LMMA sites generatedabout three times the income from fishing as non-LMMAsites (van Beukering et al. 2007:28). The ability of fishers fromLMMA villages to secure larger fish catches from a smallerharvest zone is testament to the substantial spillover effectfrom the tabu area into the harvesting zone (van Beukering etal. 2007:28).The key difference between fishers from LMMA and non-LMMAvillages was in their perceptions of changes in fishing conditionsover the past 5 years. While some 80 percent of fishersfrom LMMA villages said that they faced easier conditions, themajority of fishers from non-LMMA villages said that they facedmore difficult conditions (van Beukering et al. 2007:26).Despite the challenges of achieving full equity in participation,the ongoing work of the iqoliqoli committees has tended tofoster better communication and increased cooperation withinLMMA communities, helping to bridge differences betweenvarious clans. Typically, local councils in LMMA communitiesare called on to make many more collective decisions aboutresource management than was the case before the LMMA’screation. This has revitalized traditional systems of communitycooperation and joint decision-making, thus contributing toincreased social cohesion (van Beukering et al. 2007:15, 17).For instance, a survey of villagers in the Navakavu communityfound that more than 80 percent agreed that since establishmentof the LMMA there has been a higher level of participationin community meetings, women have had a stronger voice, andthe community has become more united. More than 50 percentagreed that youth have more opportunities to share theiropinions and that resource conflicts within the community havedeclined (van Beukering et al. 2007:30).In Votua, another LMMA community, social cohesiveness hasimproved considerably after 3 years of LMMA work. “Throughour engagement with LMMA work…our three clan chiefs arenow talking to each other after decades of disputes,” observedone community member (LMMA Network 2006a:21).43