Ph ot o cr ed it: _ Ka th ar in e M cK in no n/ U ni ve rs ity o f C an be rr a Research roundup and review of fisheries centers in Solomon Islands In partnership withFunded by Authors Paul Tua, Katharine McKinnon, Kerry Woodward, Margaret Batalofo, Faye Siota, Jill Houma, Alick Konamalefo, Delvene Boso, Ben Buga, Hampus Eriksson and Anne-Maree Schwarz. Citation This publication should be cited as: Tua SP, McKinnon K, Woodward K, Batalofo M, Siota F, Houma J, Konamalefo A, Boso D, Buga B, Eriksson H and Schwarz AM. 2024. Research roundup and review of fisheries centers in Solomon Islands. Penang, Malaysia: WorldFish. Program Report: 2024-64 Acknowledgments This research was funded by the Australian Government through the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) project FIS-2019-124. Synthesizing this information would not have been possible without the generous contribution of community members in the vicinity of each of the case study centers, other MFMR officers who supported the surveys in various ways and all of the Provincial Fisheries Division Officers who dedicate their public service to the operation of Provincial Fisheries Centers. Particular recognition is due to the Overseas Fisheries Cooperation Foundation (OFCF) of Japan who have been steadfast partners to the MFMR in provision, training, and maintenance of Provincial Fisheries Center infrastructure. Contact WorldFish Communications and Marketing Department, Jalan Batu Maung, Batu Maung, 11960 Bayan Lepas, Penang, Malaysia. Email: worldfishcenter@cgiar.org Creative Commons License Content in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-commercial use, including reproduction, adaptation and distribution of the publication provided the original work is properly cited. © 2024 WorldFish. Photo credits Front cover, page 16, Katharine McKinnon/University of Canberra; page 16, Anne-Maree Schwarz; page 16, Margaret Batalofo; page 24, Jan van der Ploeg/WorldFish. Research roundup and review of fisheries centers in Solomon Islands mailto:worldfishcenter%40cgiar.org?subject= https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 3 Table of contents 1. Executive summary 4 2. Background 5 3. Governance structures for PFCs and CFCs 7 3.1. PFC governance structures 7 3.2. CFC governance structures 8 4. Operational status of PFCs and CFCs 10 5. Fisheries center services 11 6. Who uses the centers? 12 7. Costs and benefits of fisheries centers 13 7.1. Financial costs 13 7.2. Revenue 13 7.3. Community benefits 14 8. Local community economy 15 9. Reasons for PFCs and CFCs not operating 17 9.1. Infrastructure 17 9.2. Governance 17 9.3. Tenure 17 9.4. Financial capital 18 9.5. Circulation of cash 18 10. Opportunities for improved services 19 10.1. Improved and/or expanded cold storage 19 10.2. Center management 19 10.3. Expanding markets for PFCs and CFCs 20 10.4. Education and training services 21 10.5. Sustainability and resource management 21 11. Exploring new concepts for fisheries centers in the 21st century 23 12. Recommendations 25 12.1. Overall recommendations 26 12.2. Recommendations for PFCs 27 12.3. Recommendations for CFCs 27 References 28 Notes 30 4 1. Executive summary This report summarizes information on three main types of infrastructure in rural areas of Solomon Islands that have the potential to provide services related to fisheries: 1. Provincial Fisheries Centers (PFCs): PFCs have been the primary infrastructure of national and provincial governments to deliver services related to fish-based livelihoods for more than 40 years. They are located in provincial capitals and include some subcenters. 2. Constituency Fisheries Centers (CFCs): CFCs are a government initiative to increase community access to fisheries-related services. They are smaller and intended to be based at the level of one per constituency. 3. Community Fish Storage Facilities (CFSFs): CFSFs provide chest freezers, powered by various means, at the family, individual or community level. They have been established primarily through private initiatives or initiatives supported by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) collected information on PFCs and CFCs between 2019 and 2023. This report supports the MFMR’s objective to review and strengthen services at fisheries centers in all provinces of Solomon Islands. To that end, the status of various models in the country is presented alongside findings of how men and women use the centers and how centers contribute to community livelihood strategies. Opportunities to improve service delivery through existing and new infrastructure are presented as recommendations. As part of this study, a stocktake found that 15 out of 25 PFCs and 2 out of 14 CFCs were providing services related to fisheries in 2022. However, the two operational CFCs stopped providing services soon afterward because of broken equipment, although the infrastructure remains. PFCs provide many services to support fishers and other communities members. These services include ice, cold storage, equipment, fish purchases and sales, administration, and community awareness and training. CFCs provide a narrower range of services, largely confined to cold storage, fundraising activities, and support for other community activities such as church events (Saint Days, feasting) and school-ending functions. Research participants saw value in the services provided by both PFCs and CFCs. Centers support local economies in various ways, such as marketing fish and non-fish goods, offering storage in support of community events and fundraising, providing some fisheries education and training as well as direct employment opportunities, and building social networks. CFCs were valued because they help women conduct income-generating activities by providing access to cold storage for fish, meat and drinks, and reducing the burden of early morning work in preparing fish. However, men dominate governance at all of the centers, despite women making up a significant proportion of users. A lack of transparency and equity in center management was a concern for community members in both the CFC and PFC case studies, as was a lack of fulfillment or clarity about devolved responsibilities for center management and equipment maintenance. In conclusion, the study identified four main considerations with respect to reviewing and strengthening services at the fisheries centers in all of the provinces. A set of recommendations responding to these considerations is summarized as follows: 1. Governance and participation: • Establish clear responsibilities for fisheries centers. • Build the capacity of fisheries centers for gender equity. 2. Planning: • Conduct place-based planning to refurbish existing facilities and/or construct new ones. • Improve training and capacity building opportunities. 3. Integration of services: • Avoid replicating or competing with existing markets. 4. Costs: • Explore low-cost alternatives. • Assess feasibility prior to investment. • Address transportation links. 5 Coastal fisheries are critical to the livelihoods and food security of Solomon Islanders and are a vibrant economic sector centered around dispersed informal practices and fish trade. The Solomon Islands 2019 Population and Housing Census reported that about 47% of all households were engaged in fishing and gathering invertebrates for livelihood and food security (SIG 2023). Of these, over half (51.7%) fished for their own consumption, 46.7% for both consumption and sale, and less than 2% for the sole purpose of selling their catch. Of those who fished, more men (57.4%) than women (38.9%) fished for reef fish, and more women (24.6%) than men (2.6%) gathered invertebrates (SIG 2023). Between 2005 and 2007, approximately 1500 t of coastal fisheries, worth about SBD 12 million, were traded annually for local consumption (Gillet 2009). This estimate was based on direct value from fishers who sell their fish at domestic markets and fisheries centers, and it excluded value adding and other costs associated with urban fish markets, such as the central market in Honiara (Brewer 2011). Using data from the country’s national Household Income and Expenditure Surveys, Roscher et al. (2023) estimate that the total household value of fish in Solomon Islands is SBD 504 million (AUD 90 million) per year, including cash sales, the value of home production and the value of gifts received. In 2024, the Solomon Islands Government of National Unity and Transformation (GNUT) launched its 100 Days Program, which outlines the government’s plan for its initial period in office. As part of this program, the government outlines key objectives and targets for each ministry. One of the objectives for the MFMR is to “review and strengthen fisheries centres’ services in all provinces” (SIGNUT 2024a). Additionally, one of GNUT’s policies that goes beyond the initial period of government is for the Ministry of Rural Development (MRD) “to prioritise the establishment of Constituency Development Growth Centres in all constituencies to decentralise development activities and provide government services to rural areas” (SIGNUT 2024b). A key aspiration in support of this is for the MRD and MFMR to collaborate and streamline 2. Background priority areas in the coastal fisheries sector to enable and strengthen fisheries centers and extension services. Since 1979, fisheries centers have been established in Solomon Islands in an effort to support fish- based livelihoods and domestic markets for coastal fisheries, often integrated with fleet mechanization and modernization efforts (JICA 1984; Boape 1999). These centers provide services such as buying and selling fish, cold storage, information for fisheries management and regulation, training and, in some provinces, transportation for fishers. There have been several distinct models of fisheries centers in Solomon Islands over the years, but two main types now dominate: 1. PFCs have been constructed and equipped through the MFMR, with funding from international donor agencies, and are managed by provincial governments. 2. CFCs have been constructed (beginning in 2017) to serve individual constituencies using the government’s development budget and are managed by center committees. PFCs and CFCs are, or have the potential to be, valuable assets for the national government and coastal communities. Fisheries centers support local livelihoods by (i) providing freezers for cold storage and selling ice and also (ii) buying and selling fish. CFC cold storage has also helped market non-fish products, while PFCs have provided education and training and have rented out outboard motors (OBMs) and eskies, which are portable insulated containers for keeping food or drinks cool. However, many PFCs have since fallen into disrepair, and no CFCs remain operational. Recently, as part of joint research between the MFMR, WorldFish, the University of Wollongong and the University of Canberra, a comprehensive assessment was undertaken to better understand the livelihood benefits of different fisheries center models in Solomon Islands. The research focused on the operational status of each center, associated extension and livelihood services provided by the centers 6 and people’s well-being in relation to these services. Additionally, attention was given to the different ways that men and women participate, access, use and benefit from the facilities. This report draws on the following data: • MFMR Frame Survey: The survey was conducted in 2019–2020 at five PFCs (Bahana, Buala and Tataba in Isabel Province, Gizo in Western Province and Lata in Temotu Province) and two CFCs (Foufo in Malaita Province and Sasamunga in Choiseul Province), both of which were operational at the time. The survey included key informant interviews with 87 males and 42 females, individual interviews with 139 males and 79 females, and focus group discussions with 95 males and 49 females. In total, 335 men and 170 women were involved in the research. • Case studies: These were conducted in 2022 and 2023 on two PFCs (Buala and Lata) and two CFCs (Foufo and Sasamunga) as part of joint research between the MFMR, WorldFish, University of Canberra and the University of Wollongong. Gendered participatory workshops were held for 78 males and 51 females, and interviews were conducted with 17 males and 15 females. The aim was to better understand how fisheries centers contribute to local livelihoods and support the well-being of local communities. • Interviews with nine provincial fisheries officers (PFOs): These were conducted at the MFMR’s annual PFO conference in Honiara in 2022. • Information on the current operational status of PFCs and CFCs: To fill in any gaps, information gathered throughout the country was synthesized from the frame survey, from interviews with PFOs at the 2022 conference and from one-on-one follow-up discussions with PFOs. This report draws on the results of the joint research to provide an evidence base to strengthen services at the fisheries centers and their contribution to livelihoods in coastal communities. The report aims to contribute to the MFMR’s objective to review and strengthen the services at these centers in all provinces. 7 All fisheries centers in the provinces are officially under the administration of the Provincial Fisheries Division (PFD) of the MFMR. The 2015 Fisheries Management Act states that “each Provincial Government shall have primary responsibility for the conservation, management, development and sustainable use of fisheries resources within its provincial waters. ”Mirroring this principle, the MFMR Corporate Plan 2020–2023 states that the PFD “supports provincial governments to develop fisheries business opportunities and to promote ecologically sustainable management of fisheries in provincial waters” (MFMR Corporate Plan 2020, 10). It is the responsibility of PFD staff in Honiara and PFOs based in the provinces, comprising seconded officers from the MFMR and officers appointed by each provincial government, to plan and deliver services in support of the act and the corporate plan. The MFMR posts seconded officers in the provinces to act as its agent or voice in the provincial government. PFOs have multiple responsibilities, in part to deliver national government services but also to implement provincial government priorities for the fisheries sector in each province. PFOs report to, and are supervised by, both the provincial secretary of their respective provincial governments and the deputy director of the PFD in Honiara. In recent years, as part of the MFMR's restructuring to improve services, the PFD has reached out to provincial secretaries to have joint discussions on relative responsibilities at the national and provincial levels. The PFD also holds annual PFO meetings in Honiara to improve support and to address issues raised by seconded officers within the nine provinces. Provincial governments have tended to rely on the national government to maintain fisheries infrastructure even when those budgets do not always exist, unless supported by a donor partner. Observations by a focus group for Gizo PFC users in the community of Saeraghi in Western Province emphasized this point: “Future developments and aspirations for the fisheries centers should be left to the national government to manage and take control of all the center operations, management and administration … Leave the PFCs to MFMR to manage and oversee all its operations.” — male respondent, MFMR focus group, Gizo, 2020 In practice, PFCs and CFCs currently operate at a geographical distance from the MFMR’s headquarters in Honiara, and both have fundamentally different core funding and governance structures. 3.1. PFC governance structures By 1999, 30 PFCs had been built in Solomon Islands, with technical assistance from Japan, the United States, the European Union, Canada and The Nature Conservancy (Boape 1999). PFCs have primarily been built on crown land in provincial centers or satellite towns. Some PFCs are linked with smaller subcenters, some of which have been built on customary land via lease agreements between the provincial government and tribal landowners, dating back to the 1990s. PFCs are expected to provide services to fishers (Section 5) and earn revenue that goes directly back into the provincial government treasury to help deliver services. Figure 1 summarizes the financial arrangements and responsibilities of PFCs. Donor support for the MFMR was used to construct PFCs and purchase ice-making equipment, freezers, generators and other equipment. The MFMR provides limited support for equipment maintenance by maintaining engineering expertise among staff in Honiara, with funding both from the Solomon Islands Government and donor partners, and through the secondment of PFOs to the provinces. Otherwise, the responsibility for sustainable financing and management of the centers is devolved to each provincial government. In some cases this is operationalised through a lease to a private operater. The statutory devolution of powers for the fisheries sector determines 3. Governance structures for PFCs and CFCs 8 that the provincial government takes control of the PFC to maintain and expand development aspirations. This arrangement emphasizes the need for provincial governments to have an investment plan or strategy for the center’s operation as a business, keeping the center functioning well and continuously, and enabling local fishers and others to use the centers. National government (MFMR) Provincial governments PFCs in nine provinces Communities/users Donor support for the MFMR Center operations to maintain delivery of services Transfer of functions: devolution of powers and responsibilities Figure 1. Financial arrangements and responsibilities of PFCs. 3.2. CFC governance structures In contrast to PFCs, the national government fully funded the construction of CFCs through its development budget. The MFMR’s 2018 Annual Report explains that “the CFC program is a flagship project of the Democratic Coalition for Change Government (DCCG) which aims to build one fisheries centre for each of the 50 constituencies of Solomon Islands.” The CFC concept was aligned to the DCCG’s policy objective to improve and strengthen the contribution of small-scale fisheries to alleviate poverty, improve food and nutrition security and increase the socioeconomic benefits of fishing communities. CFCs aimed to deliver more services to all constituencies and act as an avenue for rural economic opportunities. As CFCs were aligned to policy for the fisheries sector, the MFMR was the lead agency for their construction. The locations for CFCs were identified by the relevant member of parliament in each constituency. In 2017, the PFD work program, supported by the MFMR’s Policy, Planning and Project Management Division,1 was focused on preparing and constructing the CFCs (MFMR 2017). Ten out of the 20 CFCs that were initially allocated funding in the 2017 development budget were completed and furnished with solar powered freezers. The intention was that the MFMR would hand over the completed centers to a constituency committee, sanctioned by the relevant member of parliament, in 2018. In its 2017 annual report, the MFMR highlighted that “there were a lot of challenges encountered in the implementation of this program due to Government financial processes and also the geographical location of the centres.” In late 2017, a vote of no confidence removed the prime minister at the time, and the Solomon Islands Democratic Coalition for Change Government (SIDCCG) assumed power on November 15, 2017. With only 1 year remaining until the 10th parliament was due to be dissolved on December 17, 2018, the SIDCCG confirmed in its policy statement that the “constituency fisheries project under the Ministry of Fisheries will be ongoing.”2 By 2018, the MFMR’s annual report (MFMR 2018a) stated that “due to shortage of funds and other factors such as land issues” only 13 CFCs were complete, with an additional three partly complete. 9 Prior to the MFMR handing over completed CFCs to a constituency committee, it hired a national consultant through the New Zealand- funded Mekem Strong Solomon Islands Fisheries Programme (MSSIF) to conduct governance planning workshops for community members in the areas of all of the completed CFCs (MFMR 2017). Arrangements were made with the constituency office at the completed CFCs, and at each of the governance planning workshops the following was explained: “The CFC was part of the DCCG intention to spread economic benefits to rural areas. Hence, the Government worked with the MFMR to build the infrastructure, and it is a national initiative. The aim was to help people to operate and benefit from such development in the rural areas. The MFMR hired contractors to build the CFCs. It was part of the plan to have a local management arrangement and an action plan structure. The local management group then shall be responsible for all the facets of the CFC. MFMR will provide support to the CFC based on an MOU arrangement to come after this workshop” (MFMR 2018b). CFCs have been built on customary or privately (e.g. Sasamunga) owned land as determined in consultation with each constituency office. Memorandums of understanding (MOU), developed at the time of handover from the MFMR to the constituency, did not spell out land arrangements. Rather, the MOUs spelled out an expectation for the constituency administration to continue to support the centers’ operation and for the CFCs to be managed by a center committee formed by the communities or from the relevant constituency office. The MFMR provided three solar freezers, a fish aggregating device (FAD), a boat and an engine to each completed CFC and aimed to identify relevant training, but CFCs were otherwise expected to be self-sustaining with no ongoing funding provided by either the provincial or national government. With the formation of a new government after elections in 2019, and with new priorities, no further government funds were allocated to the CFC construction project. National government (MFMR) CFC committee Communities/users MRD Constituency o�ce Figure 2. Financial arrangements and responsibilities of the CFCs. 10 4. Operational status of PFCs and CFCs Although 30 PFCs were referred to as having been built by 1999 (Boape 1999), most of them were subsequently described as having fallen into disrepair once aid funding ceased (Gillet 2010). This study was able to identify the operational status of 25 PFCs, of which 15 were operational. Of a total of 14 completed CFCs, only the ones in Foufo and Sasamunga were still operating in 2022. However, at the time of the case study research conducted in late 2022 and early 2023, both had stopped operating because of ongoing technical difficulties that affected their ability to provide cold storage. The locations of these centers, their operational status, services provided, landownership and type of administration are summarized in Figure 3. Note: Previously there was a PFC at Nialo, which is in disrepair and no longer used. More recently a fisheries center was built and funded by the constituency. The MFMR may provide support with equipment and training. Figure 3. Location of centers and a summary of operational status, services provided, landownership and the type of administration (2022). 11 PFCs have been described as being generally equipped with ice-making and/or cold storage facilities, and they were intended to serve as market outlets for fish caught by rural fishers, sell fishing gear, and provide training in new fishing techniques and improved catch handling (Gillet 2010). As Figure 3 shows, PFCs currently provide many services to support fishers and communities, but each center provides a different range of services: 1. Ice-making and sales: Fifteen PFCs make and sell blocks of ice and crushed ice to fishers and fishing communities. 2. Cold storage facility: Thirteen PFCs provide some form of cold storage facility. Some centers provide fish storage facilities, where fishers can store their catch before selling it, while some use freezers to store ready-made ice blocks for purchase. Other PFCs buy fish from fishers and store them at the centers to sell to customers. Apart from fish, some of the PFCs provide cold storage for other frozen goods, such as frozen meat and cool drinks for individuals, business houses, community groups, etc. 3. Eskies/coolers for fishers for fishing trips: Four centers provide fishers with eskies to use when they go out to fish. The idea is to support post-harvest fish handling to keep the fish fresh. 4. Fish sales and buying from fishers: Four PFCs purchase fish from fishers, while five PFCs sell fish to markets or customers. 5. Equipment: In the past, some centers have provided access to fishing equipment that was sold to fishers and other interested customers who visited the center. Some centers also provide OBM and eskies. 6. Administration: Some centers provide administration support to the fisheries sector in which they are located. As a link between the MFMR and communities, they also raise awareness of the national fisheries regulations, provide enforcement, assist students on fisheries-related research topics (such as seaweed farming and coral farming) and provide advice to personnel who visit the center in regards to fish handling and post-harvest practices. The two CFCs included in the study provided a much narrower range of services to fishers and communities. Since construction, services have included small-scale ice-making, sales from solar freezers and buying and selling fish (Tua et al. 2020). However, prior to collecting the data for the case studies, services were limited to the following: 1. Cold storage: The two CFCs store fish as well as other frozen meat products and consumer goods such as drinks and ice blocks. Storage is accessible to community members for a fee and to support community activities such as church feasts and school fundraisers. 2. Fundraising: Some CFCs have been used for purposes such as accommodation and have hired out assets in order to raise funds to keep the center running. 5. Fisheries center services 12 accessing centers to store fish and purchase blocks of ice, and one female respondent in Gizo said that the PFC there is equally accessed by men and women fishers. The data shows that it is not only individual men and women who access center services but a range of groups, including business houses, church groups and schools (Figure 4). Both women and men use and benefit from access to fisheries centers, although the perception can be that mostly men access PFCs. For example, a female respondent from one PFC in Isabel Province stated that only men use the center, although a male respondent stated that women also accessed the same one. Women did report 6. Who uses the centers? U se rs o f t he � sh er ie s ce nt er s Women's groups Number of centers Other individuals (public) Fishers Schools Church groups Private vendors Hospital Businesses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Note: Based on data collected in the MFMR’s frame survey 2019–2020. Figure 4. Clients who access services provided by either PFCs (n=5) or CFCs (n=2). Participants predominantly said that there were no deliberate barriers to accessing CFCs; however, men did dominate management and committees at these centers: “I don’t have a record of the committee during the operation period with me, but we have a management structure that doesn’t involve women. But it would be better to include women in the structure next time the centre is operated.” — male respondent, interview, Sasamunga, 2023 Additionally, the MFMR’s initial CFC management workshop report for Sasamunga from December 2017 states the following: “Only two female participants attended the workshop as representing women and young girls. This was not surprising, as the majority of the mothers and young girls were involved in catering and their preparation for the Girls Brigade Convention to be held at Panggoe village beginning the following Monday.” There is capacity for women to become more involved in decision-making and management at these centers. If they were more involved in the operations, the centers would likely be better able to reflect the needs and aspirations of women. 13 A detailed cost-benefit analysis of fisheries centers was not able to be conducted. However, data collected from fisheries center managers and community interviews does offer insights into center operations and raise key points for future research. 7.1. Financial costs According to the MFMR manager who oversaw the construction and equipping of the CFCs, one CFC cost between SBD 900,000 and SBD 1.3 million (Ben Buga, personal communication, 2023). The MOUs between the MFMR and the constituency offices in which the CFCs are located state that the constituency office will “be responsible, or allocate responsibility for all maintenance of buildings and equipment and seek or allocate funding for that purpose.” That does not appear to have happened. The capital investment for the PFCs has been borne by a number of different donors over more than a 30-year period. Maintenance and refurbishment costs vary greatly depending on the proximity of the site to Honiara and transportation options available. As an indication, in 2014–2016, the New Zealand- funded MSSIF program refurbished the existing PFC in Lata. This required an investment of SBD 1.78 million3 for the construction contract alone, excluding travel for MFMR officers from Honiara to monitor and oversee it, as well as any replacement equipment. Significant capital costs to replace large items at PFCs such as ice machines and generators are borne by the MFMR through long established donor relationships, primarily with the Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation of Japan (OFCF) through the OFCF Fisheries Development Assistance for Pacific Island Nations (FDAPIN) project. The MFMR’s frame survey in 2020 documented income and expenditures for five PFCs, as reported by managers at these centers. The data shows that provincial governments have a number of recurrent costs associated with the production of ice for sale and fish marketing, including labor, fuel, electricity, water, fish buying and freight. These costs vary from center to center. Buala, Gizo and Lata are located in provincial town centers, and they have expenses such as electricity and water bills. For Buala and Gizo, these bills were directly paid by the provincial treasurer office, but the Lata office pays these bills directly out of the center’s income. Bahana and Tataba are remote and so use generators for power. Therefore, they incur weekly fuel costs of SBD 480 to run the ice machine and SBD 1600 to produce ice blocks. The costs associated with fish marketing apply in Buala, Lata and Tataba. All three centers incurred costs to buy fish, while Lata and Tataba reported additional costs associated with electricity and labor. Tataba also reported costs for freight, fuel and ice blocks for fish. 7.2. Revenue When the two CFCs had been generating revenue through their operations, this was, in principle, able to be reinvested into ongoing operations and maintenance of the centers. Until their refrigeration equipment became unreliable, the CFCs raised revenue by charging for cold storage, selling frozen items such as chicken or sausages, renting out generators and OBMs, and selling ice blocks. In one case, one of the CFCs also raised revenue by renting the center for accommodation. In both cases, the revenue raised has not been sufficient to maintain operations or repair/replace malfunctioning equipment. For the PFCs included in the study, all revenue raised goes back to the provincial governments. PFCs raise revenue through a variety of services. All PFCs produce and sell ice blocks. The MFMR frame survey showed that the Isabel Provincial Government could potentially earn SBD 19,470 (gross) per week by selling ice from the three PFCs in the province, although each of them reported widely varying costs. Ice sales at Tataba did not cover the costs of production (electricity, water, fuel, plastic bags and casual labor), while Buala and Bahana both appear to be turning a profit. Only three of the five PFCs in the MFMR frame survey (Tataba, Buala and Lata) reported earning income from fish sales. Fish were purchased for approximately SBD 20/kg, and sold at a minimum 7. Costs and benefits of fisheries centers 14 markup of approximately SBD 25/kg, which varied depending on species and quality. Tataba markets its fish to Honiara, and center managers reported significant weekly revenue from fish sales (SBD 15,000), which provided the center with a net weekly income of SBD 1665 once costs had been accounted for. Net revenue from fish sales for Buala and Lata were reported to be much lower, with Buala reporting revenue of only SBD 210, while Lata estimated a net loss. The Lata and Tataba PFCs also rented out OBMs and eskies. Lata charged the highest for its OBMs, at SBD 500, plus another SBD 500 for the ray boat per trip, while Tataba only charged SBD 500 per trip for both the engine and ray boat. Storage fees provided approximately SBD 100–200 of revenue per week for Gizo and Tataba. The PFCs’ operations depend on provincial budget allocations. PFOs request funds from the fisheries budget through a special imprest request to the provincial treasurer. The funds are to be retired after use and must satisfy provincial financial instructions before another tranche of funds is released for operation. All the money collected from the PFCs has to be deposited either to the provincial treasurer office or directly to the provincial account with receipts presented to the treasurer office. The release of new funds will be held back if there are any queries from the treasury or delays in the PFO completing the acquittal. If funds are delayed, there will be no funds on hand to purchase fish from fishers. 7.3. Community benefits The research from the case studies demonstrates that communities located near PFCs and CFCs benefit in a range of ways, both direct and indirect, from the services provided through the centers. In the first instance, the building itself is a major asset to communities, as it can be used for a range of activities including fish processing, training and education, as well as a community hub. Other benefits are expanded upon in Table 1. Benefit Description Income generating opportunities Cold storage and access to ice for community use is a key service provided by fisheries centers. Access to cold storage for fish and other products increased income opportunities for both men and women. Community members had greater marketing opportunities for their fisheries catch, enabling them to store their catches safely for later sale. “[I]n our community, we have fishermen that usually go out to catch fish, and sometimes they catch more than what they need. So, the center helps these fishermen to take their fish to the center, where they can scale their fish and receive money, and their fish is stored there. Then, it is up to the managers to price the fish for sale to the public. So, I see that the center is a good thing for my people in the community.” — female respondent, interview, Sasamunga, 2023 Access to ice also enabled community members to market their fish farther away, extending the reach of local aquatic foods and providing greater marketing opportunities. PFCs that purchase fish from fishers provide incomes for fishers when they sell their catch; the money is then used for household goods and school fees. It also means that they do not have to “sit under the sun all day to sell their fish,” according to an interview with a male respondent interview in Lata in 2023, nor lower the price of the fish in order to sell them before they spoil. Food security The cold storage provided by fisheries centers ensures the availability of good quality fish and enables consistency of fish supply, which is important for food security: “What I benefited a lot from is the availability of fish. Sometimes, the weather goes bad, and most fishermen could not go out fishing. Yet we can still be able to have easy access to fish because of our location nearby.” — female respondent, interview, Lata, 2023 Consistency of supply also supports income generating activities, such as the production of fish and chips for sale at the market: “I sometimes sell fish and chips at the market, and even during bad weather the fishery (center) would provide fish for us to maintain our stock.” — female respondent, interview, Lata, 2023 Educational opportunities (PFCs) Both PFCs included in the case studies support management of reef ecosystems and sustainable fisheries by disseminating information to local community members. Participants commented that Buala also contributed by raising awareness of not buying and selling undersized fish, which people elsewhere in the community do. “They also came and did awareness regarding the (fisheries) regulations.” — female participant, workshop, Buala, 2023 Employment opportunities The CFCs used the income earned from renting out OBMs and generators, accommodations and storage fees to pay women and youths to care for and clean the centers, thus creating direct employment opportunities. The PFCs also hired local community members to clean and care for gardens on a casual or day-by-day basis. Strengthening social networks (CFCs) The CFCs offered a place to strengthen or build social networks in cases where community members are actively involved in the management of the CFC, contributing time and labor to manage and maintain the center. Additionally, the CFCs supported the community by storing goods for events and providing shelter from cyclones. Table 1. Benefit to communities from having access to fisheries centers (CFCs/PFCs). 15 In each case study site, research was conducted to identify the diversity of economic activities upon which local livelihoods are based, with a focus on how fisheries centers have contributed to livelihoods. The diagram in Figure 5 is based on the “floating coconut” method, which represents the types of economic activities that community members undertake, including formal, informal and non-cash activities. The floating coconut method was developed for the Pacific Island context in which informal economic activities make up the largest proportion of people’s livelihoods (Carnegie et al. 2013; Carnegie et al. 2019; McKinnon 2016). Formal economic activities are shown “above the waterline,” while “below the waterline” are the informal and social economies, which make up the larger portion of people’s livelihoods. The tool was developed to assist rural development programming in recognizing the breadth of informal and care work that are vital to local livelihoods in the Pacific. Excessive focus on markets and formal paid work in livelihood policy and development can result in maladaptive outcomes, especially in rural areas in the Pacific (Vunibola 2023). A focus on the formal economy can be inappropriate to communities with limited opportunities to engage with capitalist markets and work. It may even undermine informal economic activities that build rural livelihoods, such as non-capitalist work, social relations, and commitments like childcare and cultural events, or informal activities and reciprocity that build and maintain networks. Participants across the four case study sites summarized a substantial engagement with below the waterline activities (Figure 5). 8. Local community economy Figure 5. Diverse economies of community members at four case study fisheries centers. 16 The presence of functioning fisheries centers supported a range of informal economic activities and relations, beyond just activities associated with fisheries. This included activities that support the following: • The cash economy: This included (i) functioning as a fish market, (ii) providing cold storage (ice or freezers), which allowed later sales of fish and sales to distant markets, (iii) marketing a wider range of goods that supported women’s incomes, (iv) providing employment for community members, (v) and generating income for CFCs through storage fees that supported employment of center managers. • The non-cash economy: This included (i) providing cold storage of fish and other goods for later consumption and (ii) reducing women’s workload to free them up for other economic activities. • The social economy: This included (i) providing cold storage of goods for community events and fundraising, (ii) providing a good quality building for meetings, events and shelter from cyclones, and (iii) providing a community institution with potential to build social capital and trust, particularly for CFCs. The floating coconut here (Figure 5) is a composite of "coconuts" generated by community members during workshops. In separate groups, women and men collaborated to build an inventory of the diverse economic activities they undertake to support themselves and their households. The coconut shows in yellow those activities mentioned only by women, purple for those mentioned only by men, and white for activities that were mentioned by both. Our analysis revealed that informal economic activities were more prevalent than formal economic ones in the four sites. There were few formal cash generating activities reported, as economic activities in the communities are predominantly informal and social. Workshop data showed that both women and men engaged in a wide range of informal cash generating activities, non-cash work (such as fishing, gleaning and gardening for consumption), and unpaid and care work for the household and community. However, women at the case study sites undertook a greater range of tasks for their household and for the community than did men. They also took more responsibility for care work, such as cleaning, childcare, washing clothes and family management, providing food for various community events or groups, and helping and caring for older or ill people and people with a disability. Ph ot o cr ed it: Ja n va n de r P lo eg /W or ld Fi sh Box 1. CFCs can support women’s income generating activities Having access to cold storage and ice for storing and preserving fish, chicken, pork and drinks helped support women with income generating activities. Women said that they used the centers to (i) cool drinks they sell at community events and church fundraisers, (2) store fish that they use for making and selling fish and chips, (iii) store frozen goods and (iv) store juice to be sold. Moreover, there was some indication that cold storage reduced women’s workload. An example was given of how access to cold storage also eased women’s workload in one of the case study communities, as the possibility to store fish in a freezer meant women did not have to work through the night to process the fish: “It was good because prior to this development whenever we return with a small catch at night our wives always struggle to preserve them using local stone oven. However, since the introduction of this CFC, it eased women’s burden at night. Returning with our catches, we just stored the fish in the freezers. That was the good thing we observed about the freezer. At the moment [since the freezer has not been working], it seems that we’ve returned to our original practices before the introduction of the CFC.” — male respondent, Foufou, 2023 17 Participants recognize the stated benefits that PFCs and CFCs can bring to rural fishers. During our 2020 survey, however, 28% of the PFCs and 86% of the CFCs were not operational. The research confirmed some long-recognized issues that have been identified over the years (e.g. Boape 1999, Gillet 2010, MSSIF Assessment Report 2014) as well as some contemporary problems, such as maintaining relatively new technology, like solar freezers. 9.1. Infrastructure The services provided by both PFCs and CFCs rely on expensive equipment that requires regular maintenance. Both CFCs in the study had ceased operating because of broken freezers or problems with solar power and batteries, and they require financial and technical support to address these problems. Community members strongly supported getting the centers operational again and expanding the infrastructure available to include ice production, expanded storage and fishing equipment. Because of their support and funding from both the national and provincial government, the PFCs did not appear to have the same problems. However, participants did recommend expanding the services at these centers to provide more storage to meet community demand. This included the possibility of building additional subcenters to increase community access and also adding new services, such as providing fishing gear and fish processing facilities. 9.2. Governance In both the CFC and PFC case studies, participants were concerned with how the centers were governed and/or the lack of transparency and equity in management. For CFCs in particular, it was unclear how funding for larger maintenance costs should be obtained. In some cases, contested understandings of which agencies are responsible, especially for larger infrastructure or repairs, has been a barrier to ongoing/optimal function of fisheries centers. Men dominate governance at all centers, despite women making up a significant proportion of users of both CFCs and PFCs. In some of the case study sites, women called for improvements in governance and access. Specifically, they thought the CFCs should provide fair access to all, particularly women and children, in support of small fish marketing. They also felt the CFCs would benefit from employing someone with fisheries expertise or someone from the MFMR and that clarifying the center’s role would improve community service. At the two CFCs, the make-up of management committees and the transparency of the process for appointing committee members were both of concern. The Sasamunga CFC, for example, is sited on church land, and only members of that church were committee members. This created a situation where members of other denominations were hesitant to access the center. There were also concerns that committee members did not take their responsibilities seriously enough, contributing to the failure to fix technical problems with center infrastructure. At the Foufo CFC, the management committee was made up of people from the “same bloodline and family connection,” according to a 2023 interview with a male respondent who believed that this family connection would diminish conflict within the committee. 9.3. Tenure Tenure arrangements were another concern for community members in the case study communities. At the Lata PFC, for example, the center is built on customary land that has been leased to the provincial government. Men in the community were concerned that this arrangement puts the center at risk from future development. For some PFCs, leases with customary landowners have expired and have not been renewed or reviewed to ensure that the conditions satisfy the present time. An example was given of a sub- center lease with an annual land rent of SBD 14 to be paid by the province to the land-owning group in which the PFC is situated. This falls well short of a present-day lease arrangement, and the PFC in 9. Reasons for PFCs and CFCs not operating 18 question is no longer operating, as an agreement has not been reached on a revision (Fisheries officer, personal communication, 2020). 9.4. Financial capital For both the PFCs and CFCs, a lack of financial capital made it difficult for them to operate effectively. At the case study CFCs, participants reported that the center did not have the start-up capital needed to operate as a fish market: “One of the main problems was there was no money to start off the operation, and that was capital to buy fish from the people. So, managers asked the fisheries (center) if they can provide storage service to start the operation.” — male participant, workshop, Sasamunga, 2023 A lack of financial capital was also an issue for the PFCs. Participants stated that at times “there was not enough money to pay for fish,” according to a male participant from Buala at the 2023 workshop, and “sometimes when customers came they would say wait for tomorrow because there is neither cash nor fish in the fishery center,” according to an interview with another male respondent in Lata in 2023. Respondents also complained that the centers did not provide enough fishing gear. 9.5. Circulation of cash A lack of available cash in the communities makes it difficult for the fisheries centers to operate as fish markets, and this may prove a barrier to future expansion of marketing opportunities. Participants mentioned that they often struggle to sell fish and garden produce: “We can fish, but there is no one to buy in the community.” — male participant, workshop, Lata, 2023 “Cash circulation in communities is low.” — female participant, workshop, Lata, 2023 At the same time, cash is becoming increasingly important for people to live well, which has impacted economic relations: “Now any work is not for free; even brothers like me and Peter. If I want Peter to do any work for me, I have to pay for his time, though he is my brother.” — male participant, workshop, Buala 2023 The low levels of cash in circulation in communities, alongside the shift away from non-cash exchange of goods and labor, which used to be vital for community economies, is a major challenge for the operation of centers based on a cash economy. 19 Fisheries centers have the potential to strengthen the range of benefits provided to communities. As detailed in Section 10.1, this could include putting in place center management structures that represent and respond to local communities, supporting access to expanded and alternative markets and offering greater education and training opportunities. 10.1. Improved and/or expanded cold storage Participating communities valued the cold storage service provided by the CFCs and PFCs. In Foufo and Sasamunga, participants wanted their CFC’s freezer and solar battery systems to be repaired so that they could once again store fish for marketing purposes and for community events: “My wish is for the center to be up and running again. To do that, we may need support from the fishery [center] to guide and facilitate the things because we lacked capacity to drive the change.” — female respondent, interview, Foufo, 2023 “I want the fishery [center] to be fully functional in order to help us achieve our goals. The center must be consistent in its operation and service in order for the community to use and benefit from it.” — male respondent, interview, Sasamunga, 2023 For CFCs, communities spoke of ongoing issues with cold storage equipment. In light of this, equipping CFCs with quality cold storage and electrical equipment is important for their ongoing operation. Ensuring that equipment is fit for purpose is also important. For instance, participants pointed to a need for backup generators, because solar batteries, even when functioning properly, could not charge sufficiently in bad weather to run the freezers. Linked to the quality of equipment is a need for technical training to ensure that center management has the skills required to maintain electrical equipment. Across the case studies, participants also recommended that the CFCs increase the capacity of their freezer to meet the needs and demand of the community: “Bigger or more freezers, as sometimes the current freezers do not cater for the number of fish people bring to the CFC for storage.” — female participant, MFMR focus group, Foufo, 2020 “The center needs further improvement. They need to have a bigger deep freezer or cool storage system to accommodate larger amounts of fish and to maintain the freshness and quality of fish.” — male respondent, interview, Lata, 2023 Participants also expressed their desire for centers to expand the range of services they offer. In the CFC case studies, participants recommended that the centers provide ice blocks and eskies to support fish marketing, while PFC participants suggested the centers could provide eskies and ice slurries. 10.2. Center management Across the case studies, participants felt that better management would help the fisheries centers operate more effectively. In Buala, the community was concerned that the PFC was not always managed by staff that were conscientious about fulfilling their duties. while in Lata, the community believed the most recent manager had turned things around for the better at the PFC. Still, participants felt that the provincial government did not care about the center and that the manager could use some support in running it, as too many duties meant the manager was not always available to fishers. Stakeholders at the provincial level proposed several ideas to improve services. These included suggestions that (i) PFCs should develop into a business arm of the provincial government, according to a key informant from Temotu Province, or that (ii) a revived fishers association could operate the PFCs in Western Province, as told by a key informant from Gizo in Western Province. 10. Opportunities for improved services 20 “I have one suggestion. I think the center should be re-administered and looked after by the ministry. This is to do away with the province collecting revenue and misusing them while having no consideration for the needs of the people to further expand and improve the services provided by the fishery center.” — male respondent, interview, Lata, 2023 “Besides, there should be an officer to do the market and look after the center because we cannot depend on the manager all the time since he was working in the office. Not only that, but also there are times that we took a taxi to the center and found out that it was closed with no one around in the center.” — female respondent, interview, Lata, 2023 At the CFCs, the story was different. Communities wanted center management, who have the skills and knowledge, to help local fishers increase their catch, deliver training in fish handling and support marketing. In Sasamunga, people also called for independent management of the CFC: “The center would benefit from employing someone with fisheries expertise.” — women participants, MFMR focus group, Sasamunga, 2020 At both CFCs, the center management committee could be more diverse and reflective of the broader communities they operate within. The research showed that CFC committees did not reflect the diverse profile of community members who may want to access the center, whether that be with regard to gender, clan group or denomination. Ensuring better community representation on management committees could improve access for groups who otherwise feel that their center does not serve them. 10.3. Expanding markets for PFCs and CFCs Participants from the Lata and Buala PFCs wanted further assistance with expanding fish markets, particularly to sell catches to Honiara to circumvent the issue of a lack of local cash availability and demand. The Buala fisheries officer said that they were selling around 40–50 kg of fish per week locally, while in Lata they sold 100–300 kg. At the time of the survey, neither PFC was selling fish outside of its local area. However, Isabel Province contributes a significant amount of fish to Honiara markets, accounting for 10% of the value of fish there in 2014–2015 (Keen et al. 2017), while Buala has existing transportation connections with other islands—two flights per week and two ships per week, according to the PFC manager. Lata, however, has irregular and infrequent shipping services to other islands, which presents a barrier to expanding market access. Neither of the case study CFCs acted as a marketplace for fishers, although some participants would like them to. The CFCs did help fishers earn an income by providing them with ice blocks and by storing fish in freezers so that they could be sold at a later date or in distant markets, such as Auki. Any work to expand market options through fisheries centers should be careful not to undermine informal economic activities or relations that are important for people’s well-being and access to food. For example, participants reported that some informal marketing outlets were preferred places for them to sell and buy fish rather than the fisheries centers. In one community, people said that it was cheaper to buy fish on the beach, where fishers land their catch, instead of the fisheries center, which was more expensive. This aligns with Gillett’s (2010) recommendation that fisheries centers should not crowd out any private sector operators that are already in the market. In Lata, for example, the MFMR and WorldFish point to several outlets for selling fish: “There are places for fish exchange established in the provincial headquarters in Lata, and in communities. At Lata, fishers sell their fish catches at the provincial market outlet, the wharf, established fish markets, namely, the provincial fisheries office and three private operators … The number of fishers who engage in fishing activities for income generation purposes is steadily increasing and so is the need for access to wider domestic markets in the province.” — MFMR and WorldFish 2023 21 Additionally, one interviewee said he sells fish on the beach according to what people can afford:  “The other thing is that I always share fish with old men and women who cannot go fishing for themselves out in the sea. Not only that but I also price my fish depending on how much the people may have in their pockets, so most of the time they would wait for me on the beach if they knew that I was going fishing.” — male respondent, interview, Lata, 2023 In the study communities, there are currently many points of access to aquatic foods. There are different types of fish markets, as well as practices that help distribute aquatic foods to people with otherwise limited access, such as the elderly or poorer families. It is worth keeping in mind the risk that increasing marketization of fisheries could pose to informal redistributive or welfare mechanisms. A wide range of global studies on contemporary and historical examples of marketization demonstrate that there can be significant social costs involved as the shift from informal exchange to cash economies prompts greater inequality and reduces the capacity of communities to support those more vulnerable, especially in cases where governments are unable to step in with a strong safety net (Graham 2010; Beumer et al. 2020). Case studies in South America, (Gurven et al. 2015), Southeast Asia (Borras 2006) and the Pacific (Connell 2013) confirm these risks. In some places, there are examples of deliberate engagement with alternative forms of economic transactions, such as using alternative currencies, producer cooperatives, or bartering to redress the negative impacts of marketization (Gibson-Graham and Dombroski 2020). Although fisheries provide an important source of cash income for community members, the case study research revealed that people’s lives and well-being also rest upon unpaid activities in the non-cash and social economy. In light of the limited circulation of cash in the communities discussed in Section 9.5, it may be advisable to explore alternative pathways for fisheries center operations that do not impact negatively on the limited cash economy, such as supporting non- market or alternative market transactions within communities. This could involve introducing formalized barter exchange to enable surplus catch to still enter the food system. 10.4. Education and training services Participants said that they would like training for fish handling, fish processing and information about fishing techniques. The PFCs already provided some training, although the topic or frequency of this training was not documented in this study. The MFMR could not support the CFCs by implementing training, but there may be a range of skills and knowledge in the community such that training could also take the form of skill sharing sessions. The specific training requested by participants in the case studies were (i) technical training, to be able to look after electrical and refrigeration systems, (ii) post-harvest storage, processing and fish handling, (iii) education and awareness of fisheries regulations, (iv) record-keeping and management strategies and (v) fishing techniques. “I think that what about if you could come back next time and hold a workshop to educate people about fish handling and proper ways to keep fish much longer without ice and from being spoiled quickly. I know you have some skills and techniques of fish handling and also from some experienced people in the village.” — male respondent, interview, Lata, 2023 “Fishery [center] should provide information about what would attract fish … And, the other thing, our fishery center should be further expanded and should have a notice board with information on fishing gears and baits … which bait would attract what type of fish, for example what bait is good for king fish. I don’t know the names of those fish, but must clarify what baits would attract fish.” — female participant, workshop, Buala, 2023 10.5. Sustainability and resource management Both women and men were concerned about the future sustainability of marine resources and fisher and community livelihoods and, consequently, called for a range of conservation or management strategies. People’s concerns included fish populations being in decline, as evidenced by people catching fewer fish than in the past or having to put more effort into fishing. There were concerns about destructive fishing methods, some driven by access to new fishing technologies, such as gillnets, disregarding taboo marine areas and 22 increased fishing at night. Participants were also concerned for their children’s future livelihoods. These concerns suggest that while expanding marketing opportunities for fish catch could increase cash income, this should be balanced against the risk of increasing unsustainable pressure on resources. There is evidence of this on small- scale fisheries in relation to increased marketing opportunities globally. In Solomon Islands, market proximity and local human population density were able to explain the distribution of fish biomass (Brewer et al. 2013). In another global example, market access development in Nicaragua has correlated with a significant decline in community and species-specific metrics of a lagoon fishery (Stevens 2014). Yet at the same time, links with the private sector and market support are key to the success of small-scale fisheries livelihoods interventions (IFAD 2019; Stacey et al. 2019). Participants demonstrated a good understanding of community-based fisheries management options available to them. In Foufo, participants called for instituting marine protected areas, raising awareness, banning magnet net fishing, implementing marine area management, deploying FADs, having reef owners close reefs, and banning poisonous tree rope and leaf. In Sasamunga, participants recommended regulating fishing times and methods, not harvesting undersized marine animals, closing fishing grounds and having tribes implement reef closures. In Buala, the most common suggestion was to periodically close fishing grounds, followed by calls for restrictions on particular fishing gear and methods, such as dynamite fishing and netting. Participants suggested enforcing size limits and quotas. They also suggested that people should follow community rules around fishing and that marine pollution should be curbed, such as managing sewage disposal. In Lata, participants similarly called for (i) closing reefs intermittently and for longer periods than currently done, (ii) banning night diving and restricting the use of nets and (iii) asking fisheries officers to raise more awareness on regulations and provide the community with more education on sustainable harvesting. Participants also wanted to remove or manage crown of thorns starfish and clean up marine pollution. Finally, participants said that leaders must work together to achieve these management goals. In responding to questions about marine resource concerns, some participants called for support for alternative livelihoods in agriculture, farming and retailing. However, they did not specify what such support would look like. “Realizing the fish population starts to decline on the reefs, so making alternatives such as feeding domestic animals like piggery and poultry instead of depending on the fisheries.” — male respondent, MFMR Frame Survey, Fofou, 2020 “Establish livelihood projects for income generation in our communities and this will reduce fishing pressure on our resources.” — female respondent, MFMR Frame Survey, Gizo, 2020 23 Other types of fisheries centers or storage facilities have been established in coastal communities in recent times, particularly with the advent of solar technology. One notable example is the community fish storage facility (CFSF) approach that has been initiated at the community level as a cold storage option. In contrast to PFCs and CFCs, this model does not fall under the purview of the MFMR. A CFSF comprises a small number of solar powered freezers that are managed at the family or group level to store fish for community groups, individuals and local businesses. Some of these have used existing infrastructure, with the freezers housed in existing buildings rather than requiring new construction. Some communities have been supported in these models with external funds from government agencies or NGOs, while others have invested their own funds to support their local businesses. The CFSF concept requires less initial capital investment than building new fisheries centers and, if well managed, could play an important role in supporting coastal communities to enhance livelihood and socioeconomic activities linked to fisheries. However, these initiatives have also struggled with the fragile solar freezers and a lack of available technicians able to repair and maintain them (Batalofo et al. 2023). An example of a CFSF is in West ‘Are’Are, Malaita Province, where the Rokotanikeni Women’s Association operated 12 solar freezer enterprises. This initiative was set up with external support, and our analysis shows that, while operational, the initiative succeeded in diversifying income sources for community members, increasing marketing options for men and women and reducing workloads for women. The success depended on the presence of a strong and well-functioning women’s organization. The Rokotanikeni Women’s Association was able to facilitate installation and ongoing management of solar freezers. In the end, however, the freezers were of poor quality, and technical support was difficult to obtain, so the freezers did not function for more than 2–3 years (Batalofo et al. 2023). Other examples of CFSFs include three communities in Central Islands Province that World Vision supported under its livelihood programs with the installation of three solar powered freezers. Similarly, the Provincial Capacity Development Fund (PCDF) from the Ministry of Provincial Government supported three communities in Makira Province. In Guadalcanal Province, there are six CFSFs in operation, which were funded under the constituency development funds and promote fish sales at the community level. Other similar setups have been operated by individuals or by business houses that have purchased their own cold storage facilities. CFSFs support small-scale fisheries sales and marketing within communities, and when there is a surplus and available transportation networks, there is the possibility of transporting products to Honiara. It is worthwhile exploring the potential of these new fisheries center models at the community level. The example of the Rokotanikeni Women’s Association suggests that having robust governance structures in place and ensuring high quality equipment and availability of trained technicians is important for the success of CFSFs. Working with established groups and entities at the community level may make governance less challenging than CFCs, with fewer stakeholders involved and the foundations for ongoing management already established. The importance of working with communities in ways that build on existing capacities and use appropriate technologies is reinforced by findings from global research into what makes for successful fisheries livelihood development interventions. Studies in Indonesia and the Southwest Indian Ocean have identified similar constraints to sustained cold chain interventions as those identified here. These include the need for (i) access to credible community land to ensure that cold chain solutions can be installed without major challenges, (ii) a viable business model, (iii) strong leadership and governance and (iv) cold chain initiatives to be run, managed and implemented by a team with the right managerial and technical skills as well as an understanding of local community relationships. 11. Exploring new concepts for fisheries centers in the 21st century 24 Cold chain interventions do not stand alone in the national development landscape. Common areas of cross-sectoral strategic intervention for success have been shown to include (i) building a strong, sustainable and growing private sector along the fishery value chain, (ii) providing marketing support for fishers, (iii) enabling access to critical enabling services, such as technology and finance, (iv) integrating sustainable fisheries practices and coastal resources management interventions through community-based approaches, (v) developing community-level technical capacity and (vi) improving governance and public support structures (WWF 2023; Stacey et al. 2019; IFAD 2019; March and Failler 2022). The recommendations for improving rural fisheries livelihoods have some commonalities with lessons learned to effectively implement and maintain community-based fisheries management. One example is using governance structures and decision-making processes that were perceived to be legitimate through the eyes of the community and spending time garnering support for the idea through community-facilitated participatory and inclusive awareness raising and dialogue (Abernethy et al. 2014; Cohen et al. 2015; Blythe et al. 2017). Ph ot o cr ed it: K at ha rin e M cK in no n/ U ni ve rs ity o f C an be rr a Sasamunga Constituency Fisheries Centre. Lata Provincial Fisheries Center. Ph ot o cr ed it: A nn e- M ar ee S ch w ar z Malu’u Provincial Fisheries Center. Ph ot o cr ed it: M ar ga re t B at al of o 25 PFCs have long been a feature of the rural fisheries landscape, while CFCs are a relatively recent intervention. Infrastructure at existing fisheries centers represents a valuable asset for rural communities—one that can and should be leveraged to the benefit of community members. Although several actual and potential benefits of the centers have been identified through the research reported here, neither model is living up to its full potential, for a range of different reasons. Although this research suggests that some PFCs can sustain themselves, we have not been able to reliably assess the financial viability of the centers. Past reports have suggested that PFCs should not necessarily be expected to be commercially viable, and that if they were, then the private sector would take up this opportunity, as it has in places near Honiara (Gillet 2010) and in Auki. An important consideration, however, is whether commercial viability is the aim of the centers, or whether community development and stimulus are also worthy activities to support. We have not measured the flow-on economic benefits or the impact of the livelihood activities supported by the PFC/CFCs. However, Lindley (2007) suggested that, for PFCs, the economic (flow-on) benefits associated with ice production outweigh the costs of the subsidy required to ensure its provision. (Lindley 2007). More research is required to establish with certainty whether PFCs could fund themselves if permitted to retain more of their earnings (or if funds, which are returned to the provincial treasury, were tagged only for use by the PFC) for ongoing operational costs and maintenance. It is likely that some PFCs will work better than others and that a model that works in one location may not suit other places and other communities. Undertaking feasibility studies using locally relevant practical and social criteria for repurposing existing infrastructure in the fisheries sector is an approach that has proven useful in recommending how individual centers should be used (Christensen 2010). As outlined in this report, with the advent of solar technology and new community cold storage models, such as CFSFs, there is an increasing range of cold storage solutions, not all of which need to be led by the national government. Similarly, MFAT’s evaluation of the Mekem Strong Solomon Islands Fisheries project (2014) highlights that there is a range of models that could provide ice for communities, such as making it onsite, making it elsewhere and bringing it to the center, or having fishers ice fish at the center and then take the chilled fish away (MFAT 2014). As such, there is a need to make informed decisions about which PFCs should continue to receive investment, what role specific PFCs should serve in the community, and what criteria any ongoing support will be based on. Likewise, CFCs have demonstrated their value to local communities when operational, but they are struggling to maintain operations and need support to do so. Successful CFCs have the potential to operate as community infrastructure and provide a range of benefits for communities that extend beyond the fisheries sector. CFCs thus have the potential to be used deliberately for social and livelihood outcomes and to support gender equity in the community, if managed and supported toward those ends. The question of how to ensure existing centers remain viable and how best to plan for future facilities or services may be answerable through ward development planning processes through which community priorities can be identified and expressed to higher levels of government, both provincial and national. In 2013, ward development committees and plans were identified as governance frameworks that could potentially support prioritization of development for aquatic and agricultural systems at the sub- province level (Govan et al. 2013). The following recommendations seek to inform the GNUT policy to “review and strengthen fisheries centre’s services in all provinces,” as well as the government’s aspirations related to establishing constituency development growth centers. They also provide the basis for MFMR and MRD collaboration and streamlining of priority 12. Recommendations 26 areas in coastal fisheries to enable and strengthen fisheries centers and extension services. The recommendations have been synthesized from the research and are more or less relevant for one or more levels of governance or management responsibility. It is anticipated that they can help prioritize support in the plans of multiple agencies. Overall, it is clear that there is a need for solutions that are place-based and community-driven, and that can be adapted to the diverse settings and diverse needs and priorities of different communities across Solomon Islands. Although some of the recommendations are likely to be implemented directly by agencies of the Solomon Islands Government, others may be better suited to delivery in partnership with development partners. 12.1. Overall recommendations Four main considerations have been identified: (1) governance and participation, (2) planning, (3) integration and (4) costs. In Table 2, we summarize a set of recommendations responding to these considerations. Consideration Recommendations 1. Governance and participation Establish clear responsibilities for fisheries centers: The various responsibilities for PFCs and CFCs are separated among national government agencies, provincial governments, constituencies, and community groups or individuals. The relative responsibilities are not always well understood by all, nor can they always be fulfilled if funds are not available at the responsible level of governance at the time they are needed. There is a need to identify and clarify responsibility for ongoing maintenance and equipment replacement at PFCs and CFCs and to provide advice and training to put in place the financial mechanisms to do so. The MFMR should take the lead on clarifying who is responsible and who provides the budget for maintaining fisheries centers. Build the capacity of fisheries centers for gender equity: Identify capacity building initiatives to increase opportunities for women to take part in center management and decision-making, as fisheries centers can serve women’s economic activities by continuing to provide cold storage services for a range of products in addition to fish. 2. Planning Conduct place-based planning to refurbish existing facilities and/or construct new ones: The purpose and operation of new fisheries centers should be shaped to the particular needs and conditions of individual locations. Detailed appraisal of existing livelihood practices, ancillary services, market connections and community aspirations should be conducted with the participation of community members at the planning stage. Explore the capacity of using existing infrastructure to support both fish and non-fish-based livelihoods: This would include supporting marketing of non-fish goods and encouraging use of the fisheries centers to support locally based and community driven innovation. Improve training and capacity building opportunities: Expand the use of both PFCs and CFCs to deliver training in skills and to support sustainable resource management. This could include engaging partners to help PFCs and CFCs develop education and training programs to raise awareness of fisheries regulations, sustainable fishing practices and marine ecosystem health, as well as to meet other needs identified by community members, such as fishing skills, fish handling, post-harvest training and management. 3. Integration of services Avoid replicating or competing with existing markets: Identify the broader social and economic benefits intended, and shape the range of services accordingly. For example, prioritize training and education services over marketing services, or enable access to cold storage for a variety of uses that support local livelihoods and community events. 4. Costs Explore low-cost alternatives: Explore alternative ways to support small-scale fisheries, and leverage existing infrastructure in ways that recognize and address the challenges of good governance and ongoing maintenance of equipment identified in this study. This may include establishing CFSFs. Assess feasibility prior to investment: Conduct feasibility studies to assess the social and economic impacts and commercial viability of new initiatives. Address transportation links: Identify opportunities for cross-ministry collaboration to foster improved transportation links and trade connections between fisheries centers and CDCGs. Table 2. Recommendations for future support to fisheries centres. 27 12.2. Recommendations for PFCs Criteria for ongoing investment in PFCs: Establish clear guidelines to assist decision-making on how to allocate limited funds to refurbish and maintain PFCs. These should consider key criteria such as (i) the location of PFCs in relation to transportation links and their proximity to rural growth centers, as well as market access and level of community need, (ii) modifications to center operations to ensure they meet those needs, and (iii) allowing for different types of operations according to contextual conditions. Strategic planning: Maintain long-term strategic planning for PFCs in order to continue existing operations, enabling existing infrastructure to be used to its full potential and prioritizing community access to cold storage. Community engagement and place-based planning: Ensure decisions about refurbishing existing PFCs are planned in consultation with men and women of communities with access to the center. Decisions should take into account specifics of the location, including social setting, local livelihood portfolios, transportation networks and market access, existing private sector enterprises, and plans for constituency development growth centers. Continued coordination between arms of government: The MFMR should continue to work with provincial governments to codify the separation of responsibilities to ensure adequate planning for maintenance and rehabilitation. Management capacity building: Continue to upskill PFC managers in planning and financial management. 12.3. Recommendations for CFCs Action plans for non-operational CFCs: Work with community members and CFC committees to create action plans for existing CFCs that have ceased operations because of prohibitive costs to repair or replace broken equipment. Pair with community planning around how to manage technical issues in the future, as breakdowns appear to be a recurring challenge. Capacity for CFCs: To function well, CFC management committees need to have the skills and capacities for managing a fisheries center. Some minimum standards for skills and training for center managers can be set by providing training opportunities, including on transparency of process and equity of representation and in development of business and financing plans. Improve opportunities for PFOs to support CFCs, and transfer skills and knowledge to people who look after CFCs. Avoid investing further into advanced freezer technologies, which seem unreliable in rural settings, until a community-led action plan and matching capacities are in place. 28 Abernethy KE, Bodin Ö, Olsson P, Hilly Z and Schwarz A. 2014. Two steps forward, two steps back: The role of innovation in transforming towards community-based marine resource management in Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change 28:309–21. Batalofo M, Pollard A, Ride A, Hauona E, van der Ploeg J, Isihanua M, Roscher M, Sukulu M, Eriksson H. 2023. What can the experiences of rural women in Solomon Islands teach us about innovation in aquatic food systems? Asia Pacific Viewpoint 65(4). Boape G. 1999. Rural fishing enterprises in Solomon Islands. Honiara, Solomon Islands: Fisheries Division, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Brewer T. 2011. Coral reef fish value chains in Solomon Islands: Market opportunities and market effects on fish stocks. Townsville, Australia: ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. Brewer T, Cinner CE, Green A and Pressey RL. 2013. Effects of human population density and proximity to markets on coral reef fishes vulnerable to extinction by fishing. Conservation Biology 27(3):1–10. Blythe J, Cohen P, Eriksson H, Cinner J, Boso D, Schwarz A-M and Andrew N. 2017. Strengthening post-hoc analysis of community-based fisheries management through the social-ecological systems framework. Marine Policy 82:50–58. Carnegie M, Rowland C, Gibson K, McKinnon K, Crawford J and Slatter C. 2013. Monitoring gender and economies in Melanesian communities: A manual of indicators and tools to track change. Sydney, Australia: University of Western Sydney; Sydney, Australia : Macquarie University; Victoria, Australia: International Women’s Development Agency. https://melanesianeconomies.wordpress.com/wp-content/ uploads/2010/09/gendered-impact-manual-final-141112.pdf Carnegie M, McKinnon K and Gibson K. 2019. Creating community-based indicators of gender equity: A methodology. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 60(3):252–66. Cohen P, Evans L and Govan H. 2015. Community-based, co-management for governing small-scale fisheries of the Pacific: A Solomon Islands’ case study. In Jentoft S and Chuenpagdee R, eds. Interactive Governance for Small-Scale Fisheries. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. 39–59. Christensen MJ. 2010. Feasibility study on hygienic production of ice for the small-scale fisheries sector in Timor Leste. Rome: FAO Regional Fisheries Livelihoods Programme for South and Southeast Asia. Gillett RD. 2010. Fisheries centres in the Pacific Islands: Lessons learned? SPC Fisheries Newsletter #133. Noumea, New Caledonia: SPC. https://coastfish.spc.int/en/publications/bulletins/fisheries-newsletter/381- spc-fisheries-newsletter-133. Gillett RD. 2016. Fisheries in the economies of Pacific Island countries and territories. Noumea, New Caledonia: SPC. https://www.spc.int/sites/default/files/wordpresscontent/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ Gillett_16_Benefish-fisheries-in-economies-of-pacific-countries.pdf. References https://melanesianeconomies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/gendered-impact-manual-final-141112.pdf https://melanesianeconomies.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/gendered-impact-manual-final-141112.pdf file:///Users/schua/Desktop/2024/Publication/Report/WorldFish_Program%20Report_2024-64_Research%20roundup%20and%20review%20of%20Fisheries%20Centers%20in%20Solomon%20Islands/Document/ https://coastfish.spc.int/en/publications/bulletins/fisheries-newsletter/381-spc-fisheries-newsletter-133 https://coastfish.spc.int/en/publications/bulletins/fisheries-newsletter/381-spc-fisheries-newsletter-133 https://www.spc.int/sites/default/files/wordpresscontent/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Gillett_16_Benefish-fisheries-in-economies-of-pacific-countries.pdf https://www.spc.int/sites/default/files/wordpresscontent/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Gillett_16_Benefish-fisheries-in-economies-of-pacific-countries.pdf 29 [IFAD] International Fund for Agricultural Development. 2019. Impact brief: Coastal Community Development Project (CCDP), Indonesia. Rome: IFAD. https://www.ifad.org/fr/web/knowledge/-/ publication/impact-assessment-the-coastal-community-development-ccdp. Keen M, Barbara J, Carpenter J, Evans D and Foukona J. 2017. Urban development in Honiara: Harnessing opportunities, embracing change. Canberra, Australia: ANU. Lindley R. 2007. Interim report of the rural fisheries development specialist. NZAID Solomon Islands Marine Resources Organizational Strengthening (SIMROS) Project. Honiara, Solomon Islands: Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. March A and Failler P. 2022. Small-scale fisheries development in Africa: Lessons learned and best practices for enhancing food security and livelihoods. Marine Policy 136. McKinnon K, Carnegie M, Gibson K and Rowland C. 2016. Gender equality and economic empowerment in the Solomon Islands and Fiji: A place-based approach. Gender Place and Culture 23(10):1376–91. [MFAT] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2014. Assessment of the Mekem Strong Solomon Islands Fisheries (MSSIF) programme 2010–2013. Wellington, New Zealand: MFAT. https://www.mfat.govt.nz/ assets/Aid-Prog-docs/Evaluations/2014/March-2014/Final-MSSIF-Assessment-Report.pdf [MFMR] Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. 2017. MFMR 2017 annual report. Honiara, Solomon Islands: MFMR. [MFMR] Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. 2018a. MFMR 2018 annual report. Honiara, Solomon Islands: MFMR. [MFMR] Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. 2018b. Sasamugga Constituency Fishery Centre workshop (4–6 December 2017) report. Honiara, Solomon Islands: MFMR. [MFMR] Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources. 2020. Corporate plan 2020–2023. Honiara, Solomon Islands: MFMR. https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/sol213175.pdf [SIG] Solomon Islands Government. 2023. Solomon Islands 2019 population and housing census, national report volume 1, Honiara, Solomon Islands: Solomon National Statistics Office, Ministry of Finance and Treasury. https://solomons.gov.sb/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Solomon-Islands-2019-Population-and- Housing-Census_National-Report-Vol-1.pdf [SIGNUT] Solomon Islands Government of National Unity and Transformation. 2024a. 100 day plan: Towards national unity and transformation. Honiara, Solomon Islands: SIGNUT. https://solomons.gov.sb/wp-content/ uploads/2024/06/100-Days-TUESDAY-6PM-FInal.pdf. [SIGNUT] Solomon Islands Government of National Unity and Transformation. 2024b. Policy statements. Honiara, Solomon Islands: SIGNUT. https://solomons.gov.sb/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Policy- Statement-TUESDAY-6PM-Final.pdf Stacey N, Gibson E, Loneragan NR, Warren C, Wiryawan B, Adhuri DS, Steenbergen DJ and Fitriana R. 2021. Developing sustainable small-scale fisheries livelihoods in Indonesia: Trends, enabling and constraining factors, and future opportunities. Marine Policy 132:104654. https://www.ifad.org/fr/web/knowledge/-/publication/impact-assessment-the-coastal-community-development-ccdp- https://www.ifad.org/fr/web/knowledge/-/publication/impact-assessment-the-coastal-community-development-ccdp- https://www.ifad.org/fr/web/knowledge/-/publication/impact-assessment-the-coastal-community-development-ccdp- file:///Users/schua/Desktop/2024/Publication/Report/WorldFish_Program%20Report_2024-64_Research%20roundup%20and%20review%20of%20Fisheries%20Centers%20in%20Solomon%20Islands/Document/ https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/sol213175.pdf https://solomons.gov.sb/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Solomon-Islands-2019-Population-and-Housing-Census_National-Report-Vol-1.pdf https://solomons.gov.sb/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Solomon-Islands-2019-Population-and-Housing-Census_National-Report-Vol-1.pdf https://solomons.gov.sb/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Solomon-Islands-2019-Population-and-Housing-Census_National-Report-Vol-1.pdf https://solomons.gov.sb/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/100-Days-TUESDAY-6PM-FInal.pdf https://solomons.gov.sb/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/100-Days-TUESDAY-6PM-FInal.pdf file:///Users/schua/Desktop/2024/Publication/Report/WorldFish_Program%20Report_2024-64_Research%20roundup%20and%20review%20of%20Fisheries%20Centers%20in%20Solomon%20Islands/Document/ https://solomons.gov.sb/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Policy-Statement-TUESDAY-6PM-Final.pdf https://solomons.gov.sb/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Policy-Statement-TUESDAY-6PM-Final.pdf 30 Notes 1 Note this division was subsequently split into two (MFMR 2020 Annual Report). 2 SIDCCG Policy Statement, Office of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Honiara, Solomon Islands. 3 MSSIF team leader six-month progress report to MFAT. Stevens KJ. 2014. Social and ecological dynamics of small-scale fisheries in the context of rapid globalization. [PhD] Michigan State, US. Tua PJ, Stenneth Atu S, Akao I and Schwarz A-M. 2020. Resources survey in Solomon Islands: Report of a frame survey at the provincial fisheries centres and the constituency fisheries centres. Vunibola S. 2023. “Want to help someone? Shut up and listen”: Foreign aid, maladaptation, and community development practices in the Pacific. Development Policy Review (41). doi: 10.1111/dpr.12751 [WWF] World Wildlife Fund. 2023. Scaling up cold-chain solutions in the southwest Indian Ocean. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/wwf-summary-report-scaling-up-cold-chain- solutions-in-the-southwest-indian-ocean https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/wwf-summary-report-scaling-up-cold-chain-solutions-in-the-southwest-indian-ocean https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/wwf-summary-report-scaling-up-cold-chain-solutions-in-the-southwest-indian-ocean https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/wwf-summary-report-scaling-up-cold-chain-solutions-in-the-southwest-indian-ocean 31 About WorldFish WorldFish is a leading international research organization working to transform aquatic food systems to reduce hunger, malnutrition and poverty. It collaborates with international, regional and national partners to co-develop and deliver scientific innovations, evidence for policy, and knowledge to enable equitable and inclusive impact for millions who depend on fish for their livelihoods. As a member of CGIAR, WorldFish contributes to building a food- and nutrition-secure future and restoring natural resources. Headquartered in Penang, Malaysia, with country offices across Africa, Asia and the Pacific, WorldFish strives to create resilient and inclusive food systems for shared prosperity. For more information, please visit www.worldfishcenter.org http://www.worldfishcenter.org Notes References 12. Recommendations 12.1. Overall recommendations 12.2. Recommendations for PFCs 12.3. Recommendations for CFCs 11. Exploring new concepts for fisheries centers in the 21st century 10. Opportunities for improved services 10.1. Improved and/or expanded cold storage 10.2. Center management 10.3. Expanding markets for PFCs and CFCs 10.4. Education and training services 10.5. Sustainability and resource management 9. Reasons for PFCs and CFCs not operating 9.1. Infrastructure 9.2. Governance 9.3. Tenure 9.4. Financial capital 9.5. Circulation of cash 8. Local community economy 7. Costs and benefits of fisheries centers 7.1. Financial costs 7.2. Revenue 7.3. Community benefits 6. Who uses the centers? 5. Fisheries center services 4. Operational status of PFCs and CFCs 3. Governance structures for PFCs and CFCs 3.1. PFC governance structures 3.2. CFC governance structures 2. Background 1. Executive summary