Conservation news
Participatory evaluations reveal positive impacts for small-scale fishing communities in Indonesia and Honduras
Small-scale fishing communities are often particularly vul- nerable to economic and environmental shocks, as exem- plified by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, extreme weather events as a result of climate change, and rising costs associated with the war in Ukraine. It is therefore es- sential to adopt a community-based approach to marine conservation so as to strengthen resilience. This approach is central to Fauna & Flora’s marine programme, within which we support communities to strengthen their roles in the governance and management of the marine resources on which they depend, whilst seeking to improve and diver- sify livelihoods. On Simeulue Island in north-west Sumatra, Indonesia, Fauna & Flora has been working since 2011 to in- crease the legitimacy of the traditional fisheries governance system at community level, known as the Panglima Laot,to improve the effectiveness and equity of small-scale fisheries management (Wilson & Linkie, 2012, Oryx, 46, 495–500). A similar approach is taken in Honduras, where Fauna&Flora has collaborated with five Honduran NGO partners since 2015 to ensure collaborative management of the Atlántida Seascape, which comprises four marine protected areas and the waters connecting them, by supporting fishing com- munities to take increased responsibility for marine man- agement (Steadman, 2021, Oryx, 55, 507–518). In summer 2022, Fauna & Flora project teams conducted participatory impact assessments on both Simeulue Island and in the Atlántida Seascape. These studies gathered data on the changes that communities receiving project support had experienced over the previous 3 and 2 years, respectively. We held focus group discussions with a representative
selection of communities or community groups. Participants were asked standardized questions to identify, rank and determine the well-being impacts of the main changes they had experienced, and to examine how Fauna & Flora project interventions and external factors contributed to these changes. Despite the disparate locations of the Acehnese and Honduran small-scale fishing communities, there were notable similarities in perceived changes. Both sets of respondents reported that theircommunities or com- munity groups were better organized, and as a result better recognized, for example by the relevant authorities. This observed change resonates with research that highlights improved community organization as the most valued social change from community-based conservation projects (Ban et al., 2019, Nature Sustainability, 2, 524–532). Women participating across both projects also reported feeling more empowered and independent from their husbands.
Additionally, as a direct result of project interventions, communities across both sites reported an improved cap- acity to handle and process fish products, increasing sale prices. These positive impacts were experienced in vulner- able communities facing several external stressors, thus highlighting the benefits of strengthening community gov- ernance and supporting improved and diversified live- lihoods to increase resilience to threats. However, the participatory impact assessments also highlighted areas re- quiring further support, such as the need to improve market access and reduce the incidence of illegal and unsustainable fishing in Honduras. These findings will be presented to the respective communities and used to inform ongoing project activities.
GABRIELLA CHURCH (
orcid.org/0000-0003-3948-8480,
gabriella.church@
fauna-flora.org), HENRY DUFFY ( orcid. org/0000-0002-9360-5142) and HAZEL AKESTER (
orcid.org/ 0000-0001-5046-2826) Fauna & Flora, Cambridge, UK
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits un- restricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Dung beetle conservation now on the IUCN agenda
In 2022, following a year of development, a group of experts in dung beetle research led by Camila Leandro and Fernando-Vaz-de-Mello proposed the establishment of an IUCN Species Survival Commission Specialist Group focusing on dung beetles (families Geotrupidae and Scarabaeidae), insects that rely on animal droppings for food and reproduction. In natural ecosystems, dung beetle species are threatened by habitat modification, fragmenta- tion and loss, and potential changes in the availability of dung as a result of the modification of mammal faunas. In agro-ecosystems, populations are threatened by over- application of pesticides. In addition, climate change is a threat to the over 6,000 described species. In August 2022, the Dung Beetle Specialist Group was of-
ficially declared by IUCN, and as co-chairs it gives us pleas- ure to share this news. The new Specialist Group will focus on raising awareness of the importance of dung beetles and their associated ecosystem functions (including nutrient re- cycling, bioturbation and seed dispersal), and creating en- during partnerships between researchers, entomologists, conservationists and agricultural scientists.We plan to begin by using social media to share our knowledge and interest in dung beetles, introduce the Group’s members and hold members’ workshops on topics such as citizen science and the science–policy interface, throughout 2023 and 2024.
Oryx, 2023, 57(2), 145–148 © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605322001582
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140
