Marine Biology Graduate Program, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawai'i, USA.
School of Life Sciences, University of Hawai'i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawai'i, USA.
Conserv Biol. 2024 Dec;38(6):e14403. doi: 10.1111/cobi.14403.
Globally, protected areas associated with sacred sites and cemeteries are an emerging area of research. However, they are biased toward terrestrial systems. In Fiji, funerary protected areas (FPAs) in freshwater and marine systems are culturally protected by Indigenous Fijians following the burial of a loved one on clan land. First documented in the 1800s, FPAs in Fiji have not been researched despite more than 30 years of conservation efforts and countrywide comanagement of natural resources. We sought to bridge this knowledge gap by elucidating 8 socioecological attributes of Indigenous FPAs through stratified, purposive, semistructured interviews of 201 key informants across Fiji's 189 districts. Seventy-three districts actively implemented FPAs; another 34 were not being implemented because of low FPA awareness, FPA exclusion from comanagement plans, and conflicts in chief selection. Thirty-three percent of districts established FPAs for chiefs only, and 20% established FPAs for any clan member, resulting in the establishment of numerous FPAs annually. From the 1960s to 2019, 188 FPAs were established. Forty-four percent of FPAs were protected for 100 nights, and 47% protected all resources and associated ecosystems in the FPA. Only 25% of districts harvested edible fish and invertebrates; another 22% harvested edible fish only. For some chiefs' funeral rites, only turtles were harvested, which are protected by law, thereby requiring government exemption for traditional use. The FPA harvest provisions varied from engaging whole communities to engaging specific clans, such as traditional fishers or those who performed the burial. Our results showed that practices associated with FPAs in Fiji are diverse, organically evolving, and more socially nuanced and complex than the fisheries and food provisioning focus they are known for. Erosion of Indigenous knowledge and practices associated with FPAs and FPA exclusion from conservation planning will negatively affect social and ecological resilience, resulting in vulnerable communities.
全球范围内,与圣地和墓地相关的保护区是一个新兴的研究领域。然而,这些研究主要集中在陆地系统。在斐济,淡水和海洋系统中的丧葬保护区(FPAs)在土著斐济人埋葬亲人后,按照传统习俗受到保护。FPAs 最早于 19 世纪被记录在案,但尽管 30 多年来一直致力于保护工作,并在全国范围内对自然资源进行共同管理,它们仍未得到研究。我们试图通过对斐济 189 个区的 201 名关键知情者进行分层、有针对性、半结构化访谈,阐明 8 个土著 FPAs 的社会生态属性,以此来弥补这一知识空白。斐济有 73 个区积极实施 FPAs;另有 34 个区由于 FPAs 意识淡薄、FPAs 未被纳入共同管理计划以及酋长选举冲突等原因,没有实施 FPAs。33%的区只为酋长设立 FPAs,20%的区为任何氏族成员设立 FPAs,导致每年设立的 FPAs 数量众多。从 20 世纪 60 年代到 2019 年,共设立了 188 个 FPAs。44%的 FPAs 受保护 100 晚,47%的 FPAs 保护 FPAs 内的所有资源和相关生态系统。只有 25%的区捕捞食用鱼类和无脊椎动物;另有 22%的区只捕捞食用鱼类。对于一些酋长的葬礼仪式,只允许捕捞海龟,而海龟是受法律保护的,因此需要政府豁免其传统用途。FPAs 的捕捞规定从让整个社区参与到让特定的氏族参与,如传统渔民或参与葬礼的人,各不相同。我们的研究结果表明,斐济 FPAs 相关的做法是多样的、有机演变的,并且比其著名的渔业和食物供应焦点更加具有社会细微差别和复杂性。与 FPAs 相关的土著知识和实践的侵蚀,以及 FPAs 被排除在保护规划之外,将对社会和生态弹性产生负面影响,导致脆弱的社区。