Fishing for the cultural value of kahawai (Arripis trutta) at the Mōtū River, New Zealand

Ocean resource use: building the coastal blue economy

“…These indicators better reflect traditional Māori practices and the concept of fair and equitable distribution of resources. An example of this is the overall value of hapū (community), Te-Whanau-a-Hikarukutai/Ngāti Horomoana, to ‘respect the kahawai ( Arripis trutta ),’ filtering down to human actions, such as the fishers only take the number of fish they need; no waste, and the fish are distributed amongst all fishers so everyone goes home with something (the ‘tohatoha’ principle) (Maxwell et al 2018 ). This recognises kahawai as a gift from Tangaroa (one of the Māori deities of the ocean realm) for those who are most in need (the ‘mo te iti me te rawa kore’ principle), rather than being for sale.…”

Indigenous Environmental Justice within Marine Ecosystems: A Systematic Review of the Literature on Indigenous Peoples’ Involvement in Marine Governance and Management

“…In terms of geographical areas, the highest total consumption was in Africa (109 kg) and the lowest in Oceania (33 kg, with the low figure reflecting the low consumption of fish in parts of Papua New Guinea). Within countries, Indigenous fish consumption was higher than non-Indigenous populations, with many Indigenous groups framing the harvesting and consumption of fish in terms of both material needs (fish as their 'daily bread') (#11, #14, #20, #24) and their sociocultural keystone [153,155,156]. Indigenous peoples' high consumption of seafood was highly relevant to discussions about coastal and marine governance and management, with many of our reviewed papers identifying that weak governance reinforced procedural inequity and distributive inequity; the decline in fisheries stock was often traced to a lack of monitoring and enforcement of regulations around commercial fisheries operations (#11, #15, #25).…”

“…Regarding the Australian Federal Government-sponsored Indigenous environmental programme (which is in operation throughout the nation in different lands and seas), Muller summarises this tension well: Until there is a 'space' created for Yolngu, [the Indigenous people of northeastern Arnhem Land (Northern Territory, Australia] self-determination, that is resourced and institutionally acknowledged (rather than operating in the margins of funding contracts), then self-determination will always be forced into a prescribed, predetermined context. [217] Muller's concern, shared by other scholars (e.g., Taylor et al, 2020), that development of a "space" for Indigenous self-determination that is adequately resourced and acknowledged is widely applicable to most, if not all, contexts in which Indigenous peoples seek self-determination in environmental governance and management [155,205,217,218].…”

Speaking the same language: can the sustainable development goals translate the needs of inland fisheries into irrigation decisions?

“…Changes to the natural flow regime, modification of instream and wetland habitats and degradation of water quality are widely reported to have caused disruptions to ecosystem function and loss of native biodiversity where irrigation systems are developed (Dudgeon et al 2006;Poff and Zimmerman 2010;Mims and Olden 2013). Where communities are reliant on the persistence of native fish populations, these losses can have negative effects on food availability (Thompson et al 2002;Belton et al 2014), economic opportunities (Welcomme et al 2010;Lynch et al 2016) and cultural practices (McDowall 2011;Maxwell et al 2018;Whaanga et al 2018), but often these are not captured in the design of new irrigation systems or modernisation of old ones, and many of these impacts can manifest over time. In the Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR), for example, fish harvest has been projected to decline by up to 20% because of the effects of river development (Nguyen-Khoa et al 2005).…”