|Scoping (including areal extent of threatened fishing grounds covered by ICM/EAFM management plans)||X||There are around 50 fishermen in Suco Vaviquinia, and they go out only as far as 2 kilometers from the shore, depending on the waves. Fishermen with access to the engine-powered boats go as far as 5 to 6 kilometers, sometimes 10 to 15 kilometers away. They spend an average of 2 to 3 hours at the sea, sometimes up to 5 hours, depending on the weather. The fishermen admits that despite the willingness to go fishing, the number and capacity of equipment prevents them from being full-time fishermen and thus also heavily depend on agriculture and livestock despite being a coastal community.
There is currently no data on the areal extent of threatened fishing grounds. According to the local fishermen, they still harvest enough fish and see no threat to its population. (Site Visit, November 2017) |
|Baseline conditions for CPUE for important fish species (threats, risks, or vulnerability assessments of fishing ground; governance and socio-economic conditions)||
X||X||Based on discussions with local fishers, dominant catch includes flying fish, anchovy, and sardines, with bigger sizes of fish in the rainy season (Site Visit, Nov. 2017).
Annex 3 presents a list of species captured in Vaviquinia in 2015 (Baseline Assessment report, 2016).
There is no systematic data collection on fish catch, which is also seasonal and relatively low. There is no information on CPUE.
Another prominent concern of the suco members is the distance of the center or market for selling their products, including the fish catch. They rely on a middleman, who buys their catch for selling in a farther market. Since they do not have any capacity for prolonged food storage, there should be a proximate fish landing center/market. (Site Visit, November 2017). |
|EAFM or similar management plan||X||To be developed for the site as part of the SDS-SEA project |
|Evidence of measured increase in CPUE of 10% over baseline condition for important fish species using ICM/EAFM approach||X|| |
|Socio-economic and ecological impacts and benefits derived from ICM/EAFM implementation (DSS models e.g., FISH DA, TURF)||X|| |
|Socio-economic assessment of fishing households||In the community composed of 30 households with 20 individuals working as fishermen, only one fisher’s group has been established, with 5 members. This group has received support from the local government, which consists of fishing nets, 5 boats with different engines (3.5-5 horsepower), and other fishing gears. There is a need to organize more groups so that more fishermen can avail of the government support (i.e., the District Fisheries Office provides fisheries equipment to organized/registered groups only).
As the fish catch is seasonal and limited, with bigger sizes of fish in the rainy season, households also source their livelihood from agriculture (crops, cassava, corn, vegetables, and peanuts), livestock (pig, chicken, and goat), fisheries, and small-scale entrepreneurship. (Site Visit, November 2017) |
|Livelihood development and implementation opportunities||X||Farmed commodities are used for personal consumption, processed as new food products (such as cassava chips, smoked fish, dried fish, local nipa wine, and textile from palm leaves), or sold in the local market. (Site Visit, November 2017)
A good opportunity identified in Liquiça is business with ‘Ikan Saboko’ (fish baked in palm leaves). This business can be done together with palm wine making; however, the local government needs to improve their work areas to protect them from strong winds and the sun. This business was identified as a priority of the coastal communities in Vaviquinia. (Baseline Assessment of Timor-Leste, 2017) |
|Market assessment/sustainability analysis of alternative livelihoods||X|| |
|Pilot project proposal/action plan for livelihood development||X||To improve income generation, capacity building (training and equipment) on preparation and packaging of processed food products was suggested. An establishment of a women’s group is also a feasible mechanism to facilitate alternative livelihood activities.
Similar with the fish landing center, a proximate market to sell these locally-produced goods is also requested by the community. |
|Evidence of improvements in socio-economic conditions in fisher households||X|| |
|Case studies and policy briefs for scaling up and replication||X|| |