Cease or prohibit customary fishing (indigenous fishing for cultural and community needs)

Overall effectiveness category Awaiting assessment
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

not assessed
Certainty

not assessed
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Customary fishing applies to indigenous communities with a traditional connection to the area being fished and is for subsistence and cultural purposes. Customary fishing may have different fishing rules to commercial or recreational fishing; however, the sustainability of fish stocks is still a priority of customary fishing arrangements. In general, the community leader(s) have the responsibility of maintaining the local fishing laws and decisions may be made for cultural or religious reasons as well as in response to changes in fish catches. For example, closures of areas to fishing might be implemented if fish catches are perceived to decrease in the hope that fish might migrate into the fishing grounds whilst maintaining a good population nearby. Measures might be temporary (less than one year) or permanent (more than one year).

Study locations

Key messages

One study examined the effects of ceasing or prohibiting customary fishing in an area, on marine fish populations. The study was in the Bismark Sea (Papua New Guinea).

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bismark Sea found a higher abundance of only one of seven fish species in an area closed to customary fishing for eight years, compared to an area open to customary fishing.

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

Behaviour change (1 study): One site comparison study in the Bismark Sea found that in an area closed to customary fishing for eight years, six of seven fish species had a lower flight response distance compared to an area open to customary fishing, making them more vulnerable to capture with spear guns.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A site comparison study in 2008 at two reefs in the Bismark Sea, Papua New Guinea (Feary et al. 2010) found that permanent closure of areas regulated by traditional fishing rights (customary fishing) resulted in greater abundance of only one of seven species compared to fished areas after eight years, and the flight response of six species decreased. Striated surgeonfish Ctenochaetus striatus were more abundant inside closed areas compared to fished areas (closed: 47, open: 25 fish/1,000 m²), but abundances of the other six species (orange-lined triggerfish Balistapus undulatus, Bleeker’s parrotfish Chlorurus bleekeri, daisy parrotfish Chlorurus sordidus, yellowbarred parrotfish Scarus dimidiatus, dusky parrotfish Scarus niger, and humpback red snapper Lutjanus gibbus) were similar (inside: 1–31, outside: 1–14 fish/1,000 m²). In addition, flight response of all but one species (humpback red snapper) inside the closure area was shorter (closed: 131–365 cm, open: 207–551 cm) making them more vulnerable to capture by spear guns (range 1.3 to 3.1 m). Fish were surveyed on reefs off Karkar Island inside and outside one site (0.5 km²) that at the time of the study had been closed to customary fishing (using spear guns and hand lines as primary gear types) for 8 years, with the exception of a 2-week period during which it was opened to fishing for a ceremonial feast (details of when sampling took place were not reported). The community maintains a customary system of reef management where a portion of the reefs is closed for several years when the clan chiefs decide fish are staying out of the range of spear guns. Sampled reefs outside the closure area had not been closed to fishing. At five locations at each site, two, 50 × 5 m belt transects at 2–4 and 6–8 m depths were surveyed by underwater visual census. Fish flight distance was measured by placing weighted markers on a measuring tape at the start position of the fish and the final position after disturbance.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Feary D.A., Cinner J.E., Graham N.A.J. & Januchowski-Hartley F.A. (2010) Effects of customary marine closures on fish behaviour, spear-fishing success and underwater visual surveys. Conservation Biology, 25, 341-349.

Please cite as:

Taylor, N., Clarke, L.J., Alliji, K., Barrett, C., McIntyre, R., Smith, R.K., and Sutherland, W.J. (2021) Marine Fish Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Selected Interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Marine Fish Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Allow periodic fishing only Action Link	Awaiting assessment	1	Synopsis Link
Cease or prohibit all types of fishing in a marine protected area Action Link	Awaiting assessment	79	Synopsis Link
Cease or prohibit mobile fishing gears that catch bottom (demersal) species and are dragged across the seafloor Action Link	Awaiting assessment	10	Synopsis Link