evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Vanuatu's Customary 'Tabu' Marine Closures — Village-Led Reef Recovery Under Kastom Law

Vanuatu · North Efate · See the Vanuatu profile

Evidence: Quasi-experimental Top 76% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Ni-Vanuatu villages close reef areas under customary 'tabu' law, the country's most widespread community fisheries tool. Peer-reviewed studies at Takara and Emau found shellfish biomass up to 13-fold higher inside protected zones, though gains vary sharply by site and species.

13x
Trochus biomass, reserve southern zone vs northern zone (2017)
10x
Trochus harvestable density, southern vs northern zone (2017)
+25%
Average size increase, protected trochus
Vanuatu's Customary 'Tabu' Marine Closures — Village-Led Reef Recovery Under Kastom Law Vanuatu's Customary 'Tabu' Marine Closures — Village-Led Reef Recovery Under Kastom Law

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Takara community (North Efate); Emau Island communities; Vanuatu Fisheries Department
Period
2008-2017
Keywords
customary marine tenure, community-based fisheries management, reef conservation, kastom governance

Context

In Vanuatu, temporary or permanent harvest bans called 'tabu' are imposed by customary landowners under kastom (traditional) law and are the country's most widely used community-based fisheries management tool. Since 2014 the Fisheries Act has formally required consultation with customary marine-tenure holders before new marine reserves are declared.

Results

At Takara village on North Efate, a peer-reviewed 2017 study (tagging 100 adult trochus) found biomass thirteen-fold higher and harvestable density ten-fold higher in the reserve's southern zone versus the northern zone, with protected individuals 25% larger on average -- but reserve-wide, three years of closure showed no statistically significant protection effect. On Emau island, a 2010 study found the older, larger tabu produced strong positive abundance and size gains for trochus, aided by community-led translocation; giant clam gains were not statistically significant after four years, and green snail stocks remained severely depleted despite protection.

Conclusions

The evidence base is real but mixed: tabu areas reliably help fast-recovering, sedentary species like trochus at local scale, while slower-recovering species and reserve-wide effects are less consistent. Their durability comes from social legitimacy -- rules set and enforced by customary owners -- rather than ecological guarantees, letting them outlast externally funded conservation projects.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
customary landowners, village djemaa/community councils

Conditions for success

  • rules set and enforced by customary owners under kastom law
  • state-law recognition since the 2014 Fisheries Act and 2002 Environmental Management and Conservation Act

Common failure modes

  • reserve-wide protection effect not statistically significant at Takara after 3 years; giant clam and green snail showed weak or no recovery despite protection

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes Own resources / municipal budget

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful