Introduction

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) has been developed over ages via observation and learning, even though it does not necessarily follow scientific procedures. The most widely used definition of TEK is by Berkes. According to Berkes (1993), TEK is a cumulative body of knowledge and beliefs, handed down through generations by cultural transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including humans) with one another and with their environment. TEK is not just a representation of knowledge but a useful construct that contains knowledge gathered from many different activities such as hunting, fishing, medicinal collection, preparation for spiritual ceremonies, and maintenance of a household economy (Drew, 2005). These activities are common in traditional societies such as in Pacific Islands and characterize pathways in which Indigenous peoples interrelate with the natural world (Kitolelei et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2014). This form of knowledge is carried over generations and is the basis of TEK.

Further, TEK has existed and practiced for thousands of years, it has only been recognized by western science over the last five decades as a valued source of information (Johnson, 1992). According to Sinthumule (2023), traditional knowledge may have gained international recognition in the eighties through the “World Conservation Strategy” by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN, 1980) and “Our Common Future” by the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland, 1987). These reports focus on the management of natural resources by local experts.

Researchers have recognized the importance of TEK in policy, conservation of biodiversity, management of resources, understanding environmental change, and marine spatial planning. TEK offers detailed, place-based observations that are often accumulated over generations, providing insights that may be absent in short-term scientific studies. For instance, in marine spatial planning, TEK can inform the identification of spawning grounds, migratory routes, and sacred sites that should be protected (Diggon et al., 2021; Kitolelei et al., 2022). In biodiversity conservation, local knowledge often contributes to species identification, seasonal behaviors, and ecosystem interactions that help shape sustainable harvesting practices (Drew, 2005; Kitolelei et al., 2022; Valdés-Pizzini & García-Quijano, 2009). It has also been recognized that TEK plays a key role in community-based resource management, enabling participatory approaches that foster local ownership and compliance (Djosetro & Behagel, 2024; Forsyth, 2011). As such, integrating TEK with scientific methods enhances the relevance, acceptance, and success of environmental initiatives, especially in Indigenous and local community contexts.

In the Pacific Islands, TEK has been used to maintain lifestyles and livelihoods by understanding or integrating with surrounding ecosystems. For Indigenous knowledge holders, their place-based knowledge can influence and inform daily decisions such as resource use and management, classification of systems (including biota and biophysical conditions), social interactions, cultural practices, and spirituality (Leonard et al., 2013; Mackey & Claudie, 2015). For example, knowledge of plant and animals indicators support disaster preparedness (Johnston, 2015; Nakamura & Kanemasu, 2020). TEK is not static as it evolves with environmental and social changes, enabling communities to adapt to challenges (Berkes, 2009; Mekonnen et al., 2021). Additionally, the transfer of knowledge from elders to youth serves as an important mechanism for preserving cultural identity, ensuring the resilience of local communities and that this knowledge continues to exist (Rubin et al., 2024).

A form of TEK is traditional knowledge on fishing. Traditional fishing knowledge has played an essential role in sustaining the livelihoods of Pacific Islanders. Living on isolated ecosystems, they have developed and modified fishing practices over time, adapting to their environment and passing this valuable knowledge to younger generations (Veitayaki, 2008). Many communities in the Pacific Islands still employ traditional fishing knowledge (Kitolelei et al., 2021). Through this knowledge Indigenous groups have developed an awareness of different species, interrelated ecological processes, and abiotic factors that affect species biology, allowing them to view their surroundings holistically. A study by Kitolelei et al. (2022) documented the ecological knowledge of fisherwomen in Fiji and their ability to identify target marine and freshwater resources such as sea grasses, reef fish, mollusks, octopus, etc. and gauge the health of the ecosystem together with their resources. The information can be used to provide a base for enhanced management of economically, culturally, and ecological important species. Another study by Hamilton et al. (2012) focused on the Indigenous people of Western Solomon Islands and their deep knowledge on various grouper fish species such as brown-marbled grouper (Epinephelus fuscoguttatus) and camouflage grouper (Epinephelus polyphekadion). Fishers follow lunar cycles to optimize and maximize their catch. This traditional knowledge combined with modern science was used to establish a community-based marine protected area. In the Fiji Islands, fishers have obtained knowledge from their elders about detecting and harvesting various poisonous marine species (Lako et al., 2023). These skilled locals have learned to identify and remove toxic organs, thus making it safe to consume. This particular traditional knowledge is learned over many years and usually focuses on removing the organism’s head, guts, and other organ systems, whereas the flesh and other parts are scrubbed and washed. This continued practice of traditional knowledge in the Pacific Islands is mainly due to their dependence on natural resources (Nalau et al., 2018). Despite its vital importance as a global resource, traditional knowledge faces the risk of erosion due to evolving social and environmental dynamics (Fernández-Rivera Melo et al., 2024; McCarter & Gavin, 2014).

Similar to other Pacific Islands, Kiribati’s survival relies on its resources especially the ocean (Brodie et al., 2020; Seto et al., 2024) emphasizing self-reliance (te toronibwai). The ocean is an important resource for the people of Kiribati for both subsistence and connection, and it has shaped development of traditional knowledge (Drew, 2005). Kiribati places high value on environmental preservation and respect, rooted in its history of customary environmental management practices (Avia, 2021). Indigenous Traditional Knowledge about the ocean has played a crucial role in sustaining livelihoods in Kiribati. Communities in Kiribati have developed a range of knowledge-based methods utilized for harvesting fish, crabs, shellfish, etc. and clearly understand the natural processes involved with the marine ecosystem, for example, coral reefs (Campbell et al., 2024; Eurich et al., 2022; Johannes & Yeeting, 2001). Also, the people of Kiribati have been able to identify patches of the lagoons and marine areas that house different types of resources and its sustainable unitization (Thomas, 2001). However, documentation of this knowledge has been limited especially from elder perspectives in Kiribati.

This study draws upon a theoretical framework that acknowledges the ontological distinction between Western scientific knowledge and (TEK). Western science often conceptualizes humans as observers separate from nature, favoring empirical data, controlled experimentation, and reproducibility (Mazzocchi, 2018). However, TEK is embedded in an ontology where humans are deeply fixed within ecological systems, and knowledge is transmitted through lived experience or practice, storytelling, and spiritual relationships with the environment (Gonet, 2024). These differing worldviews can create tension, especially when attempts are made to validate TEK solely through scientific standards. However, recognizing these differences allows for a richer understanding of Indigenous perspectives.

This research explores the role and relevance of TEK in the Pacific, with focus on Kiribati, where marine-based knowledge has long supported livelihoods and environmental stewardship. It focuses on that TEK remains an essential, yet under recognized resource for sustainable marine resource management, and its decline is linked to a combination of various factors. By engaging with local elders, the study documents traditional fishing and harvesting techniques, highlights the depth of Indigenous ecological knowledge, and identifies the key drivers contributing to its erosion. This framing allows for a deeper understanding of both the value of TEK and the urgent need for its preservation and integration into modern resource management strategies.

Method

Study Sites

The Republic of Kiribati is a Pacific Island Country in Micronesia, composed of 33 islands of which 32 are atoll islands and one limestone island with a combined area of 811 km2 of the Pacific Ocean (Johansen et al., 2022). The islands are divided into three groups: the Gilbert Islands, the Phoenix Islands, and the Line Islands. Only 21 Islands are inhabited with an approximate population of 119,438 citizens (Government of Kiribati, 2020; The Commonwealth, 2023).

The study focuses on two locations in Kiribati: Tarawa and Marakai Island. These sites were selected in consultation with the Island Council, Government of Kiribati, and local partners. Tarawa is the capital of Kiribati with a total area of 31.02 km2 together with a population of approximately 63,079 (Government of Kiribati, 2020). Tarawa contains a large lagoon 500 square kilometers (193 square miles) in total area, and reef system (Brodie et al., 2020; Sabūnas et al., 2021).

The Gilbert Group includes Marakei Island, a small atoll island of 14.1 km2 located to the north of the group (Sinclair et al., 2012). According to the 2020 census the total population of Marakei was 2,738 (Government of Kiribati, 2020; SPC, 2022). The majority of Marakei Island’s landscape is flat around the lagoon and ocean beaches, with some undulating ground surfaces visible toward the center. Marakei contains a lagoon in the middle of the island surrounded by two narrowly separated islands with two openings to the ocean. However, lagoon resources are scarce with limited catch of tilapia, milkfish, and shellfish contributing towards protein uptake in villages (Sinclair et al., 2012).

Data collection and analysis

Firstly, a research permit was obtained from the Ministry of Environment Lands and Agricultural Development (Kiribati) (Ref no. 019/23). An initial discussion was held with the Ministry to outline the purpose, objectives, and intended outcomes of the research together with support required from the researchers. The researchers were referred to the respective island council of Tarawa and Marakai for support and guidance. There 23 island councils present on Kiribati and are part of the local governance system.

Data was collected using two methods: 1) semi structured interview with elder fisherman/women and 2) talanoa (informal storytelling) with selected elders together with members of villages from the two study locations. For the in depth interviews, the judgment sampling method was utilized by the community and local island council members. The communities and island council members selected and provided names of elders (men and women) who were highly experienced in marine ecological knowledge and fishing. A total of 20 (16 males and 4 females) were nominated and all were above 50 years of age from both Marakei and South Tarawa. These participants were either active in fishing activities, gleaning, or retired. The in-depth interviews were carried out in the participants’ household or the village meeting area (maneaba) to avoid any external disturbances with assistance from a local translator. The interview questions were open-ended which allowed the elders to elaborate about their experiences and insights. The major focus of the interviews was on the traditional fishing methods and ecological knowledge.

Two talanoa sessions were held with 10 participants in each session. One session was conducted on Marakei and another in South Tarawa. A combination of judgment and simple random sampling was used to select talanoa session participants. Participants were also selected in conjunction with island council members and local government representatives. In this study, talanoa was used not just as a way to collect information, but it was an essential part of the research approach. Unlike interviews, talanoa is a form of oral communication or story-telling and shared experience in Pacific Island Nations via formal and informal discussions making it a commonly used research methodology (Prescott, 2008). This methodology mostly involves sharing of emotions, knowledge, and experiences (Farrelly & Nabobo-Baba, 2014). Since talanoa is a flexible method, it allows chances to probe, clarify, and re-align information discussed (Fa’avae et al., 2016). Using talanoa ensured that the research honored Indigenous knowledge systems and upheld the cultural values of the Kiribati community. By utilizing this method researchers are able to document, disseminate robust valid and up to date information. The talanoa sessions focused on the state of traditional knowledge and causes of its decline.

Both the interviews and talanoa sessions were conducted by the researcher in the native language (I-Kiribati) to ensure that maximum information was captured with assistance from a local translator. Research information sessions were held before the data collection process to inform participants about the objectives of this study and its importance. Written informed consent was also obtained and participants were free to disengage at any point. The information session and data collection were conducted in July 2023.

A mixed approach using both content and narrative analysis was applied to examine the data. Content analysis allowed the team to identify recurring keywords and themes to make valid inferences from texts (Bengtsson, 2016), whereas, narrative analysis helped explore the deeper meanings and context of the stories shared by participants (Nasheeda et al., 2019). The initial phase involved content analysis, where researchers independently reviewed the English translated transcripts to identify recurring keywords, phrases, and topics that were emphasized or repeated by participants. These were then grouped into thematic categories such as traditional fishing practices, environmental changes, and knowledge transfer. This method allowed for a structured understanding of the common elements across participant responses. Following this, narrative analysis was applied to explore the deeper meanings, cultural values, and storytelling structures embedded in the participants’ accounts. This included examining how stories were told, the emotions conveyed, importance of fishing methods and its process, and the loss of knowledge issues. All of this information was compiled into specific sections as outlined in the results and discussion section. To prevent any misinterpretation, all information was shared with the translators and external project partners in Kiribati. This was done to add new perspectives to the data analysis which led to further revisions to texts.

Indigenous peoples have the right to control, maintain, and protect traditional information that is discussed or published (Farran, 2014). Indigenous people of Kiribati utilize traditional knowledge for survival and believe that the secrecy of this information is a conservation method because it limits the exploitation of their marine resources by foreign individuals (Ministry of Environment Lands and Agricultural Development, 2013; Taniera, 1994). Therefore, to protect, respect, and be cultural sensitive, the information documented in this article was shared with the participants interviewed and the island councils to gain their permission before publication. Information deemed culturally sensitive was removed according to the participants and island councils of Kiribati.

Results and Discussion

The people of Kiribati utilize the ocean for a variety of purposes. The ocean provides most of the food and supports the livelihood and wellbeing of natives (Government of Kiribati, 2021; Rouatu et al., 2015). Participants during the talanoa session and interviews shared that the ocean is much more to the people of Kiribati. One elder shared “to the people of Kiribati the ocean is regarded as a mother who is a constant provider and the land is often thought of as a father.” Whereas, another elder mentioned that the ocean looks after us just like our mother and for our people it has always been sacred.

Fishing Methods

Fishing is one of the major activities conducted by the Indigenous people of Kiribati. Households in Kiribati partake in fishing either on a full time or part-time basis (Bidesi, 2011; Government of Kiribati, 2020). A total of 47% of households carry out fishing activities in the entire country but it is more common in rural/outer islands (63%) (Government of Kiribati, 2023). This signifies the importance of fishing activities to the locals for sustaining their livelihoods and food security. According to King (2018), people of Kiribati have been living off the sea and have become expert fishers, developing a range of fishing methods. Further, fishing is not just regarded as a method to extract fish and/or marine organisms from the sea but is a ritual and involves a series of training instructions according to the elders of Marakei Island. There are a variety of fishing methods used as part of their TEK.

Net fishing (te karaun)

Net fishing is commonly carried out in all of Kiribati. According to the elders, it is a popular activity amongst women, youths, and men. This type of fishing mostly occurs near the coastal and reef area during high tide. Fishers find schools of fish by spotting shiny movements (shimmering) on the water from the fishes’ scales or by watching for seabirds, which usually gather where there are many of fish. It usually takes about five individuals to carry out this method. Two or three of these individuals are responsible for carrying the net from the village to the coastal area and then into the ocean. The net is spread and dragged in the water behind the fisher. Whereas two individuals disturb the surrounding water using their hands and chase the school of fish into the open net. Once the fish are in the net, it is closed. The fish are then killed by biting behind their head and thrown into baskets. If all the individuals are from the same household then the entire catch will not be divided. Conversely, if not related, then the owners of the equipment (net and canoe) would receive an extra share compared to others. It is the responsibility of the fishermen to share their catch with elders of their household based on tradition. This form of distribution is mostly carried out on Marakei Island and rarely on Tarawa according to the elders. In Tarawa, net fishing is usually practiced within the same household so there is no distribution.

Another form of net fishing is where large sized nets are used and carried out to the lagoon by multiple household members. The net is attached to the canoes and left overnight, the fishermen would usually sleep in their canoes. At daybreak the net would be pulled in or dragged to shallow waters where women would be present with baskets to collect the catch. The catch is then distributed amongst the fishermen.

Previously nets were made of coconut leaves woven together and the size of the mesh depended on species to be caught. Therefore, multiple nets were constructed for different species. The floats were made of Cordia subcordata wood (te kanawa) and different sized shells such as Asaphis sp (te koikoi) are added as weights. According to the elders of Tarawa, sustainability was key when carrying out net fishing, as there was little to no by catch. However, this has changed as nets made from coconut leaves are rarely made and have been replaced by nylon nets. These modern nets can easily be purchased from local shops and have become convenient but have resulted in unwanted catches. Similarly, in Vanuatu nets made from coconut leaf nets is ritually utilized in some islands and traditional communities but has been heavily replaced by for example, monofilament gillnets (Hickey, 2006). Further, in Fiji traditional nets were made of trees, vines, and coconut sinnet but it has been replaced by nylon, twine, and monofilament (Veitayaki, 1995). The elders of both Tarawa and Marakei stressed that over time the knowledge of making these nets is being lost and currently there are only a few individuals who know the traditional method of doing so.

Hook and line fishing (te karaiti)

This fishing method is mostly practiced in lagoons and sometimes reef edges, mostly by older fishermen who can no longer carry out extensive activities. Hook and line fishing is a daily activity by the locals in some locations such as Marakei Island. A variety of marine fish can be caught using this method.

The materials used in this fishing style is usually limited to a coconut string with a hook or sometimes a pebble. The hooks were initially made from bones of whales and sharks but have been substituted with metal and plastic. Instead of a coconut string, nylon is more commonly used now. Hermit crabs, shellfish, and feathers are commonly used as bait. Fishers in the pacific Islands have learned to use a variety of baits such as sprats, goatfishes, mackerels, gastropod species, and even coconut meat and seaweeds (Dye, 1983; Thaman, 2015; Vunisea, 2004). The fishermen would use different types of bait for specific fish species. This information is kept as a secret and only shared with family members. A common means of knowledge conservation in other Pacific Islands as well (Kitolelei et al., 2021). Most elders mentioned that line fishing is most fruitful during night time as fish “bite more.” Line and hook fishing may not bring in as many fish compared to other methods but it always ensures that fishers never come back empty handed as conveyed by the elders.

Some elders mentioned that line and hook fishing are also used in the open ocean, mostly to catch tuna and, previously, sharks. Elders mentioned that fishermen would use a special “call” to attract sharks towards the canoe. This call, according to the elders, is produced by “knocking several shells together tied to a rope and immersed into the ocean but close to the canoe.” These shells form a rattle called te kakaerukeru. The shark then takes the bait on the hook and is hit on the head using a wooden club. However, this method is now no longer practiced by the locals due shark conservation measures and awareness by local authorities and other organizations. The Ministry of Fisheries and Ocean Resources (pervious known as Ministry of Fisheries & Marine Resources Development) established a “Shark Sanctuary Regulations 2015.” This regulation bans all commercial shark fishing activities, including catching, killing, finning, and the possession, sale, or export of sharks or any shark parts. Elders stressed that the shark population around Tarawa has declined significantly, mostly blaming the increased commercial fisheries. This is supported by FAO (2010), Goodman et al. (2024), and Johannes & Yeeting (2001), but more information/data is needed to establish a correlation between commercial fisheries and shark population decline in Kiribati. As for tuna species, flying fish (te onsuti) bait is attached to hooks only and no rattle is used.

A special type of line fishing is usually practiced for ikanibong (lethrinus sp.). As described by the elders of Tarawa, bait consisting of crushed crabs are thrown into the ocean. A line with a shell or pebble as weight is thrown in as well, ikanibong follow the bait with the ocean currents and are caught in the line. This type of line fishing is carried out specifically four to five days after the new moon, however, it is rarely practiced now.

Spearfishing (te kain ewa)

This type of fishing is carried out by men in shallow water or from canoes at reef edges during high tides. There are two types of spears used according to the knowledge of the elders. The first one is a long wooden shaft usually made from te kaiboia wood (Donanea viscosa). It contains many sharp points or spikes that used to hurdle a school of fish at once, spearing multiple of them at once. The second type of spear is mostly used in Tarawa and consists of a wooden spear propelled by means of a string or rubber band. In parts of Marakai and Tarawa elders mentioned group spear fishing conducted by a single or multiple households together. Coconut fronds are used to drive a school of fish towards shallow water where they are speared and placed into baskets. While traditional spears are still used in Kiribati, locals are transitioning into using metal and plastic materials as alternatives to wood.

Poison Fishing

There are some traditional fishing practices that are destructive and not only harm the target species but other surrounding organisms. For example, plant based poisons like rotenone sourced from a derris root used to stun fish also have a harmful impact on other species in the area (Basily & Vuki, 2014). As per elders and government officials of Kiribati, fishing with poisons is currently not practiced due to its damaging nature. Of the 20 elder’s interviewed, five were aware of the techniques of which plants or animals can be used in this type of fishing. For example, nearly all mentioned about a plant called te baireati (Barringtonia asiatica). Fruits of this plant are crushed and mixed with water and spilled into the area to be fished. Another technique mentioned by two elders on Tarawa was using a sea cucumber (te ntabanini). Large quantities would be required and the entire organism would be crushed and contents be thrown into the water to stun fish. The stunned fish would be collected into a basket and washed thoroughly and dried.

Eel Traps (te uu)

This is a method that only involves men and is mostly done in the deep sea or near coral reefs. The eel trap is constructed with precision by experienced fishermen and usually each household has one. However, currently, two or three households often collaborate to construct one or two traps, which they then share or use in turns. The first step in building the trap is to understand or determine the mwakoro (type of trap). As explained by the elders, it means the size of eels that fishermen want to catch. Eel trap size can be set by measuring the waist, perimeter from head to chin and length from head to breast of the eldest daughter in the household/family (Taniera, 1994). However, experienced fishermen are able to estimate and construct the trap from memory and teachings by their fathers and grandfathers or other village elders. These traps are made from ngea wood (Pemphis aciduld), a tough material so that eels are not able to bite through it. It takes about 5 days for a trap to be fully constructed. There are a series of rituals performed before construction and after completion of the trap to bring luck and ensure success (Luomola, 1981). These rituals may differ from one island to another and cannot be shared with outsiders.

The trap resembles a small house and on the roof or near the round “mouth” where the eel enters, there are one or two trap doors, depending on the trap’s size. Another door might be placed further back on the roof for fixing the tightly-woven tunnel, called the “throat,” which guides the eel into the open space inside. Strings of bait hang from the ceiling to attract the eel, and a shell at the end of the tunnel stops it from escaping back through the “mouth.” At the back of the trap, there is always a door to remove the eels. Fishermen use a large, tightly-woven bag attached under the exit with thin sticks to collect the catch. Unhusked coconuts and even bottles are used to mark the trap location.

Baiting the trap is an important process and determines the skill of the fisherman (Taniera, 1994). The type of bait used is usually kept secret and sometimes not even shared with other households within the same village. There are two types of baiting: day baiting (taeud) and night baiting (kamatu). Octopus or fish are the two main baits used according to the elder fishers. Octopus is mainly used during the night and placed in small eel traps sometimes called te buki-n-nongona, meaning the-end (or tail)-of-a-plug. Some elders mentioned that octopus can also be used for day baiting as well in combination with freshly caught fish. Night traps are set to catch small eels and day traps for larger eels.

Torch fishing (katei)

This fishing technique is conducted mostly by men with the help of women and sometimes other household members. Elders mentioned that the best time to torch fish is during the full moon. Some elders also mentioned it being carried out three nights before and after a full moon because fish are abundant during this period. Torches are made from coconut leaves that are sun dried to make them flexible. The leaves are then bound together to give it a torch shape. However, these have been replaced by pressure, kerosene, battery powered, and solar lamps/torches.

Torch fishing is carried during the night, where the fisher lights a torch and moves into the ocean until he is knee deep. The fisherman has to stand extremely still with the flaming torch upright. Once movement in the water is seen, the fisherman has to slowly pace away towards shallow waters and the fish will follow the light. Once the fisherman reaches the shallow end, he will hit the water with his torch causing the fish to be dazzled. This opens up a narrow period for women and children to catch the fish using dip nets or baskets. Canoes are also used where an individual carrying the torch stands at the bow, this can either be a man, woman, or child. The fish are attracted to the light and come close to the canoe. These fish are scoped using dip nets by other people in the canoe. A special ritual is observed a day before and on the day of fishing, where noise is limited in the entire village. Even daytime fishing is limited and carried out by specific fishermen only. This is mainly to avoid disturbing the fish and to ensure maximum harvest at night. There are various other rituals and practices done a day before torch fishing but this information is specifically meant for the fisherman and his family, not shared with outsiders.

Gleaning (karemrem)

Gleaning is a process of collecting marine organisms mainly from the coastal, mangroves, and coral reef habitats, primarily the littoral zone (Grantham et al., 2020). This is an important livelihood activity that is common in all Pacific Islands and makes an extensive contribution to catches and food security (Chapman, 1987; Kitolelei et al., 2022; Tilley et al., 2021). According to the study participants, gleaning is mostly carried out by women, children, and sometimes men. This is in alignment with studies by Branch et al. (2002), Chapman (1987) and Kitolelei et al., (2022). Invertebrates such as bivalve mollusks, crabs and other crustaceans, and seaweeds are the most common organisms gleaned.

According to the fisherwomen, the gleaning process involves women scratching sand of uncovered flats usually near the lagoon or ocean (near reefs) at low tides. This is mainly to look for shellfish such as te anikomri (Conus lividus), te koumara (Gafrarium pectinatum), koikoi (Tellen scobinata), te bun (Anadara uropigimelana), etc. Other organisms such as small eels, octopus, small fish and sea urchins are directly collected from tide pools or under rocks. Women usually observe their environment for indicators such as small holes, bubbles, sudden movements in the sand, and siphons protruding from the sand or water. All of these are common indicators that depict the presence of shellfish. Hands and legs are also used to feel around the sand/sediments for small shellfish. Giant clams (te verevere), however, are caught via diving near reefs or entrances of lagoons. A sharp stone or a knife is inserted between the two shells to remove the entire organism from the bottom. This type of fishing depends on weather and the presence of sharks. Shellfish are not just collected for consumption but for other recreational activities. The participants mentioned that shells are not entirely discarded after consumption. These leftover shells are used to make ornaments such as earrings, necklaces, however, these have not been heavily commercialized.

Women fishers also use sharp sticks to look for fish hiding in sand, crustaceans, marine worms etc. This type of gleaning method is called wai ibo or kaia and is also used during the night to catch ghost crabs. These organisms are placed in coconut baskets and either eaten raw, boiled, or fried. Further, the jellyfish (te baitari) is another organism that is occasionally gleaned. Jellyfish are usually collected monthly from the shore by women and children, seven days before the full moon. Once collected, the jellyfish are placed into coconut baskets or containers and cleaned before taking them back to the household. Women are also responsible for cleaning jellyfish by scraping away all the outer parts that are gelatinous. It is known by the fisherwomen that only the inner section of the jellyfish is edible. Once cleaned, it is placed over hot stones to make it crisp and then eaten mostly with breadfruit, coconut, or seaweed.

According to all the elders interviewed, gleaning is an extremely valuable activity especially after a storm when fishing in lagoons and open seas are disturbed. This is mainly due to the fact that the coastal areas and/or intertidal zones are more accessible after a storm compared to open seas. The fisherwomen of Tarawa also shared that after storms, heavy rainfall, and strong wind, organisms such as shellfish, seaweed, and occasionally sea cucumbers are often washed ashore, making them easily accessible for gleaners to collect.

Fish traps (te ma)

Fish traps are commonly made by using either coral or stone or both stacked together in position with the ocean currents. The coral or stone are held together by algae, plant based, and other binding factors. They is usually constructed by men and each household usually has their own te ma. These fish traps are passed down from one generation to another, similar to a piece of land. Traditionally, only the family or household members were permitted to harvest fish from these traps. However, over the years, access has been extended to include other individuals from the same village.

A permanent fish trap is typically designed in either a U-shape or a ‘tennis racket’ shape. Before construction the household head determines the opening of the trap by placing a coconut shell in the ocean and observing its movement. Wherever the coconut shell comes to rest is marked, designating it as an entry point for fish during high tide. As the tide recedes, the fish are trapped in this area. Based on local traditions, only scoop nets are to catch fish during the first three days after construction. Mainly because there is a possibility that fishers might get hurt and their blood will attract predatory fish such as sharks. The construction of these fish traps has become increasingly uncommon, with most of the existing ones created by previous generation elders. Among them, the “tennis racket”-shaped trap is considered a complex system to construct but stands out as the most productive.

Temporary fish traps are no longer common mainly because the knowledge to construct them is only now known by limited individuals. Out of all the elders interviewed, only ten knew the process as taught by their grandfathers but no longer practiced it. To create temporary traps a line of wooden stakes is planted into the sand/sediment in a semi-circle with an opening towards the land at a certain distance from the shoreline. This distance is determined by the fishermen or household head based on experience and high/low tide mark. Dried coconut leaves (inai) are then tied to the wooden stakes to make the entire system work like a seine. At high tide, fish swim over stakes and get trapped during low tide, they are collected by men, women and children using dip nets or hands.

Erosion of Traditional Fishing Knowledge

Traditional knowledge in the Pacific Islands is currently eroding at a fast pace and it is due multiple reasons including the lack of documentation, modern education, imposition of western ideas, climate change, and many more (Nunn et al., 2024). Based on this study, all of the participants agreed that traditional knowledge is declining in Kiribati. 80 percent mentioned that their traditional fishing knowledge is now being lost, and it may be completely gone forever if nothing is done about it. This is concurrent with a study by Kitolelei et al. (2021) that documents the loss of marine traditional knowledge across all Pacific Islands with regards to fishing in terms of spawning seasons and distribution of different fish species.

According to community elders, the primary factor contributing to the loss of traditional knowledge is the declining interest among youth. Kugara and Mokgoatšana (2022) mention that youths or the younger generation of today are severely culturally deficient and require a sense of identity and guidance. 90 percent of the elders blamed modern technology and practices to be the cause of disinterest. The overall transmission of TEK has declined due to the interface of modern technology, foreign ideas, and western technological innovation (Malapane et al., 2024). This was evident as most of the fishing methods described have undergone a form of modernization such as the loss of traditional nets to modern nylon. One elder in Tarawa stated “It is easy now for my children to buy nets from shops rather than to make them at home. Today none of my four children know how to make a traditional net weaved from coconut or pandanus leaves. My children say that it is easier to buy nets rather than invest days making them to catch fish when we just purchase canned fish.” Some elders mentioned that the introduction of “small devices” (mobile phones) has been a significant issue especially on the island of Tarawa. Youths are too engrossed in their devices that they fail to attend community meetings and fish drives. While the elders agree that it is an efficient way to communicate, youths have lost interest in their local culture and traditions. “Due to this lack of interest we are not able to pass on our knowledge to them,” mentioned an elder from Marakei. Sarigumba et al. (2023), states that the lack of interest among youths is also due to traditional norms and structure with communities. These are normally dominated by older males who limit youth participation and contribution. More research is needed to understand this complex paradigm in Kiribati.

Migration of youths both internally and externally is another contributing factor. An elder stressed that youth are now leaving Marakei in search of employment and a better life. They are either moving to Tarawa or working on commercial fishing boats and return to the island only for a couple of months. Thus, due to the long duration away from their villagers/communities, they find it redundant to learn about traditional fishing practices that they might never use. This is supported by a recent UNDP report highlighting the correlation between the lack of job opportunities coupled with unfavorable climate conditions causing youths of the Pacific to migrate from rural or outer islands to urban centers or different countries, leading to cultural disruption and identity loss as there are now limited youth available to learn this knowledge (Ahmed, 2024).

Traditional knowledge is usually passed orally from elders to the younger generation. Participants recognized and stated that the oral transfer of knowledge is only done either with a family, village, or worthy person. This is mainly to protect knowledge by elders who fear that this information would be lost or shared with competitors from other islands/villages or unworthy people that might misuse it (Hooper et al., 2012; Johannes, 1981; Mondragón, 2004). This limits the transfer of TEK and may eventually cause it to be lost. Apart from oral transfer, knowledge is also passed on practically via field experience. Elders are able to pass on their knowledge such as fishing techniques via demonstration, experiences, and personal observations (Aswani & Hamilton, 2004; Turbott, 1950; Veitayaki, 2008). For example, gleaning activity by women is also a method to pass on knowledge to other women. During gleaning, women are often joined by their children or younger women. This serves not only to care for the younger ones in the absence of other caretakers but also creates an opportunity to pass on their gleaning knowledge to the next generation. It is also regarded as a social activity for women, as it presents the opportunity to connect with others from different families/households to share stories, resources, etc. Similarly, older fishermen in Marakai take their sons, nephews, and sometimes children from related households fishing. In this fishing activity, the fisher through demonstration passes on his knowledge to the younger generation. The survival of Indigenous fishing knowledge and fishing skills depends on those who learn them and their willingness to continue the practices. However, as mentioned, there is a lack of interest from youths to participate in these activities, depriving them from acquiring this knowledge.

Since traditional knowledge is primarily transmitted orally or through hands-on field instruction, it often remains undocumented. This lack of documentation is acknowledged as a key factor contributing to the loss of knowledge (Kitolelei et al., 2021; Reyes-García et al., 2021). The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) states that documenting TEK can act as a means to safeguard social and cultural interests of Indigenous peoples and local communities (WIPO, 2017). Another key issue is that most traditional knowledge holders are elders and can often pass away without passing their knowledge and skills to the younger generations. However, as noted earlier, not all forms of knowledge are openly shared or documented. It is typically passed down within families or villages, often to individuals considered capable of protecting and communicating it to future generations. Elder fishers emphasized that certain types of knowledge, particularly those believed to be sensitive or sacred, are constrained and not shared with outsiders, including researchers, people from other islands, and occasionally even individuals from neighboring villages. Some examples include breeding seasons, locations of certain important marine species, and specific rituals or practices associated with it. While it is essential to respect the sensitivity of this knowledge, there is a risk that it may be lost entirely if it is not transferred to the younger generation or in a written format.

Climate change is regarded as another major cause resulting in the decline of traditional fishing knowledge in Kiribati. Indigenous groups in the Pacific Islands use various environmental cures such as weather patterns, wave action, indicator species, lunar phases, or collectively called seasonal calendars to determine the breeding and catching season of marine organisms. For example, flowering of plant called narara (Erythrina variegata) in Vanuatu is known to be the ideal time to catch octopus since they come out of hiding (Hickey, 2006). One elder on Tarawa stated that “nature cues that we or our grandfathers used for fishing may no longer be valid as the weather/environment around us is changing so quickly.” Fishers who utilize cues such as plant indicators of fishing seasons are now distorted as changes in climate are causing alterations in flowering or fruiting seasons and changing the entire seasonal calendars (Kitolelei et al., 2021). One elder explained that there are two main seasons for the Gilbertese people. The first season is aumaiaki or te au maiaki, the dry season that lasts from June to October. The second season is aumeang or te Au Meang, the wet season ranging from November to April. However, participants mentioned that these seasons have changed in last 10 to 20 years. As the dry season is now prolonged and mostly exceeds over the 6 month period and sometimes results in drought impacting plant based traditional indicators. These changes may lead fishers to be unable to practice catching target species during the designated season, as traditionally taught by their elders. Thus, leading to a growing risk that this valuable fishing knowledge will fade over time and eventually be lost forever. More research is required to understand and document the season calendar of Kiribati and how it can be updated.

Conclusion

TEK in Kiribati is not only a vital cultural and environmental asset but also an important contributor to community resilience, food security, and biodiversity conservation. Elders’ insights reflect a deep, place-based understanding of marine ecosystems and traditional fishing methods that have supported livelihoods sustainably for generations. However, this knowledge is increasingly threatened by modernization, youth disengagement, migration, and the impacts of climate change, with marginalized and resource limited communities most affected. Recognizing and integrating TEK into fisheries policy, education systems, and local monitoring frameworks can support culturally grounded and equitable adaptation strategies. Strengthening intergenerational transmission through school programs, community-based learning, and mentorship between elders and youth is essential. Collaboration between knowledge holders (elders), researchers, and policymakers can promote solutions that blend traditional and scientific approaches. It is also recommended that community led documentation initiatives be supported to preserve fishing knowledge, and that inclusive governance structures be established to ensure TEK holders have a voice in resource management. By taking these steps, Kiribati and other Pacific Islands can protect its traditional marine heritage while enhancing the resilience and wellbeing of its communities.

Limitations of the Study

This study has various limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, it does not include a comparison between Marakei and Tarawa due to significant contextual differences between the two islands. Tarawa, as the capital, is highly urbanized, densely populated, and exposed to greater external influences and development interventions, while Marakei remains more rural and traditional, with closer adherence to customary practices. These differences would make direct comparison unbalanced and potentially misleading, as variations in traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) could be shaped more by external access and infrastructure than by intrinsic cultural or environmental differences. In addition, the study is limited geographically and sample size, focusing on two locations only and elders, which may not fully represent the diversity of TEK across Kiribati or the Pacific Islands. The gradual loss of traditional knowledge due to modernization, migration, and generational shifts also restricts the breadth of information available. Language barriers and the sensitive nature of some knowledge may further affect data depth, and as a result, findings should be viewed as a snapshot rather than a comprehensive account of TEK in Kiribati.

Acknowledgment

We would like to sincerely thank the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agricultural Development (Kiribati) for their support and guidance throughout this research. Special thanks to the Island Councils of Tarawa and Marakei for their assistance in community engagement and coordination. We are especially grateful to the elders who generously shared their time, stories, and traditional knowledge. Their insights were invaluable and form the heart of this study. This research would not have been possible without their participation.