Scholarly article on topic 'Optimising the use of nearshore fish aggregating devices for food security in the Pacific Islands'

Optimising the use of nearshore fish aggregating devices for food security in the Pacific Islands Academic research paper on "Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries"

CC BY
0
0
Share paper
Academic journal
Marine Policy
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{"Pacific Islands" / "Fish aggregating devices (FADs)" / "Food security" / Tuna / "Small-scale fisheries" / Co-management}

Abstract of research paper on Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, author of scientific article — Johann D. Bell, Joelle Albert, Serge Andréfouët, Neil L. Andrew, Michel Blanc, et al.

Abstract It is widely recognised that anchored, nearshore fish aggregating devices (FADs) are one of the few practical ‘vehicles’ for increasing access to tuna to help feed the rapidly growing rural and urban populations in many Pacific Island countries and territories (PICTs). However, considerable planning, monitoring and research is still needed to understand and fulfil the potential of nearshore FADs. Investments are required to (1) identify the locations where FADs are likely to make the greatest contributions to the food security of rural (coastal) communities, and yield good catches near urban centres; (2) integrate the use of FADs with other livelihood options available to rural communities and remove any blockages preventing such communities from harnessing the full range of benefits from FADs; (3) assess whether exclusion zones for industrial fishing provide adequate access to tuna for small-scale-fishers; (4) determine if small-scale fishers are able to catch sufficient tuna to meet the protein needs of rural communities; (5) evaluate whether FADs add value to coral reef management initiatives; and (6) improve the design and placement of nearshore FADs. This paper describes these investments and outlines other steps that governments and their development partners need to take to establish and maintain nearshore FADs as part of national infrastructure for food security of PICTs.

Academic research paper on topic "Optimising the use of nearshore fish aggregating devices for food security in the Pacific Islands"

Marine Policy 56 (2015) 98-105

MARINE POLICY

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

f^m Marine Policy

ELSEVIER journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Optimising the use of nearshore fish aggregating devices for food security in the Pacific Islands

Johann D. Bella,b'*, Joelle Albertc, Serge Andréfouëtd, Neil L. Andrew b,e, Michel Blancf, Philip Brightg, Deidre Broganf, Brooke Campbellb, Hugh Govanh, John Hamptonf, Quentin Hanich b, Shelton Harleyf, Arthur Jorarig, Marcus Lincoln Smith1,J, Scott Pontifexg, Michael K. Sharp g, William Sokimif, Arthur Webbb

a Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science and Oceans, Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, USA b Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia c WorldFish, PO Box 438, Honiara, Solomon Islands

d Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, B.P. A5, 98848 Noumea, New Caledonia e WorldFish, Bayan Lepas, Penang 11960, Malaysia

f Fisheries, Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystems Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, B.P. D5, 98848 Noumea, New Caledonia g Statistics for Development Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, B.P. D5, 98848 Noumea, New Caledonia h Locally Managed Marine Areas Network, PO Box S-37, Suva, Fiji ' Cardno, PO Box 19, St Leonards, NSW 1590, Australia

J Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

It is widely recognised that anchored, nearshore fish aggregating devices (FADs) are one of the few practical 'vehicles' for increasing access to tuna to help feed the rapidly growing rural and urban populations in many Pacific Island countries and territories (PICTs). However, considerable planning, monitoring and research is still needed to understand and fulfil the potential of nearshore FADs. Investments are required to (1) identify the locations where FADs are likely to make the greatest contributions to the food security of rural (coastal) communities, and yield good catches near urban centres; (2) integrate the use of FADs with other livelihood options available to rural communities and remove any blockages preventing such communities from harnessing the full range of benefits from FADs; (3) assess whether exclusion zones for industrial fishing provide adequate access to tuna for small-scale-fishers; (4) determine if small-scale fishers are able to catch sufficient tuna to meet the protein needs of rural communities; (5) evaluate whether FADs add value to coral reef management initiatives; and (6) improve the design and placement of nearshore FADs. This paper describes these investments and outlines other steps that governments and their development partners need to take to establish and maintain nearshore FADs as part of national infrastructure for food security of PICTs.

© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

CrossMark

Article history:

Received 26 November 2014 Received in revised form 20 February 2015 Accepted 20 February 2015

Keywords: Pacific Islands

Fish aggregating devices (FADs)

Food security

Small-scale fisheries Co-management

1. Introduction

Pacific Island people have an extraordinary dependence on fish1 for food. Fish consumption in Pacific Island countries and territories (PICTs), which is based mainly on small-scale subsistence and commercial fishing for fish associated with coral reefs, and large pelagic fish (including tuna), is several times higher than the global average [1,2]. Fish typically supplies 50-90% of dietary animal protein for

* Corresponding author at: Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. Tel.:+612 4221 4883/+61 412 657319.

E-mail address: b.johann9@gmail.com (J.D. Bell).

1 Fish is used here in the broad sense to include fish and invertebrates.

coastal communities [1,2] and in 10 PICTs per capita fish consumption in these communities exceeds 70 kgyr~1.

As the human populations of PICTs grow, governments have been encouraged to provide access to at least 35 kg of fish per person per year [3], or maintain higher traditional levels of fish consumption where they occur [1], for two reasons. First, fish is rich in protein, essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals [4], and is a logical cornerstone for food security given the high levels of subsistence and scarcity of arable land on many of the islands. Second, increased access to fish provides a healthy alternative to the nutritionally-poor imported foods now pervading Pacific diets [5,6]. Greater consumption of fish and other traditional foods is needed to combat the high prevalence of non-communicable diseases in the region [7].

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.02.010

0308-597X/© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Indicative quantities of fish needed for food in 2020 and 2035, and surpluses ( + ) or deficits ( - ) in coastal fish supply, relative to the recommended 35 kg per person per year or traditionally higher levels of fish consumption, for two groups of Pacific Island countries and territories (PICTs) (after Ref. [7]).

PICT Coastal fish production 2020 2035

(tyr-1)a - -

Fish needed for food (t)b Surplus ( + )/deflcit(- ) (t) Fish needed for food (t)b Surplus ( + )/deficit ( - ) (t)c

Group 1: countries and territories expected to have a fish deficit

Papua New Guinead 81,260 81,860 - 600 108,500 - 30,090

Solomon Islandse 27,610f 25,400 2,210 35,600 - 7,990

Samoag 14,000 15,600 -1,600 15,700 - 2,190

Kiribatig 12,960 10,900 2,060 13,400 - 890

Vanuatue 3,730 10,800 - 7,070 14,000 - 10,400

American Samoag 1,100 2,100 -1,000 2,400 - 1,340

CNMIe 750 2,100 -1,350 2,300 -1,580

Guame 710 6,900 - 6,190 7,400 - 6,710

Naurug 130 700 -570 800 - 670

Group 2: countries and territories with difficulties distributing fish to urban centres

Fijie 77,000 31,100 +45,900 33,700 +40,610

FSMg 45,220 7,600 + 37,620 7,100 +36,540

French Polynesiag 45,380 18,800 + 26,580 20,000 +23,790

Tongae 17,430 3,600 +13,830 3,900 + 12,920

Tuvalug 9,530 1,300 +8,230 1,500 + 7,700

Wallis and Futunag 2,800 900 + 1,900 900 + 1,800

Niueg 170 100 + 70 100 + 60

a Based on median estimates of sustainable fish harvests of 3 t km~2 of coral reef [46,47], and other sources of information [7]. b Based on population projections by the Statistics for Development Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community. c Calculations for 2035 include a 2-5% reduction in the production of coastal fisheries due to the effects of climate change [18].

d Fish needed for food based on providing 35 kg per person to people living within 5 km of the coast, and 28 kg per person for people living in coastal urban areas (see Supplementary material for details). Note that estimates differ from those in Ref. [7] because they do not include the fish needed by the nation's inland population. There will also be difficulties transporting fish from remote coral reefs to population centres.

e Fish needed for food based on recommended fish consumption of 35 kg per person per year. f Includes 20001 of freshwater fish.

g Fish needed for food based on recent traditional levels of fish consumption for rural and/or urban populations which are greater than 35 kg per person per year [1,2].

For many PICTs2, the problem is that the production of fish from coral reefs will not yield the recommended 35 kg of fish per person per year, or continue to supply the traditionally higher quantities of fish, as human populations grow (Table 1). Several other PICTs3 will have problems distributing fish from remote reefs to urban centres.

To provide access to the recommended quantities of fish, these PICTs will need to allocate more of the tuna caught within their waters to local food security. Across the region, tuna will need to provide 12% of all fish required for food security by 2020, and 25% by 2035 [7]. Although the amount of tuna needed in 2020 and 2035 represents only 2.1% and 5.9%, respectively, of the present-day industrial catch from the combined exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of PICTs [7], there are considerable challenges involved in distributing this tuna to the growing coastal and urban communities.

One of the most practical 'vehicles' for improving local access to tuna is installation of nearshore fish aggregating devices (FADs) (Fig. 1). Nearshore FADs are based on observations that tuna and other large pelagic fish are attracted to floating objects and often stay in their vicinity for several days. Nearshore FADs differ from the drifting FADs and large anchored FADs used by industrial tuna fleets [8-10] because they are usually placed closer to shore in depths of 300-700 m.

Nearshore FADs increase the supply and consumption of fish in rural communities [11] and have been progressively improved over the past 20 years to increase their working life and reduce their cost. Analyses of the cost:benefit of nearshore FADs in Cook Islands and Niue show that the value of tuna and other pelagic fish caught around them exceed their costs by 3-7 times [12]. Other studies, comparing catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) and fuel

2 American Samoa, Guam, Kiribati, Nauru, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.

3 Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, French Polynesia, Niue, Tonga, Tuvalu and

Wallis and Futuna.

consumption (Lh_1) of small-scale fishers operating with and without nearshore FADs demonstrate that: (1) CPUE near FADs is 7 to 23 kg h _ 1 greater, and (2) average fuel consumption by fishers operating around FADs is 0.5 L h~1 lower, than when fishing is not associated with FADs [13,14]. Recent research also shows that nearshore FADs provide returns on investment (internal rate of return) ranging from 80% to 180% [15,16].

There is also recognition that regular use of nearshore FADs could have two other possible benefits. First, it provides communities with the opportunity to transfer some of their fishing effort from coral reefs to oceanic fisheries resources—an intervention expected to help prevent over-exploitation of coral reef fish and maintain the normal representation of important functional groups of fish (e.g. herbivores) associated with coral reefs [17] required to assist these ecosystems to adapt to climate change [18-21]. Preliminary analyses in the Federated States of Micronesia and Vanuatu indicate that 50% to 75% of fishing effort can be transferred from reefs to FADs [16,22]. Second, nearshore FADs could enhance the success of coral reef management initiatives, e.g. those by the local marine managed area (LMMA) networks [23,24] and Micronesia Challenge4, by providing practical ways for people to continue to catch pelagic fish when regulations are introduced to help coral reefs recover from overfishing and other local stressors, e.g. through designation of temporal or spatial fishing closures.

Despite the promise that nearshore FADs hold for improving access to tuna and other pelagic fish for coastal and urban communities, and for improving the management of coral reefs, extensive planning, monitoring and research are needed to reap all the potential benefits of FADs. Indeed, considerable caution is required to implement FAD programmes so that they do not fall into the same category as the many technically viable and seemingly sensible 'solutions' littering the region that have failed

4 www.micronesiachallenge.org.

Fig. 1. General structure and typical placement of nearshore FADs in depths of 300 to 700 m.

to live up to expectations (e.g. Ref. [25]). In particular, the lessons from introducing other interventions to communities need to be learned [23,26,27]. Without participatory approaches and significant 'ownership' by communities it will be difficult to operatio-nalise nearshore FADs effectively. The vandalism and sabotage of nearshore FADs in several areas reflects the complex politics and institutional landscape that can exist, and the issues that need to be resolved to harness the full potential of these promising tools.

Experience with planning the limited number of nearshore FADs that have already been installed across the region (Supplementary Table 1) also shows that: (1) there is often no national framework for identifying priority sites and community criteria for installation of FADs; (2) some nearshore FADs do not yield good catches of large pelagic fish [11]; (3) fishing by industrial fleets operating close to fishing exclusion zones could affect the catch of tuna and other large pelagic fish by small-scale fishers; (4) more extensive monitoring programmes are needed to produce robust estimates of average catches of tuna and other target species around nearshore FADs, and to determine whether coastal communities are catching enough tuna and other pelagic fish to meet their needs; (5) rigorous sampling designs will be required to determine whether nearshore FADs add value to coral reef management initiatives; and (6) there is still scope for improving the designs and placement of nearshore FADs.

This paper describes the investments, over and above the costs of construction and deployment, needed to optimise the use of nearshore FADs for improving access to tuna and other pelagic fish for the food security of rural5 and urban communities in Pacific Island countries and territories.

5 Defined here as coastal rural communities.

2. Investments required

2.1. Identifying priority locations for nearshore FADs

This investment applies to those PICTs where (1) sustainable harvests from coral reefs will not support the recommended or traditional levels of per capita fish consumption for growing populations; and (2) it is prohibitively expensive to transport fish caught from remote coral reefs to urban centres (see above). In the first group of PICTs, nearshore FADs will be needed in both rural and urban areas. For the second group, FADs will be required mainly near urban centres. The planning needed to identify priority locations for installing FADs in these situations is described below.

2.1.1. Rural areas

Identifying where best to install nearshore FADs in rural areas needs to be set in the broader context of assessing the vulnerability of coastal communities to shortages of fish. This involves GIS analysis to integrate information on the size and location of coastal villages, the area of coral reef within easy access of villages, and the distance to the nearest general area suitable for installing FADs based on available bathymetric data. Although fine resolution bathymetric maps are only available for relatively few PICTs, modelled bathymetry from the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO) provides sufficient detail to identify suitable depth zones for nearshore FADs (Fig. 2). Integrating GIS layers on the availability of freshwater and local topography will also be useful because some villages may be well placed to engage in freshwater pond aquaculture. Overall, however, it will be many years until pond aquaculture can provide significant quantities of fish per person in most rural areas [28].

0 500 1000 1500 >2000

Depth (m)

Fig. 2. (a) Fine-scale bathymetric map of Efate Island, Vanuatu (source: Secretariat of the Pacific Community); (b) modelled bathymetry of Efate Island based on the General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans; lines represent 100 m depth contours and numbers are depths in m.

Table 2

Broad categories of vulnerability of rural (coastal) communities to future shortages of fish, based on access to coral reef areas, suitable bathymetry for installing nearshore fish aggregating devices (FADs), and local availability of freshwater and suitability of terrain for freshwater pond aquaculture (after Ref. [19]).

Vulnerability Context of coastal village

Area of coral reef Distance to the Potential for

expected to meet nearest FAD is freshwater

future demand practical/ pond

for fish acceptable aquaculture

Very low Yes Yes/no Yes/no

Very low-low No Yesa Yes

Low No Yesb Yes

Low-medium No Yesa No

Medium No Yesb No

High No No Yes

Very high No No No

a FAD can be reached by paddling canoe. b Motorized boat needed to reach FAD.

Coastal communities are expected to fall into one of seven broad categories of vulnerability to shortages of fish based on GIS analysis (Table 2). Nearshore FADs will be particularly important for villages that do not have large areas of healthy coral reef per capita, little scope for pond aquaculture, and limited potential to produce other sources of protein.

There are three other important considerations in deploying near-shore FADs within the suitable depth range. First, consultations should be held with coastal communities to secure assurances that assistance will be provided to provincial or national agencies to install and maintain FADs (see Sections 2.2 and 4), and to identify sites where the best catches of tuna and other pelagic fish species have traditionally been made.

Second, FADs should be anchored far enough away from coral reefs to ensure that they do not increase pressure on these ecosystems by attracting reef-associated fish species, e.g. Spanish mackerel and trevally (Carangidae). Distances of ~ 1 km from the nearest reef should meet this requirement.

Third, FADs should be far enough apart to ensure that the potential for each FAD to aggregate tuna is not compromised. Tagging of a limited number of yellowfin and skipjack tuna indicates that these fish

can detect FADs from a distance of ~ 10 km [29,30], suggesting that FADs could be spaced 20 km apart. On the other hand, observations by master fishermen in the Coastal Fisheries Programme at the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) responsible for assisting PICTs to install nearshore FADs indicate that FADs can be as close as 5 km apart when placed relatively close to the coast.

Ideally, nearshore FADs also need to be located close enough to coastal villages so that fishers can paddle to them in canoes. Deploying FADs at greater distances will be necessary in some situations, e.g. where the bathymetry close to shore is not suitable, where large lagoons have to be traversed, or where traditional knowledge shows that the best catches are made further offshore. However, locating FADs further from the coast may oblige communities to invest in motor boats—something that is often beyond the means of subsistence fishers. The greater depths further offshore also increase the costs involved in building FADs, and may prevent the use of submerged designs due to the effects of stronger and more variable currents on the position of the aggregators. Another advantage of keeping FADs close enough to the coast so that small-scale fishers can reach them by paddling canoe is that FAD programmes should not lead to substantial increases in fishing capacity (motorised boats), which could further increase overfishing of coral reefs.

Until the GIS analysis described above is complete, it is not possible to determine how many coastal villages in PICTs could potentially benefit from nearshore FADs. Where such villages are closer than 20 km to each other, resolution of the best average distance between FADs (see Section 2.6) will enable appropriate arrangements to be made to share FADs.

2.1.2. Urban areas

Investments in nearshore FADs to increase access to tuna for urban populations will be more modest than investments in FADs for rural communities. This is because there is a limit to how many FADs can be installed near urban areas due to the need to place FADs within an economically viable operating distance (~ 20 km) from towns for the small-scale fishers who will use them. As proposed for planning the placement of nearshore FADs in rural areas, modelled bathymetric data from GEBCO, combined with the knowledge of local fishers and commitments of local communities to 'host' FADs used to supply fish

to urban populations, will be needed to identify the best locations for aggregating devices within 20 km of urban centres.

On the basis that it may be possible to place nearshore FADs as close as 5 km apart, a total of ~ 230 sites for submerged FADs will be needed around urban areas in those PICTs with fish deficits or with difficulties distributing fish from remote reefs (Supplementary Table 2). It will be particularly important to use submerged FADs near major urban centres to prevent fouling by shipping servicing national and provincial ports. Permission to install FADs at depths below the draft of the largest vessels will need to be obtained from port authorities.

The constraints on the number of nearshore FADs that can be placed close to urban centres means that they will not meet all the additional urban demand for fish in some countries. However, in several regional ports, e.g. Honiara in Solomon Islands, Tarawa in Kiribati, Rabaul in PNG and Funafuti in Tuvalu, there is considerable potential to obtain the balance of the fish required from offloading of small tuna and bycatch from purse-seine vessels during transhipping operations [7,31]. In some locations, it may also be possible to develop economically viable cold-chain infrastructure to facilitate trade in tuna and other pelagic fish caught around more distant nearshore FADs to supply urban centres and boost income in rural areas.

2.2. Engaging with communities to realise the full potential of nearshore FADs

To make the most of nearshore FADs deployed in rural areas, consultations with communities need to be held to identify: (1) any social or operational impediments between and within communities to fishing effectively around FADs; (2) opportunities to engage with government departments and NGO partners in co-management of FADs, e.g. taking responsibility for notifying these agencies about the loss of FADs and assisting with the labour involved in replacing damaged or lost FADs; (3) how to partition the work involved in catching, processing, distributing or selling fish caught from FADs in a gender-sensitive way; and (4) how best to integrate fishing around FADs with existing livelihood activities, household responsibilities and other community-based fisheries management initiatives.

Ultimately, nearshore FAD programs should be embedded in the wider development planning of communities and provincial and national governments [11]. When it comes to implementation, governments and NGO partners need to develop processes for engaging with communities in operationalising and sustaining FAD programmes that specify: (1) the level of participation, awareness and investment by community members, including broad representation of households and surrounding communities to minimise vandalism; (2) arrangements to harness traditional knowledge to contribute to the selection of FAD sites and FAD designs; (3) user rights, potential social impacts, and linkages with other coastal fisheries management activities;

(4) community members in the greatest need of training in fishing techniques, boat safety, and fish preservation and handling; and

(5) procedures for mobilising assets required for FAD fishing (e.g. canoes/boats, specialised fishing gear), post-harvest processing and safety at sea. The community FAD management guidelines developed recently in Vanuatu [22] provide a pertinent example.

2.3. Assessing the effectiveness of exclusion zones for industrial fleets

A key assumption of plans to make nearshore FADs part of the national infrastructure for food security is that sufficient tuna will be available in coastal waters to meet the needs of rural communities. However, concerns have been raised about the potential for industrial tuna catches within the EEZs of PICTs to have negative effects on small-scale tuna fisheries. To help address these concerns, many PICTs have declared 12 nm exclusion zones for foreign industrial fleets

around all their islands [32]. Kiribati has increased the exclusion area to 60 nm around some islands, and Marshall Islands, Palau and Samoa also have 50 nm exclusions zones in some areas. However, exclusion zones within the archipelagic waters of PNG and Solomon Islands, where the greatest needs for increased access to tuna for rural communities occurs, are more limited. In PNG, national vessels and fleets from countries that have invested in onshore processing are permitted to fish within archipelagic waters. In these waters, such industrial longline vessels can come as close as 6 nm from the nearest land, island or declared reef and purse-seine vessels are allowed within 12 nm. In Solomon Islands, national purse-seine vessels are licensed to fish in archipelagic waters within 6 nm of land and national pole-and-line vessels can operate within 3 nm. Industrial fleets fishing in the archipelagic waters of PNG and Solomon Islands have deployed large numbers of anchored FADs in offshore area to increase the efficiency of their operations (Supplementary Fig. 1).

To evaluate the effectiveness of the exclusion zones for industrial fleets, a targeted tagging programme is needed to answer the question 'What proportions of tuna tagged within exclusion zones in archipe-lagic waters are recaptured by industrial fleets and by small-scale fisheries?' Although re-analysis of past tagging data to assess the recapture rates of tuna marked with conventional dart tags within or close to exclusion zones could help to reveal whether tuna remain close to the coast in some parts of the region, difficulties in recovering tags from small-scale fishers at those times means that the data cannot be used to answer the question with confidence. Mobile phone technology now provides the opportunity to remove the previous bias associated with tag returns from small-scale fishers by sending messages regularly to coastal households informing them about the tagging programme and the rewards available for returning tags.

The costs of this targeted tagging programme are expected to be lower than those for the other tuna tagging programmes operated by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community6, which used large pole-and-line vessels to tag tuna both close to and long distances from the coast. For this task, tuna could be tagged with conventional and acoustic tags from small (15 m) pole-and-line boats operating from coastal towns on a daily basis. Monitors for detecting acoustic tags can be placed on nearshore FADs.

2.4. Monitoring catches around nearshore FADs

Estimates of average catches of tuna and other pelagic fish around nearshore FADs are currently based on relatively few observations (Supplementary Table 3). Long-term sampling around replicate FADs at multiple sites in several PICTs is needed to provide robust estimates of average catches. Well-designed, fishery-dependent surveys that take into account fishing method/gear type, canoe/boat size, time of day, season, water depth, distance from shore, etc, will improve knowledge of the factors that influence catches around nearshore FADs and enable the deployment of FADs to be progressively improved. Such sampling programmes should also be designed to assess the catches of small-scale fisheries targeting tuna that are not associated with nearshore FADs. Broadening the monitoring and survey design in this way will not only help quantity the benefits of FADs for small-scale fishers, it will also help answer the question 'Are artisanal and subsistence small-scale fisheries catching sufficient tuna to meet the food requirements of coastal communities?'

Considerable thought has already gone into the components of programmes to monitor small-scale tuna catch and data record-ing7. The recommendation is for the data to be managed through national or provincial databases, supported by (1) a web-based

6 www.spc.int/tagging/.

7 Regionally established standard monitoring forms are available at http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/data-collection/241-data-collection-forms.

reporting tool to provide immediate access to the results, and (2) development of applications for mobile devices to facilitate e-reporting.

Socioeconomic surveys, e.g. household income and expenditure surveys (HIES) [33], can also be used to measure increases in consumption of tuna by coastal communities. The participation of households in HIES, particularly the completion of diaries, can also be expected to raise awareness of communities about the role of FADs in increasing local supplies of tuna.

2.5. Evaluating whether FADs improve coral reef management initiatives

The scope for FADs to strengthen the management of coral reefs using spatial closures and other community-based approaches, such as those applied by the LMMA network [23] and through the Micronesia Challenge, is predicated on the assumption that compliance with management measures will be enhanced where communities have access to other sources of fish or livelihoods. This assumption is intuitive but has yet to be substantiated [11,34].

The potential for FADs to add value to coral reef management initiatives needs to be tested rigorously. This is difficult to do but the 'Before vs after, control vs impact' (BACI) sampling designs [35,36], which have already been applied in coral reef ecosystems [37-39], provide the best approach. In this context, effective BACI sampling designs will involve measuring a series of appropriate indicators of coral reef health (e.g. diversity, percentage cover and structural complexity of corals, and percentage algal cover) and reef fish stock status (e.g. abundance, diversity, size structure and mean trophic level), at multiple sites with and without FADs in at least three PICTs on several occasions before and after installation of FADs. Then, if the indicators at the sites with FADs are not significantly different from those at control sites prior to deployment of FADs but are significantly different after a period of deployment, it is reasonable to conclude that FADs account for the observed changes (see Supplementary material for details).

In addition to measuring appropriate indicators of coral reef health and fish stock status, it will also be necessary to monitor (1) compliance with community-based management regulations (e.g. fishing location and gear type); (2) the social sustainability of fishing around FADs (e.g. incidence of conflict over FAD use or vandalism of FADs); and (3) the amount of fishing for tuna and other pelagic fish at all sites before and after deployment of FADs to record the extent to which FADs change fishing behaviour. Such monitoring will also provide important data on the effectiveness of FADs as a source of additional fish for coastal communities.

A proposed sampling design is given in Supplementary Table 4 and the recommended analytical model, based on the use of Permutational Analysis of Variance [40], is provided in Supplementary Table 5. The model consists of a 5-factor design incorporating two temporal components (Before vs After installation of FADs, and multiple periods within Before and After), two spatial components (PICTs and LMMAs within PICTs) and the key factor of interest, presence v absence of FADs.

2.6. Improving the design and placement of FADs

Submerged designs for nearshore FADs have already been developed to reduce the risk of vandalism and the effects of wave action on FAD components (Supplementary Fig. 2). The advent of submerged FADs, and the fact that many coastal communities are keen to target small pelagic fish as well as tuna, means that there is still a need to experiment with the design of FADs. Key questions that need to be addressed include: does the depth of floats on a submerged FAD affect the types of fish caught and the catch rate? Are different aggregating materials needed to attract small pelagic fish? How

should submerged FADs be designed to increase their longevity and minimise any risks to marine mammals, turtles and sea birds?

Research involving acoustic tagging of tuna is also needed to identify the optimum distance between FADs, and to test the hypothesis that it may be more effective to deploy FADs in small clusters, with each FAD separated by ~ 500 m. This hypothesis is based on observations by master fishermen at SPC that deploying FADs in clusters increases the likelihood of installing at least one FAD in the best place at a given site.

3. Discussion

The investments summarised here offer a pathway for increasing the availability of tuna and other pelagic fish for rural and urban communities in Pacific Island countries and territories. Indeed, they represent some of the most practical ways of allowing these communities to obtain the relatively small share of the region's rich tuna resources they need for food security [7].

In addition to providing a platform for improved public health, such investments also promise to be win-win adaptations to climate change. In particular, national FAD infrastructure should help supply more fish for growing populations in the short term and provide a continued source of fish as coastal fisheries decline due to the degradation of coral reefs caused by increasing sea surface temperatures and ocean acidification [18,19]. Even in PICTs where the abundance of tuna is projected to decrease as climate change causes an eastward shift in their distribution [41,42], nearshore FADs are likely to contribute to the needs of growing rural populations for two reasons. First, relatively large numbers of tuna are expected to remain in the EEZs of countries in the western Pacific by 2035 [41,42]. Second, the percentage of average tuna catches from the EEZs of all PICTs required for local food security in 2035 is low (< 6%) [7].

A proviso is that industrial fishing operations near the boundaries of exclusion zones in archipelagic and territorial waters of PICTs do not have a significant effect on the tuna catches of small-scale fishers. In the event that tagging programmes indicate that the great majority of tuna marked within existing exclusion zones are eventually caught by industrial fleets, and monitoring the catch of small-scale tuna fishers reveals that their catches are not meeting the demand for tuna by rural communities, expansion of exclusion zones will need to be considered. However, where extension of exclusion zones is likely to reduce the catches of industrial fleets significantly, cost:benefit analyses will be needed. These analyses should weigh up (1) the effects of reduced industrial catches on government revenue and opportunities to work in local tuna canneries or as crew on tuna fishing vessels; (2) the costs of providing coastal communities with improved access to tuna in other ways; and (3) the cost in terms of public health of inadequate access to tuna.

The outcome of the proposed suite of investments described here provides a blueprint for planning the installation of FADs as part of the national infrastructure for food security in PICTs. Such investments need to be given priority in national development plans because the number of nearshore FADs presently deployed in PICTs (Supplementary Table 1) is estimated to be well below the numbers likely to be needed by coastal communities. Other benefits of the proposed investments will be more robust information about the quantities of tuna and other pelagic fish likely to be harvested from FADs, and the cohesive community arrangements needed to reap the full range of benefits.

Once the FADs have been deployed in rural and urban areas, it will be imperative to maintain this infrastructure. If FADs are not replaced as soon as practical following loss or damage due to storms, vandalism or fouling by coastal shipping, the momentum

involved in creating opportunities to provide the additional fish needed for food security, and transferring fishing effort from coral reefs to oceanic fisheries resources, will be lost.

Even though co-management of FADs is essential, national and provincial governments, or their development partners, should bear the main responsibility for the replacement of FADs lost or damaged under circumstances beyond the control of communities because small-scale fishers are unlikely to have the resources to replace FADs quickly. In much the same way that farmers are not expected to repair roads and bridges damaged by floods, build wharfs, provide shipping or construct marketplaces to sell their food (except through payment of taxes), small-scale fishers should not be expected to shoulder the cost of providing infrastructure that is so important to national food security. This is the domain of governments. However, communities should be custodians of investments made on their behalf and maintain FADs to improve the working life of these assets. Also, where FADs are lost due to negligence, vandalism or sabotage by community members, the onus should be on communities to replace them.

The prime requirements for replacing lost FADs quickly are stockpiles of spare parts in provincial areas, together with access to the vessels, staff and operating budgets needed to install new FADs. The budgets of national and provincial fisheries agencies are not presently large enough in most PICTs to cater for the replacement of FADs in this way [43,44]. Therefore, national planning offices should alert development partners about the importance of nearshore FADs to local food security and request the resources needed to maintain the required stocks of FAD materials and specialised staff. Importantly, stockpiles of spare FADs should be replenished regularly and maintained above threshold levels.

It is also important that national governments are committed to, and have ownership of, FAD programmes. In particular, there is scope in several Pacific Island countries for using some of the substantial licence revenues received from distant water fishing nations [7] to help fund nearshore FAD infrastructure. In those nations where industrial fishing companies deploy large anchored FADs for use by purse-seine vessels, e.g. PNG and Solomon Islands (Supplementary Fig. 1), arrangements could also be made with such companies to assist with the installation of nearshore FADs needed for local food security.

Although the investments discussed here apply to a broad range of PICTs, it will be important to ensure that FAD programmes in each country or territory are developed within the national or provincial context. Differences in local governance among (and sometimes within) PICTs mean that attempts to apply 'one-size-fits-all' approaches [45] are likely to add further complexity to the implementation of FAD programmes.

4. Conclusions

Installation of nearshore FADs is one of the few interventions that could provide access to the additional fish needed for good nutrition of growing Pacific Island populations, particularly in rural coastal areas. To ensure that nearshore FADs fulfil their potential to become an important component of national infrastructure for food security, it is imperative that investments in FAD programmes are not limited to improving the logistics of installing FADs. Investments must also extend to the participatory processes needed to identify those communities that are (1) most in need of FADs, (2) committed to sharing the benefits equitably, and (3) prepared to engage with government agencies and their development partners in the maintenance of FADs. Smooth co-management of nearshore FADs by communities, provincial and national governments and NGOs will not only help optimise the potential contributions of tuna and other pelagic fish to local food security, it will set the stage for determining whether nearshore FADs

add value to management initiatives for coral reefs by transferring some fishing effort to oceanic fisheries resources.

Acknowledgements

The Dalio Foundation supported the preparation of this manuscript. This study was also supported partially by the New Zealand Aid Programme, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (project FIS/2012/074), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and contributes to the CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems. The information in the supplementary material on the numbers of nearshore FADs currently in use was supplied by national fisheries agencies of Pacific Island countries and territories. Sebastian Troeng, Jonathan Peacey and Kevin Stokes provided discussions and/ or comments on the draft text which improved the manuscript. Boris Colas and Carla Appel kindly assisted with the figures.

Appendix A. Supporting information

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.02.010.

References

[1] Bell JD, Kronen M, Vunisea A, Nash WJ, Keeble G, Demmke A, Pontifex S, Andréfouet S. Planning the use of fish for food security in the Pacific. Mar Policy 2009;33:64-76.

[2] Gillett R. Fisheries in the economies of Pacific Island countries and territories. Manila: Asian Development Bank; 2009.

[3] SPC. Fish and food security. Policy Brief 1/2008. Noumea; Secretariat of the Pacific Community; 2008.

[4] Roos N, Wahab MA, Chamnan C, Thilsted SH. The role of fish in food-based strategies to combat Vitamin A and mineral deficiencies in developing countries. J Nutr 2007;137:1106-9.

[5] Cassels S. Overweight in the Pacific: links between foreign dependence, global food trade, and obesity in the Federated States of Micronesia. Globalization Health 2006:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-2-10.

[6] Cheng MH. Asia-Pacific faces diabetes challenge. Lancet 2010;375:2207-10.

[7] Bell JD, Allain A, Allison EH, Andréfouet S, Andrew NL, Batty MJ, Blanc M, et al. Diversifying the use of tuna to improve food security and public health in Pacific Island countries and territories. Mar Policy 2015;51:584-91.

[8] SPC. Fish aggregating devices. Policy Brief 19/2012. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacific Community; 2012.

[9] Dagorn L, Holland KN, Restrepo V, Moreno G. Is it good or bad to fish with FADs? What are the real impacts of the use of drifting FADs on pelagic marine ecosystems? Fish Fish 2013;14:391-415.

[10] Taquet M. Fish aggregating devices (FADs): good or bad tools? A question of scale and knowledge Aquat Living Resour 2013;26:25-35.

[11] Albert JA, Beare D, Schwarz A-M, Albert S, Warren R, Teri J, et al. The contribution of nearshore fish aggregating devices (FADs) to food security and livelihoods in Solomon Islands. PLoS One 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115386.

[12] Chapman L, Pasisi B, Bertram I, Beverly S, Sokimi W. Manual on fish aggregating devices (FADs): lower-cost moorings and programme management. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacific Community; 2005.

[13] Buckley RM, Itano DG, Buckley TW. Fish aggregation device (FAD) enhancement of offshore fisheries in American Samoa. Bull Mar Sci 1989;44:942-9.

[14] Sharp M. The benefits of fish aggregating devices in the Pacific. SPC Fish Newslett 2011;135:28-36.

[15] Sharp M. Investment profile for anchored nearshore fish aggregating device. SPC Fish Newslett 2012;136:46-8.

[16] Sharp M. Positive results of a FAD monitoring programme in Yap. SPC Fish Newslett 2014;143:34-8.

[17] Bellwood DR, Hughes TP, Folke C, Nystrom M. Confronting the coral reef crisis. Nature 2004;429:827-33.

[18] Pratchett MS, Munday PL, Graham NAJ, Kronen M, Pinca S, Friedman K, et al. Vulnerability of coastal fisheries in the tropical Pacific to climate change. In: Bell JD, Johnson JE, Hobday AJ, editors. Vulnerability of tropical Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate change. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacific Community; 2011.

[19] Bell JD, Andrew NL, Batty MJ, Chapman LB, Dambacher JM, Dawson B, et al. Adapting tropical Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate change: management measures, policies and investments. In: Bell JD, Johnson JE, Hobday AJ, editors. Vulnerability of tropical Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate change. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacific Community; 2011.

[20] SPC. Coastal Fisheries and climate change. Policy Brief 16/2012. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacific Community; 2012.

[21] SPC. Pacific Island fisheries and climate change. Policy Brief 24/2014. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacific Community; 2014.

[22] Amos G, Nimoho G, Fujii M, Seko A, Inuma M, Nishiyama K, et al. New FAD development approach strengthens community-based fisheries management in Vanuatu. SPC Fish Newslett 2014;144:40-7.

[23] Govan H, Tawake A, Tabunakawai K, Jenkins A, Lasgorceix A, Schwarz A-M, et al. Status and potential of locally-managed marine areas in the South Pacific: meeting nature conservation and sustainable livelihood targets through wide-spread implementation of LMMAs. Apia: SPREP/World Wildlife Fund/WorldFish; 2009.

[24] Jupiter SD, Cohen PJ, Weeks R, Tawake A, Govan H. Locally-managed marine areas: multiple objectives and diverse strategies. Pac Conserv Biol 2014;20:165-79.

[25] Hambrey JH, Govan H, Carleton C. Opportunities for the development of the Pacific Islands' mariculture sector. Noumea: Report to the Secretariat of the Pacific Community; 2012 http://bit.ly/wn6MTK.

[26] Cohen P, Schwarz A-M, Boso D, Hilly Z. Lessons from implementing, adapting and sustaining community-based adaptive marine resource management. Penang: WorldFish; 2013.

[27] Abernethy KE, Bodin O, Olsson P, Hilly Z, Schwarz A-M. Two steps forward, two steps back: the role of innovation in transforming towards community-based marine resource management in Solomon Islands. Global Environ Change 2014;28:309-21.

[28] Pickering TD, Ponia B, Hair CA, Southgate PC, Poloczanska ES, Della Patrona L, et al. Vulnerability of aquaculture in the tropical Pacific to climate change. In: Bell JD, Johnson JE, Hobday AJ, editors. Vulnerability of tropical Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate change. Noumea: Secretariat of the Pacific Community; 2011.

[29] Girard C, Benhamou S, Dagorn L. FAD: fish aggregating device or fish attracting device? A new analysis of yellowfin tuna movements around floating objects Anim Behav 2004;67:319-26.

[30] Cayre P. Behavior of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and skip- jack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) around fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the Comoros Islands as determined by ultrasonic tagging. Aquat Living Resour 1991;4:1-12.

[31] Pilling GM, Harley SJ, Nicol S, Williams P, Hampton J. Can the tropical Western and Central Pacific tuna purse seine fishery contribute to Pacific Island population food security? Food Secur 2015;7:67-81.

[32] Govan H. Monitoring, control and surveillance of coastal fisheries in Kiribati and Vanuatu. Noumea: Report to Secretariat of the Pacific Community; 2014 http://bit.ly/1vOvcSR.

[33] Bell J, Bright P, Gillett R, Keeble G, Kronen M, Passfield K, Ryan C. Importance of household income and expenditure surveys and censuses for management of coastal and freshwater fisheries. SPC Fish Newslett 2008;127:34-9.

[34] Gillett R, Preston G, Nash W, Govan H, Adams T, Lam M. Livelihood diversification as a marine resource management tool in the Pacific Islands: lessons learned. SPC Fish Newslett 2008;125:32-9.

[35] Underwood AJ. Beyond BACI: the detection of environmental impacts on populations in the real, but variable, world. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 1992;161:145-68.

[36] Underwood AJ. The mechanics of spatially replicated sampling programmes to detect environmental impacts in a variable world. Aust J Ecol 1993;18:99-118.

[37] Lincoln Smith MP, Bell JD, Mapstone BD. Testing the use of a marine protected area to restore and manage invertebrate fisheries at the Arnavon Islands, Solomon Islands: choice of methods and preliminary results. In: Proceedings of the eighth international coral reef symposium, vol. 2; 1997. p. 1937-1942.

[38] Lincoln Smith MP, Pitt KA, Bell JD, Mapstone BD. Using impact assessment methods to determine the effects of a marine reserve on abundances and sizes of valuable tropical invertebrates. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 2006;63:1251-66.

[39] Francini-Filho RB, Moura RL. Evidence for spillover of reef fishes from a no-take marine reserve: an evaluation using the before-after control-impact (BACI) approach. Fish Res 2008;93:346-56.

[40] Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR. PERMANOVA + for PRIMER: Guide to software and statistical methods. Plymouth: PRIMER-E; 2008.

[41] Lehodey P, Senina I, Calmettes B, Hampton J, Nicol S. Modelling the impact of climate change on Pacific skipjack tuna population and fisheries. Clim Change 2013;119:95-109.

[42] Bell JD, Ganachaud A, Gehrke PC, Griffiths SP, Hobday AJ, Hoegh-Guldberg O, et al. Mixed responses of tropical Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate change. Nat Clim Change 2013;3:591-9.

[43] Govan H. Strategic review of inshore fisheries policies and strategies in Melanesia: Fiji, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu. Part I: General overview. Noumea: Report to the Secretariat of the Pacific Community for the Melanesian Spearhead Group; 2013 http://bit.ly/ 1dhIxv4http://bit.ly/1dhIxv4.

[44] Govan H, Kinch J, Brjosniovschi A. Strategic review of inshore fisheries policies and strategies in Melanesia: Fiji, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu. Part II: Country reports and data. Noumea: Report to the Secretariat of the Pacific Community for the Melanesian Spearhead Group; 2013. http://bit.ly/1dhIxv4.

[45] Hanich Q, Teo F, Tsamenyi M. A collective approach to Pacific Islands fisheries management: moving beyond regional agreements. Mar Policy 2010;34:85-91.

[46] Newton K, Cote IM, Pilling GM, Jennings S, Dulvy NK. Current and future sustainability of island coral reef fisheries. Curr Biol 2007;17:655-8.

[47] Andrefouet S, Muller-Karger FE, Robinson JA, Kranenburg CJ, Torres-Pulliza D, Spraggins SA, Murch B. Global assessment of modern coral reef extent and diversity for regional science and management applications: a view from space. In: Suzuki Y, Nakamori T, Hidaka M, Kayanne H, Casareto BE, Nadaoka K, Yamano H, Tsuchiya M, Yamazato K, editors. Tenth international coral reef symposium. Okinawa: Japanese Coral Reef Society; 2006.