Marine Policy 56 (2015) 98–105

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Optimising the use of nearshore ﬁsh aggregating devices
for food security in the Paciﬁc Islands
Johann D. Bell a,b,n, Joelle Albert c, Serge Andréfouët d, Neil L. Andrew b,e, Michel Blanc f,
Philip Bright g, Deidre Brogan f, Brooke Campbell b, Hugh Govan h, John Hampton f,
Quentin Hanich b, Shelton Harley f, Arthur Jorari g, Marcus Lincoln Smith i,j, Scott Pontifex g,
Michael K. Sharp g, William Sokimi f, Arthur Webb baBetty and Gordon Moore Center for Science and Oceans, Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, USA
Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
WorldFish, PO Box 438, Honiara, Solomon IslandsdInstitut de Recherche pour le Développement, B.P. A5, 98848 Noumea, New CaledoniaeWorldFish, Bayan Lepas, Penang 11960, MalaysiafFisheries, Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystems Division, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community, B.P. D5, 98848 Noumea, New CaledoniagStatistics for Development Division, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community, B.P. D5, 98848 Noumea, New CaledoniahLocally Managed Marine Areas Network, PO Box S-37, Suva, Fijii
Cardno, PO Box 19, St Leonards, NSW 1590, AustraliajDepartment of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australiabc

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 26 November 2014
Received in revised form
20 February 2015
Accepted 20 February 2015

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 andremove 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 smallscale-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 andmaintain 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/).

Keywords:
Paciﬁc Islands
Fish aggregating devices (FADs)
Food security
Tuna
Small-scale ﬁsheries
Co-management

1. Introduction
Paciﬁc Island people have an extraordinary dependence on ﬁsh1 forfood. 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 pelagicﬁsh (including tuna), is several times higher than the global average[1,2]. Fish typically supplies 50–90% of dietary animal protein fornCorresponding author at: Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources andSecurity, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia. Tel.:+612 4221 4883/+61
412 657319.
E-mail address: b.johann9@gmail.com (J.D. Bell).
1Fish 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 kg yr  1.
As the human populations of PICTs grow, governments havebeen encouraged to provide access to at least 35 kg of ﬁsh perperson per year [3], or maintain higher traditional levels of ﬁshconsumption where they occur [1], for two reasons. First, ﬁsh isrich in protein, essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals [4], andis a logical cornerstone for food security given the high levels ofsubsistence and scarcity of arable land on many of the islands.
Second, increased access to ﬁsh provides a healthy alternative tothe nutritionally-poor imported foods now pervading Paciﬁc diets[5,6]. Greater consumption of ﬁsh and other traditional foods isneeded to combat the high prevalence of non-communicablediseases 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/).

J.D. Bell et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 98–105

99

Table 1
Indicative quantities of ﬁsh needed for food in 2020 and 2035, and surpluses ( þ ) 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(t yr  1)a2020
Fish needed for food (t)b2035

Surplus ( þ )/deﬁcit (  ) (t)Fish needed for food (t)b

Surplus ( þ )/deﬁcit (  ) (t)cGroup 1: countries and territories expected to have a ﬁsh deﬁcit
Papua New Guinead
81,26081,860
Solomon Islandse
27,610f
25,400Samoag14,00015,600
Kiribatig
12,96010,900
Vanuatue
3,730
10,800American Samoag
1,100
2,100
e
CNMI
750
2,100
e
Guam
710
6,900
Naurug
130
700

 600
2,210
 1,600
2,060
 7,070
 1,000 1,350
 6,190 570

108,500
35,60015,70013,40014,000
2,400
2,300
7,400
800

 30,090
 7,990
 2,190
 890
 10,400
 1,340
 1,580
 6,710 670Group 2: countries and territories with difﬁculties distributing ﬁsh to urban centres
77,00031,100Fijie
FSMg
45,2207,600g
French Polynesia
45,38018,800e
17,4303,600
Tonga
Tuvalug
9,530
1,300
Wallis and Futunag
2,800
900
Niueg
170
100

þ45,900
þ37,620
þ 26,580
þ13,830
þ 8,230
þ1,900þ 70

33,700
7,100
20,000
3,900
1,500
900
100

þ 40,610
þ 36,540
þ 23,790
þ 12,920
þ 7,700
þ 1,800
þ 60

Based on median estimates of sustainable ﬁsh harvests of 3 t km  2 of coral reef [46,47], and other sources of information [7].
Based on population projections by the Statistics for Development Division, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community.
cCalculations for 2035 include a 2–5% reduction in the production of coastal ﬁsheries due to the effects of climate change [18].
dFish 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 (seeSupplementary 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.
eFish needed for food based on recommended ﬁsh consumption of 35 kg per person per year.
fIncludes 2000 t of freshwater ﬁsh.
gFish 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].
ab

For many PICTs2, the problem is that the production of ﬁshfrom coral reefs will not yield the recommended 35 kg of ﬁsh perperson 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 remotereefs 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 catchfrom the combined exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of PICTs [7], there
are considerable challenges involved in distributing this tuna to thegrowing coastal and urban communities.
One of the most practical ‘vehicles’ for improving local access totuna is installation of nearshore ﬁsh aggregating devices (FADs)(Fig. 1). Nearshore FADs are based on observations that tuna andother large pelagic ﬁsh are attracted to ﬂoating objects and often
stay in their vicinity for several days. Nearshore FADs differ fromthe 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 inrural 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 ﬁshcaught around them exceed their costs by 3–7 times [12]. Other
studies, comparing catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) and fuel2
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 andWallis and Futuna.

consumption (L h  1) of small-scale ﬁshers operating with andwithout 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 thatnearshore 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 andmaintain the normal representation of important functional groups
of ﬁsh (e.g. herbivores) associated with coral reefs [17] required toassist these ecosystems to adapt to climate change [18–21]. Preliminary analyses in the Federated States of Micronesia andVanuatu 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. thoseby the local marine managed area (LMMA) networks [23,24] andMicronesia Challenge4, by providing practical ways for people tocontinue to catch pelagic ﬁsh when regulations are introduced tohelp 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 isrequired to implement FAD programmes so that they do not fall
into the same category as the many technically viable andseemingly sensible ‘solutions’ littering the region that have failed

4

www.micronesiachallenge.org.

100

J.D. Bell et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 98–105

l
Cora

l
Cora

reef

reef

100 m
200 m

500

300 m

m

400 m

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 belearned [23,26,27]. Without participatory approaches and signiﬁcant ‘ownership’ by communities it will be difﬁcult to operationalise nearshore FADs effectively. The vandalism and sabotageof 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 toﬁshing 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 averagecatches of tuna and other target species around nearshore FADs,
and to determine whether coastal communities are catching enoughtuna 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 scopefor improving the designs and placement of nearshore FADs.
This paper describes the investments, over and above the costsof construction and deployment, needed to optimise the use ofnearshore FADs for improving access to tuna and other pelagic ﬁshfor the food security of rural5 and urban communities in PaciﬁcIsland 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 fromremote 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 ofcoastal communities to shortages of ﬁsh. This involves GIS analysis tointegrate information on the size and location of coastal villages, thearea of coral reef within easy access of villages, and the distance to thenearest 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 theGeneral Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans (GEBCO) provides sufﬁcientdetail 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 wellplaced to engage in freshwater pond aquaculture. Overall, however, it
will be many years until pond aquaculture can provide signiﬁcantquantities of ﬁsh per person in most rural areas [28].

J.D. Bell et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 98–105

101

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 shortagesof ﬁsh, based on access to coral reef areas, suitable bathymetry for installingnearshore ﬁsh aggregating devices (FADs), and local availability of freshwater andsuitability of terrain for freshwater pond aquaculture (after Ref. [19]).
Vulnerability

Very low
Very low–low
Low
Low–medium
MediumHigh
Very highabContext of coastal village
Area of coral reef
expected to meet
future demand
for ﬁshDistance to thenearest FAD ispractical/
acceptable

Potential for
freshwaterpond
aquaculture

Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No

Yes/no
Yesa
Yesb
Yesa
Yesb
No
No

Yes/no
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No

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

Coastal communities are expected to fall into one of sevenbroad categories of vulnerability to shortages of ﬁsh based on GIS
analysis (Table 2). Nearshore FADs will be particularly importantfor villages that do not have large areas of healthy coral reef percapita, little scope for pond aquaculture, and limited potential toproduce other sources of protein.
There are three other important considerations in deploying nearshore FADs within the suitable depth range. First, consultations
should be held with coastal communities to secure assurances thatassistance will be provided to provincial or national agencies to installand maintain FADs (see Sections 2.2 and 4), and to identify sites
where the best catches of tuna and other pelagic ﬁsh species havetraditionally been made.
Second, FADs should be anchored far enough away from coral
reefs to ensure that they do not increase pressure on theseecosystems by attracting reef-associated ﬁsh species, e.g. Spanish
mackerel and trevally (Carangidae). Distances of  1 km from thenearest 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 alimited number of yellowﬁn and skipjack tuna indicates that these ﬁshcan detect FADs from a distance of  10 km [29,30], suggesting that
FADs could be spaced 20 km apart. On the other hand, observations bymaster 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 apartwhen placed relatively close to the coast.
Ideally, nearshore FADs also need to be located close enough tocoastal villages so that ﬁshers can paddle to them in canoes.
Deploying FADs at greater distances will be necessary in somesituations, 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, andmay prevent the use of submerged designs due to the effects ofstronger and more variable currents on the position of theaggregators. Another advantage of keeping FADs close enough tothe coast so that small-scale ﬁshers can reach them by paddlingcanoe 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 notpossible to determine how many coastal villages in PICTs could
potentially beneﬁt from nearshore FADs. Where such villages arecloser than 20 km to each other, resolution of the best average
distance between FADs (see Section 2.6) will enable appropriatearrangements 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 ruralcommunities. This is because there is a limit to how many FADs can beinstalled near urban areas due to the need to place FADs within an
economically viable operating distance ( 20 km) from towns for thesmall-scale ﬁshers who will use them. As proposed for planning theplacement of nearshore FADs in rural areas, modelled bathymetric datafrom GEBCO, combined with the knowledge of local ﬁshers andcommitments of local communities to ‘host’ FADs used to supply ﬁsh102

J.D. Bell et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 98–105

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 beneeded 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 fromport authorities.
The constraints on the number of nearshore FADs that can beplaced close to urban centres means that they will not meet all the
additional urban demand for ﬁsh in some countries. However, inseveral 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 fromofﬂoading 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 andboost income in rural areas.
2.2. Engaging with communities to realise the full potential ofnearshore 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 withgovernment departments and NGO partners in co-management of
FADs, e.g. taking responsibility for notifying these agencies about theloss of FADs and assisting with the labour involved in replacing
damaged or lost FADs; (3) how to partition the work involved incatching, processing, distributing or selling ﬁsh caught from FADs in agender-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 thewider development planning of communities and provincial andnational 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 thatspecify: (1) the level of participation, awareness and investment bycommunity members, including broad representation of households
and surrounding communities to minimise vandalism; (2) arrangements to harness traditional knowledge to contribute to the selectionof 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 ﬁshingtechniques, 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 andsafety 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 thenational infrastructure for food security is that sufﬁcient tuna will beavailable 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 ruralcommunities occurs, are more limited. In PNG, national vessels andﬂeets from countries that have invested in onshore processing are
permitted to ﬁsh within archipelagic waters. In these waters, suchindustrial 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 arelicensed to ﬁsh in archipelagic waters within 6 nm of land andnational 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 toincrease 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 archipelagic waters are recaptured by industrial ﬂeets and by small-scaleﬁsheries?’ Although re-analysis of past tagging data to assess therecapture rates of tuna marked with conventional dart tags within or
close to exclusion zones could help to reveal whether tuna remainclose to the coast in some parts of the region, difﬁculties in recoveringtags from small-scale ﬁshers at those times means that the datacannot 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 belower than those for the other tuna tagging programmes operated by
the Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community6, which used large poleand-line vessels to tag tuna both close to and long distances from thecoast. For this task, tuna could be tagged with conventional andacoustic tags from small (15 m) pole-and-line boats operating fromcoastal 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 aroundnearshore 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 aroundnearshore 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 andsurvey 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 sufﬁcienttuna to meet the food requirements of coastal communities?’
Considerable thought has already gone into the components ofprogrammes to monitor small-scale tuna catch and data recording7. The recommendation is for the data to be managed throughnational or provincial databases, supported by (1) a web-based
6

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

J.D. Bell et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 98–105

103

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

should submerged FADs be designed to increase their longevity andminimise 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 isbased 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.

2.5. Evaluating whether FADs improve coral reef management
initiatives

3. Discussion

The scope for FADs to strengthen the management of coral reefs
using spatial closures and other community-based approaches, suchas those applied by the LMMA network [23] and through theMicronesia 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 andstructural complexity of corals, and percentage algal cover) andreef ﬁsh stock status (e.g. abundance, diversity, size structure andmean trophic level), at multiple sites with and without FADs in atleast three PICTs on several occasions before and after installationof FADs. Then, if the indicators at the sites with FADs are notsigniﬁcantly 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 forthe 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 ﬁshingaround FADs (e.g. incidence of conﬂict over FAD use or vandalism ofFADs); 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 towhich FADs change ﬁshing behaviour. Such monitoring will also
provide important data on the effectiveness of FADs as a source ofadditional ﬁsh for coastal communities.
A proposed sampling design is given in Supplementary Table 4 andthe 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 temporalcomponents (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 absenceof 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 aneed 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

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 toclimate change. In particular, national FAD infrastructure should
help supply more ﬁsh for growing populations in the short termand 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 climatechange 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 oftuna are expected to remain in the EEZs of countries in thewestern Paciﬁc by 2035 [41,42]. Second, the percentage of averagetuna catches from the EEZs of all PICTs required for local foodsecurity in 2035 is low (o6%) [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 smallscale ﬁshers. In the event that tagging programmes indicate thatthe great majority of tuna marked within existing exclusion zones
are eventually caught by industrial ﬂeets, and monitoring thecatch of small-scale tuna ﬁshers reveals that their catches are notmeeting 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 ofindustrial 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 towork in local tuna canneries or as crew on tuna ﬁshing vessels; (2)the costs of providing coastal communities with improved accessto 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 describedhere provides a blueprint for planning the installation of FADs aspart of the national infrastructure for food security in PICTs. Suchinvestments need to be given priority in national development
plans because the number of nearshore FADs presently deployedin PICTs (Supplementary Table 1) is estimated to be well below thenumbers 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, itwill be imperative to maintain this infrastructure. If FADs are notreplaced as soon as practical following loss or damage due tostorms, vandalism or fouling by coastal shipping, the momentum

104

J.D. Bell et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 98–105

involved in creating opportunities to provide the additional ﬁshneeded 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 andprovincial governments, or their development partners, shouldbear 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 toreplace FADs quickly. In much the same way that farmers are notexpected to repair roads and bridges damaged by ﬂoods, build
wharfs, provide shipping or construct marketplaces to sell theirfood (except through payment of taxes), small-scale ﬁshers should
not be expected to shoulder the cost of providing infrastructurethat is so important to national food security. This is the domain of
governments. However, communities should be custodians ofinvestments made on their behalf and maintain FADs to improve
the working life of these assets. Also, where FADs are lost due tonegligence, vandalism or sabotage by community members, theonus should be on communities to replace them.
The prime requirements for replacing lost FADs quickly arestockpiles of spare parts in provincial areas, together with accessto 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 planningofﬁces should alert development partners about the importance ofnearshore FADs to local food security and request the resources
needed to maintain the required stocks of FAD materials andspecialised 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 thesubstantial licence revenues received from distant water ﬁshingnations [7] to help fund nearshore FAD infrastructure. In thosenations 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 withsuch 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 programmesin each country or territory are developed within the national orprovincial context. Differences in local governance among (andsometimes within) PICTs mean that attempts to apply ‘one-sizeﬁts-all’ approaches [45] are likely to add further complexity to theimplementation 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 isimperative 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 thepotential contributions of tuna and other pelagic ﬁsh to local foodsecurity, it will set the stage for determining whether nearshore FADs

add value to management initiatives for coral reefs by transferringsome 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 thenumbers of nearshore FADs currently in use was supplied by nationalﬁsheries 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,
Andréfouët 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, Andréfouët 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 ofscale 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 contributionof 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 ﬁshaggregating 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, Nyström 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 climatechange. Noumea: Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community; 2011.

J.D. Bell et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 98–105[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 managementin 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 communitybased 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. Importanceof household income and expenditure surveys and censuses for managementof coastal and freshwater ﬁsheries. SPC Fish Newslett 2008;127:34–9.

105[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 todetect 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 protectedarea to restore and manage invertebrate ﬁsheries at the Arnavon Islands,
Solomon Islands: choice of methods and preliminary results. In: Proceedingsof 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 sizesof 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 notake 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 þ for PRIMER: Guide tosoftware and statistical methods. Plymouth: PRIMER-E; 2008.
[41] Lehodey P, Senina I, Calmettes B, Hampton J, Nicol S. Modelling the impact ofclimate change on Paciﬁc skipjack tuna population and ﬁsheries. Clim Change2013;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 climatechange. 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, andVanuatu. 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 theSecretariat 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 futuresustainability of island coral reef ﬁsheries. Curr Biol 2007;17:655–8.
[47] Andréfouët S, Muller-Karger FE, Robinson JA, Kranenburg CJ, Torres-Pulliza D,
Spraggins SA, Murch B. Global assessment of modern coral reef extent anddiversity for regional science and management applications: a view fromspace. 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.