Marine Policy 88 (2018) 303–314

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Adaptations to maintain the contributions of small-scale ﬁsheries to foodsecurity in the Paciﬁc Islands

T⁎

Johann D. Bella,b, , Andrés Cisneros-Montemayorc, Quentin Hanicha, Johanna E. Johnsond,e,Patrick Lehodeyf, Bradley R. Mooreg, Morgan S. Pratchetth, Gabriel Reygondeauc, Inna Seninaf,
John Virdini, Colette C.C. WabnitzcaAustralian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
Conservation International, Arlington, VA 22202, USAc
The Nippon Foundation Nereus Program and Changing Ocean Research Unit, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canadad
C2O Coasts, Climate Oceans, Cairns, Queensland 4870, AustraliaeCollege of Marine and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Queensland, AustraliafCollecte Localisation Satellites, 8-10 rue Hermes Parc Technologique de Canal, Ramonville Cedex 31526, FrancegCoastal Fisheries Programme, Paciﬁc Community (SPC), B.P. D5, 98848 Noumea Cedex, New Caledoniah
ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Queensland, Australiai
Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USAb

A B S T R A C T
In several Paciﬁc Island countries and territories (PICTs), rapid population growth and inadequate managementof coastal ﬁsh habitats and stocks is causing a gap to emerge between the amount of ﬁsh recommended for goodnutrition and sustainable harvests from coastal ﬁsheries. The eﬀects of ocean warming and acidiﬁcation on coral
reefs, and the eﬀects of climate change on mangrove and seagrass habitats, are expected to widen this gap. To
optimise the contributions of small-scale ﬁsheries to food security in PICTs, adaptations are needed to minimise
and ﬁll the gap. Key measures to minimise the gap include community-based approaches to: manage catchment
vegetation to reduce sedimentation; maintain the structural complexity of ﬁsh habitats; allow landward
migration of mangroves as sea level rises; sustain recruitment and production of demersal ﬁsh by managing‘source’ populations; and diversify ﬁshing methods to increase catches of species favoured by climate change.
The main adaptions to help ﬁll the gap in ﬁsh supply include: transferring some ﬁshing eﬀort from coral reefs totuna and other large pelagic ﬁsh by scaling-up the use of nearshore ﬁsh aggregating devices; developing ﬁsheries
for small pelagic species; and extending the shelf life of catches by improving post-harvest methods. Modellingthe eﬀects of climate change on the distribution of yellowﬁn tuna, skipjack tuna, wahoo and mahi mahi,
indicates that these species are likely to remain abundant enough to implement these adaptations in most PICTs
until 2050. We conclude by outlining the policies needed to support the recommended adaptations.

1. Introduction
Fish1 is widely recognized as a cornerstone of food security in the
Paciﬁc Island region [10,42,43,99], where it provides 50–90% ofanimal protein for coastal communities in many Paciﬁc Island countries
and territories (PICTs). Most of this ﬁsh has traditionally come fromsmall-scale coastal ﬁsheries, which have contributed to food security
both directly through subsistence ﬁshing and indirectly throughincomes earned from artisanal ﬁshing. These activities include bottom
ﬁshing (hook and line) in lagoons and reef slopes; spearﬁshing on reef⁎1

ﬂats and shallow coral habitats (including at night with torches);
gillnetting in intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats; trolling anddrop-line ﬁshing for tuna and other large pelagic ﬁsh in nearshore
waters; and gleaning on intertidal and shallow subtidal reefs and sandﬂats, as well as in mangrove and seagrass habitats [31,84]. The
collection of sea cucumbers has also contributed signiﬁcantly to theincome of communities across the region [87]. However, poor management and limited monitoring of sea cucumber ﬁsheries has led tooverharvesting, with concomitant severe declines in stocks [78,86,88].
The aquarium trade also provides livelihoods in a number of PICTs

Corresponding author at: Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
E-mail address: b.johann9@gmail.com (J.D. Bell).
Fish is used here in the broad sense to include ﬁnﬁsh and invertebrates.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.019
Received 2 January 2017; Received in revised form 27 April 2017; Accepted 12 May 2017
Available online 27 June 20170308-597X/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Marine Policy 88 (2018) 303–314

J.D. Bell et al.

Increased runoﬀ from higher rainfall, more intense storms, andincreasing sea surface temperatures associated with global warming
are also likely to reduce the areas of seagrass habitats in PICTs by
5–35% by 2050 [111].
Here, we describe practical adaptations that should assist smallscale coastal ﬁshers to help supply the ﬁsh needed for good nutrition of
Paciﬁc Island populations in the face of rapid population growth andthe eﬀects of climate change on coastal ﬁsh stocks and habitats. These
adaptations were selected using a framework that addresses the main
short-term drivers of ﬁsh availability (population growth, ﬁshingpressure and habitat degradation) and longer-term climate change.
They were also selected to: 1) minimise the gap by supporting thesustained production of ﬁsh from coral reefs, mangroves and seagrasses;and 2) ﬁll the gap, mainly by making it easier for small-scale ﬁshers toaccess the region's rich tuna and other nearshore pelagic ﬁsh resources.
We conclude by describing the policies needed to support the implementation of these adaptations.
We do not discuss the complementary adaptations to climate change
and supporting policies recommended for industrial tuna ﬁsheries,
aquaculture or freshwater ﬁsheries to maintain or increase the contributions of these operations to local food security because they havebeen documented elsewhere [12,14,41,58,60,79].

(e.g., Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands
and Vanuatu). In this trade, small, colourful, ﬁsh species are typicallysupplied by artisanal ﬁshers, whereas giant clams and corals are usually
produced by small-scale aquaculture operations [100,105,106,107].
Most of these small-scale activities have focused on demersal ﬁshand invertebrates associated with coral reef ecosystems, and to a lesser
extent on those associated with mangrove, seagrass and intertidal ﬂathabitats [84]. More recently, there has been increased diversiﬁcation ofsmall-scale ﬁsheries into targeting large pelagic ﬁsh, including tuna, innearshore waters of several PICTs across Melanesia, Micronesia and
Polynesia (Fig. 1). Despite this diversiﬁcation, a gap is emerging inseveral PICTs between the amount of ﬁsh recommended for goodnutrition – 35 kg per person per year [99] – and coastal ﬁsh catches[10,11]. This gap is being driven largely by rapid population growth,which is expected to double for the region as a whole by 2050,2 and also
by reductions in ﬁsheries production due to over-exploitation and/or
degradation of coastal ecosystems at some locations [84].
An assessment of the vulnerability of tropical Paciﬁc ﬁsheries andaquaculture to climate change co-ordinated by the Paciﬁc Community[8,13] has demonstrated that shortfalls in coastal ﬁsheries production
are likely to be exacerbated further by continued greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. In particular, the productivity of coral reef ﬁsheries is
expected to decrease by 20% by 2050 under a ‘business as usual’ (high)GHG emissions scenario, due to the eﬀects of ocean warming andacidiﬁcation on the biological and physical structure of coral reefs[54,84], and the distribution, ﬁtness, availability and catchability of
demersal ﬁsh [85]. In addition, the areas of mangroves in PICTs are
expected to decrease by 50–70% by 2050 under a high GHG emissions
scenario, due mainly to sea-level rise and more intense storms.

2. Adaptation framework
We used the framework shown in Fig. 2 to identify two types ofpractical, planned adaptations.
1. ‘Win-win’ adaptations, where investments help address, for example, the eﬀects of rapid population growth on the availability of ﬁshFig. 1. Total coastal ﬁsheries catch (tonnes) for Paciﬁc Island countries and territories (PICTs) in 2014 (left), together with the estimated percentage of demersal ﬁsh ( ), nearshore
pelagic ﬁsh ( ) and all invertebrates ( ) comprising the total catch in 2014 (centre) and the percentage change in each catch component since 2007 (right). Based on information in
Gillett (2009) [42], Gillett (2016) [43], Pratchett et al. (2011) [84] and the Supplementary Material. Note diﬀerences in scale for total catch between PICTs in Melanesia, Micronesia and
Polynesia. See Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 for details of estimated catches in each PICT in 2007 and 2014, respectively. PNG = Papua New Guinea; FSM = Federated States ofMicronesia; CNMI = Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

2

http://prism.spc.int/regional-data-and-tools/population-statistics

304

Marine Policy 88 (2018) 303–314

J.D. Bell et al.

of increasing human coastal populations [92], will depend on minimising degradation of coastal ﬁsh habitats (and reversing degradation
where practical), and monitoring and managing harvest levels. Many ofthese interventions are not new – they have been proposed for many
years as an integral part of eﬀective coastal zone management[3,32,44]. Climate-informed, ecosystem-based approaches to ﬁsheries
management, which integrate community awareness of the eﬀects ofthe changing climate on coastal ﬁsh stocks and habitats with customary
marine tenure and other social capital, local governance, traditional
knowledge, self-interest and self-enforcement capacity, provide themost eﬀective way forward [52]. Several practical adaptations for thecoastal ﬁsheries sector have already been described in detail in theregional vulnerability assessment [8]. These adaptations are summarised below, and augmented with other interventions that we also
consider to be important.

in the near term, and the eﬀects of climate change in the longer
term. ‘Win-win’ adaptations are not to be understood as having nocosts, particularly social and economic costs. However, they shoulddeliver immediate gains (a ‘win’ now) and help insulate resources/
communities from the eﬀects of continued GHG emissions (a ‘win’ in
the future).
2. ‘Lose-win’ adaptations, where the economic and social costs exceed
the beneﬁts in the near term, but where investments should build
the resilience of PICTs to climate change in the longer term.
In general, some lose-win adaptations are needed to help ensure thatthe gap in ﬁsh supply is not unduly exacerbated by climate change,
whereas win-win adaptations help to ﬁll the gap. Lose-win adaptations
involve foregoing some ﬁsh harvest, or alternative uses of coastal
habitats, in the short term to enable these natural resources to take fulladvantage of their natural (autonomous) capacity to adapt to higher sea
surface temperatures, ocean acidiﬁcation and other stresses caused byincreased GHG emissions.
The recommended investments in win-win and lose-win adaptations
are not based simply on the availability of technology and projected
future responses of the resources underpinning coastal ﬁsheries production. Potential social and ﬁnancial barriers to the uptake of adaptations,e.g., cultural norms and gender issues that could limit broad-based
community participation, have also been considered. We speciﬁcally
excluded ‘win-lose’ investments (such as support to increase coastal,
demersal ﬁshing eﬀort or capacity through construction of larger
vessels or more eﬀective gear types) because they represent maladaptation to climate change for small-scale coastal ﬁsheries.
Ultimately, the economic beneﬁts and costs from the recommended
adaptations should be fully considered using, for example, formal cost:beneﬁt analysis to compare the proposed investment to a range ofalternatives based on the best available information and economic
modelling. In addition to analysis of the economic costs and beneﬁts ofrecommended adaptations, social and cultural aspects should also be
considered, including the distribution of the expected beneﬁts from theinvestment.

3.1. Manage and restore vegetation in catchments (win-win)
Sustaining coastal ﬁsh production around islands depends on goodland-management practices to maintain the quality of coastal waters
and habitats [34,38,63,113]. A good coverage of vegetation on slopes
and wide riparian buﬀer zones are needed to reduce the transfer of
sediments and nutrients to coastal habitats after heavy rainfall[40,113]. Low vegetation cover due to deforestation and poor farming
and land-use practices results in accelerated runoﬀ and erosion,
which directly damages coral reef, mangrove and seagrass habitats
through increased turbidity, sedimentation and nutrient loads[5,54,70,104,111] (Fig. 3). Maintaining and restoring catchment
vegetation is not only required to protect these important ﬁsh habitats
in the near term, it should also help reduce future damage from theeﬀects of projected increases in extreme rainfall events [68].

3.2. Minimise other degradation of coastal habitats (win-win)
The key measures needed to safeguard coastal habitats from otherpresent-day stresses are: 1) maintaining water quality by controlling
pollution from sewage, chemicals (including fertiliser and pesticides)
and waste; 2) eliminating activities that damage the three-dimensional structure of coral habitats, such as destructive ﬁshing practices,
extraction of coral for building materials, careless anchoring of boats
and poorly-designed coastal infrastructure and tourist facilities; and 3)
prohibiting activities that threaten the health and extent of mangrove
and seagrass habitats (e.g., timber harvesting, damaging ﬁshingpractices, dredging). These measures should help maintain coastalﬁsh habitats in the near term. They are also expected to help
make coral reefs, mangroves and seagrasses more resilient to thevarious stressors associated with climate change in the future[54,111].

3. Adaptations to minimise the gap
The key adaptations for sustaining the production of demersal ﬁshand invertebrates associated with coral reefs, mangroves and seagrasses, in the face of the changing climate [39,59,68] and the impacts

3.3. Provide for landward migration of mangrove habitats (lose-win)
Allowing the inundation of low-lying land adjacent to mangrove
forests will provide opportunities for these ﬁsh habitats and theirassociated biota to migrate landward [111]. Where existing roadinfrastructure blocks the inundation of low-lying land suitable forcolonisation by mangroves, channels and bridges should be constructedto allow for inundation (Supplementary Fig. 1). Planting young trees insuch places can also help fast-track establishment of new mangrove
habitat if necessary. The near-term costs of this adaptation – loss ofsome uses of undeveloped, low-lying land and expenses associated withraising and planting seedlings – are expected to be balanced by the
beneﬁts of maintaining ﬁsh habitats in the longer term and theprotection that mangroves provide to coastal areas [21].

Fig. 2. Decision framework to identify adaptations to address the eﬀects of climatechange in the long term and other drivers, like population growth, in the near term.
Source: Grafton (2010) [47] and Bell et al. (2011) [8].

305Marine Policy 88 (2018) 303–314

J.D. Bell et al.

Fig. 3. The eﬀects of poorly-managed catchments on coastal ﬁsh habitats. Source: Bell et al. (2011) [12].

habitats [91], and spatial variation in vulnerability of ﬁsh stocks tosustained and ongoing climate change [85]. It is particularly important
to identify mosaics of coral reef, mangrove and seagrass habitats likely
to persist as the climate changes so that the connectivity among
habitats needed for successful recruitment of juvenile ﬁsh and invertebrates is maintained, and to provide migration corridors and diverse feeding areas for adult demersal ﬁsh. Well-designed networks ofprotected areas have the potential to help increase the resistance ofcoral reefs to coral bleaching, disease and Acanthaster planci starﬁsh
predation, as well as recovery from these disturbances [73].

3.4. Sustain production of coastal demersal ﬁsh and invertebrates (losewin)
Strengthening community-based ecosystem approaches founded on‘primary’ ﬁsheries management will help keep production of demersal
ﬁsh and invertebrates within sustainable bounds where governments
and communities lack resources for regular monitoring of catches andanalysis of stock status [29,52,71,82]. Primary ﬁsheries management
recognises the need to use simple harvest controls, such as size limits,
closed seasons and areas, gear restrictions and protection of spawning
aggregations. Although this precautionary approach places limits on theharvest of demersal ﬁsh and invertebrates in the near term [29], andwill have to be applied even more conservatively due to the uncertainty
of climate change (Supplementary Fig. 2), it is still expected to help
minimise the gap between the ﬁsh needed by rapidly growing populations and coastal ﬁsheries production. Over the longer term, it should
also help to explicitly address the impacts of climate change [53,69,85]
by building the resilience and replenishment potential of stocks. Where
resources are available for monitoring and in-depth data analysis,
consideration can be given to investments that would permit lessconservative catch levels that nonetheless maintain a resilient spawning
biomass [20,29].

3.6. Diversify catches of coastal demersal ﬁsh (lose-win)
Shifts in the local structure of ﬁsh assemblages are expected to occur
due to changes in species’ distributions [24], and in response to changes
in the structure of coral reefs and other coastal habitats [54,83,84].
Transferring eﬀort away from those species projected to be ﬁrst andworst aﬀected by climate impacts to species expected to increase inabundance (or to be more resilient to environmental change), andtargeting species with greater rates of production, should help reducethe decline in the overall catch of demersal ﬁsh [85]. However, caution
will be needed to limit harvests of ﬁsh species with important ecological
functions [6,18], or species that have an inherent vulnerability to
overﬁshing [48]. Herbivorous ﬁsh are a case in point. These species arefundamental to the resilience of coral reef ecosystems because they
remove algae, thereby facilitating recovery of corals in the aftermath ofmajor disturbances [22,56,74]. Foregoing some of the catch of herbivorous ﬁsh reduces potential harvests but will help maximise resilienceof reef ecosystems [17,23,55], and other coral reef ﬁsh.

3.5. Maximise the eﬃciency of spatial management (win-win)
Ensuring that areas dedicated to help protect suﬃcient spawning
biomass for regular replenishment of coastal ﬁsh stocks and conserve
biodiversity [89] are designed to take account of the ecology of targetﬁsh species, e.g., sequential use of diﬀerent habitats with ontogeny[77,95], the dependence of these ﬁsh species on structurally complex

306

Marine Policy 88 (2018) 303–314

J.D. Bell et al.

allocated to small-scale ﬁshers [14], underscoring the need to improvethe monitoring of artisanal and subsistence tuna ﬁsheries and to include
these catches in stock assessments.
Modelling the eﬀects of climate change on the preferred habitats of
two other large pelagic ﬁsh commonly caught by small-scale ﬁshers
around nearshore FADs in PICTs, wahoo and mahi mahi, using a multispecies distribution approach (Supplementary Material), indicates thatclimate change is likely to have a negative eﬀect on future occurrenceof both species in the EEZs of PICTs due to poleward migration. The
warming of the WCPO is expected to reduce the suitability of thehabitat for mahi mahi to a greater extent than for wahoo (Fig. 5).
Conditions for mahi mahi are projected to deteriorate in the EEZs of all
PICTs by 2035 relative to the suitability of present-day habitat, whereas
conditions for wahoo are not expected to worsen in most PICTs until
2050s (Supplementary Table 6).

4. Adaptations to ﬁll the gap
4.1. Transfer coastal ﬁshing eﬀort from demersal ﬁsh to nearshore pelagicﬁsh (win-win)
The rich tuna resources, and stocks of other large pelagic ﬁsh (e.g.,
wahoo, mahi mahi), of the Western and Central Paciﬁc Ocean (WCPO)
provide PICTs with the opportunity to ﬁll the gap between the ﬁshneeded for good nutrition and sustainable harvests of demersal ﬁsh[11,14]. There are few if any concerns for human health associatedwith this adaptation; yellowﬁn and skipjack tuna from the Paciﬁc Island
region can be consumed up to 12 and 16 times per month, respectively,
without exceeding the limits on methylmercury intake recommended
by the US Environmental Protection Agency [14].
The most practical way of empowering small-scale ﬁshers to catch
more tuna and other large pelagic ﬁsh in nearshore waters is to increase
the number of ﬁsh aggregating devices (FADs) anchored within a few
kilometres of the coast [15], and improve the safety and success of smallscale ﬁshing operations around FADs [9]. This is a prime win-win
adaptation for small-scale ﬁsheries in the Paciﬁc Islands region because it
will increase access to ﬁsh in the near term, and set the stage forcommunities to continue to ﬁll the gap as it gets progressively larger due
to population growth and continued degradation of coral reefs caused bymore frequent bleaching and ocean acidiﬁcation [54,72,102].
Nevertheless, some key questions are ‘will climate change and any
future increases in the level of industrial ﬁshing aﬀect the distribution
and abundance of tuna, and investments in nearshore FADs programsfor small-scale ﬁshers? Recent modelling [66,75,76,93] using SEAPODYM [65] (Supplementary Material) allows assessment of the projectedeﬀects of climate change and ﬁshing eﬀort 1.5 times greater than recent
levels on the biomass of tuna across the tropical Paciﬁc. This modellingindicates that ocean warming is likely to change the locations preferredby the two tuna species caught most commonly by small-scale ﬁshers,
yellowﬁn and skipjack tuna, in diﬀerent ways. Due to the eﬀects ofclimate change alone, average abundances of yellowﬁn tuna are
expected to decline in the area west of 160°W and south of ~10°N,
and increase east of 160°W (Fig. 4) by 2035 and 2050, relative to 2005.
For skipjack tuna, projected decreases in abundance by 2035 due toclimate change alone are limited mainly to equatorial areas west of~160°E, changing to west of 170°E by 2050, with increases inabundance expected elsewhere, particularly in equatorial areas andaround 10–20°N in the western WCPO (Fig. 4).
When the eﬀects of increased ﬁshing pressure are combined withthose of climate change, the patterns are generally the same. However,
the increases in abundance are more modest and the decreases inabundance are greater (Supplementary Table 4). Based on this modelling, most PICTs are expected to fall into one of two general categories
with respect to future changes in tuna biomass within their exclusive
economic zones (EEZs). In Federated States of Micronesia (FSM),
Marshall Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Solomon Islands,
Nauru and Tuvalu, the biomass of yellowﬁn and/or skipjack tuna is
expected to decline by > 15% in 2035 or 2050 (Supplementary
Table 4). In Fiji, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern
Mariana Islands, Pitcairn Islands and Tonga, the biomass of skipjack
tuna is projected to increase by > 15% by 2035 (Supplementary
Table 4). PICTs in this second category are located mainly in theeastern part of the WCPO or in subtropical waters.
The substantial projected declines in biomass of yellowﬁn andskipjack tuna for PICTs in the western WCPO are not expected to have
unduly negative implications for the use of anchored, nearshore FADs
for food security. The large present-day industrial catches of tuna in
PNG, FSM and Solomon Islands (Supplementary Table 5) suggest thatyellowﬁn and skipjack tuna should still be plentiful enough to justify
investments in nearshore FADs as an eﬃcient adaptation response to
declining demersal ﬁsheries and increasing human populations. However, over time, a greater proportion of the tuna catch will need to be

4.2. Expand ﬁsheries for small pelagic species (win-win?)
The relatively high resilience to ﬁshing of small pelagic ﬁsh(mackerel, anchovies, pilchards, sardines, scads and fusiliers), whichto date have been exploited only lightly in the region, provides anotherpotential way to increase the catch of small-scale ﬁshers in the nearterm [84,90]. This is particularly true in Melanesia, where coastal
waters are relatively nutrient-rich due to runoﬀ from high islands andseasonal coastal upwelling (especially in PNG), and often support ahigher biomass of these species than locations in the central and eastern
WCPO. The ‘bagan’ method used for catching small pelagic ﬁshthroughout southeast Asia is well suited to the lagoons in Melanesia,
and preliminary trials elsewhere in the Paciﬁc Islands have yielded
positive results [94,96]. Regardless of the relatively high resilienceof small pelagic ﬁsh to harvesting, development of any new ﬁsheries
based on such species should implement primary ﬁsheries management
to maintain production within sustainable bounds, particularly
given the role of such species in ecosystem function and energy
transfer [80].
The outlook for harvesting small pelagic ﬁsh in the longer term isless certain and likely to be site speciﬁc. Projected decreases in primary
productivity due to increased stratiﬁcation associated with higher sea
surface temperature [64], or the eﬀects of changes in the velocity ofocean currents on formation of eddies that bring nutrient-rich waters
into the photic zone [39], may cause abundance of small pelagic ﬁsh to
decline in some areas. Conversely, greater projected rainfall in tropical
Melanesia [68] may further increase runoﬀ and production of small
pelagic ﬁsh in some coastal waters.
4.3. Extend the shelf life of ﬁsh catches (win-win)
Training communities, particularly women, in how to improve
traditional methods for smoke curing, salting and drying large catchesof both large and small pelagic ﬁsh will enable households to store ﬁshfor those times when conditions are not suitable for ﬁshing. In large
island nations, such as PNG, it could also create better opportunities totrade seafood products with inland communities without access to ﬁsh.
Improved post-harvest methods will increase the amount of ﬁsh productavailable for food and reduce wastage in the near term due to bettereﬃciency. It should also assist communities in locations where climatechange is projected to increase variability in ﬁsh supply.
Development of successful methods for improving the shelf life oftuna caught around FADs will also involve raising awareness of theconditions that cause histamine poisoning in tuna, also known as
scombrotoxin.3 Where there is no access to ice, the duration of trips
made by small-scale ﬁshers intending to sell tuna fresh will need to belimited.
3307

http://www.foodsafetywatch.org/factsheets/scombrotoxin-histamine/

Marine Policy 88 (2018) 303–314

J.D. Bell et al.

Fig. 4. Maps of average distribution of unﬁshed yellowﬁn (top-left) and skipjack (top-right) biomass (in tonnes/sq.km) predicted by SEAPODYM in 2005. The maps for 2035 and 2050
show the biomass change for each species since 2005 (in tonnes/sq.km) projected to occur under a high emissions scenario (see Supplementary Material). The isopleths show the
projected locations of relative percentage changes in biomass with respect to 2005, i.e. 100*(Byear – B2005)/B2005.

5. Supporting policies

opportunities described above. Several suggested supporting policies
were identiﬁed during the regional vulnerability assessment [12].
Others have also been included in the Noumea Strategy [2,98], whichprioritises coastal ﬁsheries and provides a pathway towards sustainable,

Policies are needed to support the implementation of the adaptations to reduce the risks posed by climate change and to maximise the308Marine Policy 88 (2018) 303–314

J.D. Bell et al.

Fig. 5. Maps of average habitat suitability indices (HSI) for wahoo and mahi mahi for the Western and Central Paciﬁc Ocean for the period 1970–2000 (top panels), and HSI anomalies forboth species for 2035 and 2050 under a high emissions scenario (see Supplementary Materials) relative to 1970–2000.

stream coastal ﬁsh habitats; 3) amending existing legislation toempower communities and recognise traditional customs for managing
ﬁsh habitats; 4) establishing exchange networks to transfer knowledge
on habitat management to coastal communities [7,30]; and 5) assisting
communities to monitor changes in habitats to strengthen understanding of the vulnerability of coastal ﬁsheries to climate change, and tocomply with management decisions and regulations.

well-managed ﬁsheries underpinned by community-based approaches
to ﬁsheries management. These various policies are outlined below andsummarised in Table 1.
5.1. Polices to support adaptations to minimise the gap
5.1.1. Improve governance for sustainable use and protection of coastal
habitats
This involves 1) building the capacity of management agencies tounderstand and implement adaptive measures to respond to the threats
posed by climate change; 2) strengthening land-use practices andregulations, licence conditions and enforcement for forestry and mining
operations to reinforce protection of catchment vegetation and down-

5.1.2. Strengthen ﬁsheries legislation to apply community-based
management, founded on an ecosystem approach and primary ﬁsheries
management
PICTs have a long tradition of community-based approaches toﬁshery management [57]. Strengthening this tradition by equipping309

Marine Policy 88 (2018) 303–314

J.D. Bell et al.

Table 1
Summary of adaptations and companion supporting policies to maintain or improve the beneﬁts of small-scale ﬁsheries for food security in Paciﬁc Island countries and territories.

communities with knowledge about climate change and the tools toregulate harvests is broadly seen as oﬀering the best hope of securing
optimal production of coastal ﬁsheries resources for the future[29,46,52,97,98].

Given the extent of tuna resources in the WCPO [14], there should be
no need to limit the number of licences issued to small-scale,commercial ﬁshers to target large pelagic ﬁsh species.
5.1.4. Promote access to demersal ﬁsh species expected to increase inproductivity due to climate change
Assisting small-scale ﬁshers to make the transition to ﬁshing andmarketing alternative species, or ﬁshing in new areas to target these
species, will help oﬀset production losses from demersal ﬁsh species
that decline in abundance due to ocean warming and acidiﬁcation.
Targeting demersal ﬁsh species that are increasing in abundance inways that optimise sustainable production should also help reducepressure on declining species.

5.1.3. Enhance national regulation of small-scale, commercial ﬁshing(where necessary)
In PICTs where 1) a signiﬁcant proportion of the coastal, demersalﬁsh catch is taken by small-scale, commercial ﬁshers, and 2) there is
scope for conﬂict with subsistence ﬁshers over resource use in jurisdictions managed by communities due to human population growth,
consideration should be given to complementing community-based
management approaches with national regulation of ﬁshing. Any suchcontrols on eﬀort should be developed in dialogue with ﬁshers andcommunities and be consistent with the international guidance provided by the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale
Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication [35].
Possible models for sharing coastal, demersal ﬁsh resources between
subsistence and small-scale commercial ﬁshers include zoning andlicencing, for example, reserving inshore waters for subsistence ﬁshingand restricting licenced, commercial ﬁshing to waters outside suchboundaries (see Supplementary Materials for an example of present-day
management of small-scale, coastal ﬁshing in Fiji based on both zoning
and licencing). The extent of customary marine tenure areas will alsoneed to be taken into account in several Melanesia countries. Where
requests for commercial ﬁshing licences to target coastal, demersal ﬁsh
increase it may be necessary to transition from primary ﬁsheries
management to investments in secondary ﬁsheries management(Supplementary Fig. 2) to determine how many commercial ﬁshers
can be supported over and above subsistence use of these resources.

5.1.5. Limit export of demersal ﬁsh
Given the high levels of subsistence ﬁshing in most PICTs [10] and theemerging gap between the ﬁsh required for good nutrition and sustainable
harvests from coastal habitats, demersal ﬁsh should be reserved primarily
for local consumption. This should be relatively simple to implement
through local licencing schemes and the export permitting process, and is
not expected to be aﬀected by trade agreements or expose local governments to litigation. Nevertheless, export restrictions can have unexpected
outcomes and should be carefully designed and considered [16]. Some
PICTs already have regulations that prevent the export of demersal ﬁsh, but
enforcement requires strengthening. One practice that needs to be reexamined is the quantity of ﬁsh that nationals living overseas carry withthem when departing on international ﬂights after visiting their homeland –limits on the quantity of ﬁsh per person need to be considered andimplemented.
310

Marine Policy 88 (2018) 303–314

J.D. Bell et al.

Exports of small demersal ﬁsh and invertebrates harvested or
cultured in PICTs for the aquarium trade [108,109] are an exception.
These small-scale activities contribute to food security indirectly bycreating livelihoods in places where there are often few options to earn
income [107]. However, measures such as limits to the numbers ofﬁshers or specimens exported need to be implemented and monitored
to ensure sustainability.

work established by the Western and Central Paciﬁc Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) [50,112], set the stage for Paciﬁc Island States toincrease the use of tuna for domestic food security by transferring apercentage of national allocations of agreed tuna ﬁshing eﬀort (orcatch) directly to small-scale tuna ﬁshers.
These transfers do not necessarily have to come at the expense of thehost small island developing State and can arguably be made throughreductions in other non-developing State allocations [49]. For example,
the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement requires regional ﬁsheries
management organisations, such as the WCPFC, to ‘consider theinterests of artisanal and subsistence ﬁshers and avoid adverse impacts
on, and ensure access to ﬁsheries by, subsistence, small-scale andartisanal ﬁshers and ﬁsh workers, as well as indigenous people indeveloping States parties, particularly small island developing States
parties, and territories and possessions’ [101].4 Paciﬁc Island States
could also use a percentage of their tuna licence revenue to build andmaintain a national infrastructure of nearshore FADs. Such policies
would support the decision of Paciﬁc Island leaders to increase access totuna for local food security under the Regional Roadmap for Sustainable Paciﬁc Fisheries [37]. They may also require revisions to thedimensions of industrial ﬁshing exclusion zones (see below).
Alternatively, a percentage of access fees could be used to establish‘social funds’ [81,114] for communities to make other investments tofacilitate small-scale ﬁshing for tuna. Development of any policies
related to use of access fees to establish social funds would depend oncohesive consultation with recipient communities, together with signiﬁcant extension [4], education and support for climate-informed,
ecosystem- and community-based ﬁsheries management. In somecountries, successful implementation of social funds for this purpose
would also require increasing the capacity of national ﬁsheries administrations, given the complex array of responsibilities for managing tunaaccess already being borne by these agencies with limited resources[45]. The Government of Tuvalu has begun to pilot social funds for eachof the islands in the country, based on a set portion of access fees [114].

5.1.6. Promote the health beneﬁts of ﬁsh
Education campaigns are needed to raise awareness of coastal
communities about the need to balance the consumption and sale ofﬁsh. These campaigns should emphasise that the health beneﬁts forhouseholds of eating ﬁsh are likely to be much greater than using
revenue from the sale of ﬁsh to purchase manufactured foods. This isparticularly true for low-value ﬁsh. Highlighting the relative beneﬁts ofusing ﬁsh directly for consumption rather than selling them for pricesthat are unlikely to allow purchase of food of comparable nutritional
value should help improve food security and public health. An
important proviso is that sale of sustainably-caught ﬁsh, surplus to
the nutritional needs of coastal households, to urban populations withpoor access to ﬁsh is entirely appropriate.
5.1.7. Develop sustainable ecotourism to relieve ﬁshing pressure on
demersal ﬁsh stocks
Ecotourism can help maintain demersal ﬁsh stocks and minimise thegap to be ﬁlled by providing alternative livelihoods for coastal
communities [25,26,103]. However, to be ecologically and socioeconomically sustainable, ecotourism will require explicit support andregulatory frameworks to ensure that the quality of habitats is maintained and that beneﬁts accrue to local communities [33,36,62]. It will
also be important to promote consumption of tuna and other large
pelagic ﬁsh by tourists to help reserve the use of demersal ﬁsh mainly
for local communities [110]. The concern that climate change impacts
may reduce the appeal of marine ecosystems to tourists can be dispelledin many situations by increasing the suite of tourist activities oﬀered,for example, those related to above-water activities and the culturalcomponents of Paciﬁc Island communities [19,28,61].

5.2.3. Evaluate whether industrial ﬁshing exclusion zones provide adequate
access to tuna for small-scale ﬁshers
A recent analysis of tagging data indicates that the proximity ofindustrial purse-seine ﬁshing to the locations where small-scale tunaﬁshing occurs is likely to have an eﬀect on local catch rates [67]. The
eﬀectiveness of exclusion zones for industrial ﬁshing cannot, therefore,
be taken for granted. Rather, the eﬀectiveness of these zones should be
evaluated with dedicated tagging programs to determine what proportions of tuna tagged within an exclusion zone are recaptured byindustrial ﬂeets and by small-scale ﬁsheries [15].

5.2. Polices to support adaptations to ﬁll the gap
5.2.1. Include nearshore FADs as part of the national infrastructure for foodsecurity
Allocating suﬃcient funds and human capacity to install, maintainand replace FADs at the end of their working life or when lost will
provide small-scale ﬁshers with a permanent, additional option for
catching tuna and other large pelagic ﬁsh [15]. In many cases, thesecosts cannot be passed on to communities; this is the domain of
governments [15]. Even though communities can and should help
maintain FADs, national and provincial governments should carry themain responsibility for the replacement of FADs lost or damaged undercircumstances beyond the control of communities because communities
are unlikely to have the resources to replace FADs quickly. Furthermore, lost FADs should be replaced quickly, otherwise small-scaleﬁshers are likely to revert to ﬁshing more heavily on reefs, and may failto ﬁsh around re-installed FADs as frequently as they might have done
previously due to uncertainty about long-term presence of a FAD.
Policies will also be required in some PICTs to reserve speciﬁc FADs
for the exclusive use of subsistence ﬁshers using paddling canoes. Such
FADs will generally be placed closer to the coast than FADs deployed
for the use of artisanal ﬁshers operating with a motorized boat.

5.2.4. Apply targeted subsidy programs to support key adaptations
Depending on the national context, several of the adaptations in
Section 2. (e.g., building a national infrastructure of nearshore FADs,
training in safe and eﬀective FAD-ﬁshing methods, development ofﬁsheries for small pelagic species, improvements in community-based ﬁshprocessing) may beneﬁt from subsidies, including the allocation of someaccess fees paid by industrial ﬁsheries as proposed above. Similarly,
subsidies for marketing and processing may help incentivize 1) increased
consumption of ﬁsh species favoured by climate change that were notconsumed commonly in the past; and 2) sale of tuna and other large
pelagic ﬁsh in restaurants catering mainly to tourists so that demersal ﬁsh
species can be reserved largely for local food security [110]. Where
subsidies are deemed necessary, they should involve very clear goals,
context-appropriate design, transparent implementation and regular monitoring to prevent maladaptive behaviour and over-exploitation [27,52].

5.2.2. Transfer some access rights and revenues from industrial tunaﬁsheries to small-scale ﬁsheries
The tuna ﬁshing catch and eﬀort limits established under the ‘vessel
day scheme’ operated by the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA)[1,51], and the broader regional conservation and management frame-

4311

Article 24.2(b). UNFSA. Article 5. UNFSA. – Paragraph 7.7.2(c). Code of Conduct.

Marine Policy 88 (2018) 303–314

J.D. Bell et al.

64–76.
[11] J.D. Bell, C. Reid, M.J. Batty, E.H. Allison, P. Lehodey, L. Rodwell, et al.,Implications of climate change for contributions by ﬁsheries and aquaculture to
Paciﬁc Island economies and communities, in: J.D. Bell, J.E. Johnson, A.J. Hobday(Eds.), Vulnerability of Tropical Paciﬁc Fisheries and Aquaculture to Climate
Change, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community, Noumea, 2011, pp. 733–801.
[12] J.D. Bell, N.L. Andrew, M.J. Batty, L.B. Chapman, J.M. Dambacher, B. Dawson,
et al., Adapting tropical Paciﬁc ﬁsheries and aquaculture to climate change:
management measures, policies and investments, in: J.D. Bell, J.E. Johnson,
A.J. Hobday (Eds.), Vulnerability of Tropical Paciﬁc Fisheries and Aquaculture to
Climate Change, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community, Noumea, 2011, pp.
803–876.
[13] J.D. Bell, A. Ganachaud, P.C. Gehrke, S.P. Griﬃths, A.J. Hobday, O. HoeghGuldberg, et al., Mixed responses of tropical Paciﬁc ﬁsheries and aquaculture toclimate change, Nat. Clim. Change 3 (2013) 591–599.
[14] J.D. Bell, A. Allain, E.H. Allison, S. Andréfouët, N.L. Andrew, M.J. Batty, et al.,Diversifying the use of tuna to improve food security and public health in PaciﬁcIsland countries and territories, Mar. Policy 51 (2015) 584–591.
[15] J.D. Bell, A. Albert, S. Andréfouët, N.L. Andrew, M. Blanc, P. Bright, et al.,Optimising the use of nearshore ﬁsh aggregating devices for food security in the
Paciﬁc Islands, Mar. Policy 56 (2015) 98–105.
[16] C. Bellmann, A. Tipping, U.R. Sumaila, Global trade in ﬁsh and ﬁshery products:
an overview, Mar. Policy 69 (2016) 181–188.
[17] D.R. Bellwood, T.P. Hughes, C. Folke, M. Nyström, Confronting the coral reef
crisis, Nature 429 (2004) 827–833.
[18] Y.-M. Bozec, S. O’Farrell, Bruggemann, Be Luckhurst, P.J. Mumby, Tradeoﬀs
between ﬁsheries harvest and the resilience of coral reefs, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. US
113 (2016) 4536–4541.
[19] D.J. Brightsmith, A. Stronzab, K. Hollec, Ecotourism, conservation biology, andvolunteer tourism: a mutually beneﬁcial triumvirate, Biol. Conserv. 141 (2008)
2832–2842.
[20] T.R. Carruthers, A.E. Punt, C.J. Walters, A. MacCall, M.K. McAlister, E.J. Dick,
J. Cope, Evaluating methods for setting catch limits in data-limited ﬁsheries, Fish.
Res. 153 (2014) 48–68.
[21] S.E. Chang, B.J. Adams, J. Alder, P.R. Berke, R. Chuenpagdee, S. Ghosh,C. Wabnitz, Coastal ecosystems and tsunami protection after the December 2004
Indian Ocean tsunami, Earthq. Spectra 22 (S3) (2006) S863–S887.
[22] A.J. Cheal, M.A. MacNeil, E. Cripps, M. Emslie, M. Jonker, B. Schaﬀelke,
H. Sweatman, Coral-macroalgal phase shifts or reef resilience: links with diversity
and functional roles of herbivorous ﬁshes on the Great Barrier Reef, Coral Reefs 29(2010) 1005–1015.
[23] A.J. Cheal, M. Emslie, M.A. MacNeil, I. Miller, H. Sweatman, Spatial variation in
the functional characteristics of herbivorous ﬁsh communities and the resilience ofcoral reefs, Ecol. Appl. 23 (2013) 174–188.
[24] W.W.L. Cheung, V. Lam, J.L. Sarmiento, K. Kearney, R. Watson, D. Zeller, et al.,Large-scale redistribution of maximum ﬁsheries catch potential in the global ocean
under climate change, Glob. Change Biol. 16 (2010) 24–35.
[25] A.M. Cisneros-Montemayor, U.R. Sumaila, A global estimate of beneﬁts fromecosystem-based marine recreation: potential impacts and implications for
management, J. Bioecon. 12 (2010) 245–268.
[26] A.M. Cisneros-Montemayor, M. Barnes-Mauthe, D. Al-Abdulrazzak, E. NavarroHolm, U.R. Sumaila, Global economic value of shark ecotourism: implications forconservation, Oryx 47 (2013) 381–388.
[27] A.M. Cisneros-Montemayor, E. Sanjurjo, G.R. Munro, V. Hernández-Trejo,
U.R. Sumaila, Strategies and rationale for ﬁshery subsidy reform, Mar. Policy 69(2016) 229–236.
[28] J. Clifton, A. Benson, Planning for sustainable ecotourism: the case for research
ecotourism in developing country destinations, J. Sustain Tour. 14 (2006)
238–254.
[29] K.L. Cochrane, N.L. Andrew, A.M. Parma, Primary ﬁsheries management: aminimum requirement for provision of sustainable human beneﬁts in small-scaleﬁsheries, Fish. Fish. 12 (2011) 275–288.
[30] C. Cvitanovic, S. Crimp, A. Fleming, J. Bell, M. Howden, A.J. Hobday, et al.,Linking adaptation science to action to build food secure Paciﬁc Island communities, Clim. Risk Manag. 11 (2016) 53–62.
[31] P. Dalzell, T. Adams, N. Polunin, Coastal ﬁsheries in the Paciﬁc Islands, Oceanogr.
Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 33 (1996) 395–531.
[32] T. Done, R. Reichelt, Integrated coastal zone and ﬁsheries ecosystem management:
generic goals and performance indices, Ecol. Appl. 8 (1998) S110–S118.
[33] H.M. Donohoe, R.D. Needham, Ecotourism: the evolving contemporary deﬁnition,
J. Ecotourism 5 (2006) 192–210.
[34] K.E. Fabricius, Eﬀects of terrestrial runoﬀ on the ecology of corals and coral reefs:
review and synthesis, Mar. Poll. Bull. 50 (2005) 125–146.
[35] FAO, Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-scale Fisheries in theContext of Food Security and Poverty Eradication, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2015.
[36] D.A. Fennell, A content analysis of ecotourism deﬁnitions, Curr. Issues Tour. 4(2001) 403–421.
[37] FFA and SPC, Future of Fisheries: A Regional Roadmap for Sustainable Paciﬁc
Fisheries, Paciﬁc Islands Forum Fisheries Agency and Paciﬁc Community, Honiara,
Noumea, 2015.
[38] J.A. Foley, R. DeFries, G.P. Asner, C. Barford, G. Bonan, S.R. Carpenter, et al.,Global consequences of land use, Science 340 (2005) 570–574.
[39] A.S. Ganachaud, A. Sen Gupta, J.C. Orr, S.E. Wijﬀels, K.R. Ridgway, M.A. Hemer,
et al., Observed and expected changes to the tropical Paciﬁc Ocean, in: J.D. Bell,
J.E. Johnson, A.J. Hobday (Eds.), Vulnerability of Tropical Paciﬁc Fisheries and6. Conclusions
Small-scale ﬁsheries have a vital role to play in continuing to supply
nutritious food for rapidly-growing populations in the Paciﬁc Island
region. Although the coastal habitats that have traditionally provided
most of the ﬁsh caught by small-scale ﬁshers are expected to be
progressively degraded by global warming and ocean acidiﬁcation, arange of practical adaptations can help to sustain the important
contribution of coastal ﬁsheries to food security. These adaptations
promise to maintain substantial, albeit reduced, production of coastalﬁsh stocks in the face of climate change and equip small-scale ﬁshers totake greater quantities of nearshore pelagic ﬁsh, particularly tuna. The
key adaptations focus on assisting communities to 1) implement
climate-informed, ecosystem approaches to the management of coastal
habitats and ﬁsh stocks; 2) expand the use of nearshore FADs to transfer
some ﬁshing eﬀort from coastal demersal ﬁsh to tuna and other large
pelagic ﬁsh, and 3) develop ﬁsheries for small pelagic species. In
parallel with adaptations by industrial tuna ﬂeets to land more tuna andbycatch at regional ports to increase availability of ﬁsh for urban
populations, and expansion of small pond aquaculture to increase
access to ﬁsh for inland communities, the recommended adaptions forsmall-scale coastal ﬁsheries should help maintain the traditionally highlevels of ﬁsh consumption by Paciﬁc Island populations.
Acknowledgements
The concept for this manuscript was developed during the workshop
on ‘Climate Change and Small-scale Fisheries’, convened by theAustralian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security and the
NEREUS-Nippon Foundation at the Centre for Ocean Solutions,
Stanford University, in June 2016. QH acknowledges support from
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Grant FIS/
2012/074. We thank various staﬀ from the national ﬁsheries agencies
in Paciﬁc Island countries and territories for their assistance inestimating the percentages of coastal ﬁsheries catches comprised ofnearshore pelagic ﬁsh and Laura Tremblay-Boyer for her inputs into thedesign of Fig. 1. We also thank Neil Andrew and Navneel Singh for
useful discussions on aspects of the manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary Material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.019.
References[1] T. Aqorau, Recent developments in Paciﬁc tuna ﬁsheries: the Palau Arrangement
and the vessel day scheme, Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law 24 (2009) 557–581.
[2] Asian Development Bank, Paciﬁc Economic Monitor, July 2016, AsianDevelopment Bank, Mandaluyong City, 2016.
[3] J. Aston, Experiences of coastal management in the Paciﬁc Islands, Ocean Coast.
Manag. 42 (1999) 483–501.
[4] S.C. Babu, P.K. Joshi, Future of agricultural extension reforms in developing
countries: Lessons from India, e-J. Econ. Complex. 1 (1) (2015).
[5] R. Bartley, Z.T. Bainbridge, S.E. Lewis, F.J. Kroon, S.N. Wilkinson, J.E. Brodie,
D.M. Silburn, Relating sediment impacts on coral reefs to watershed sources,
processes and management: a review, Sci. Total Environ. 468–469 (2014)
1138–1153.
[6] S. Bejarano, Y. Golbuu, T. Sapolu, P.J. Mumby, Ecological risk and the exploitationof herbivorous reef ﬁsh across Micronesia, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 482 (2013)
197–215.
[7] J. Bell, M. Taylor, Building Climate-resilient Food Systems for Paciﬁc Islands,
WorldFish, Penang, 2015.
[8] J.D. Bell, J.E. Johnson, A.J. Hobday (Eds.), Vulnerability of Tropical Paciﬁc
Fisheries and Aquaculture to Climate Change, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc
Community, Noumea, 2011.
[9] J.D. Bell, J. Albert, G. Amos, C. Arthur, M. Blanc, S. Heron et al. Operationalisingaccess to oceanic ﬁsheries resources by small-scale ﬁshers to improve food security
in the Paciﬁc Islands. Mar. Policy (this volume).
[10] J.D. Bell, M. Kronen, A. Vunisea, W.J. Nash, G. Keeble, A. Demmke, et al.,Planning the use of ﬁsh for food security in the Paciﬁc, Mar. Policy 33 (2009)

312

Marine Policy 88 (2018) 303–314

J.D. Bell et al.

Oceanogr. 78 (2008) 53–62.
[66] P. Lehodey, I. Senina, B. Calmettes, J. Hampton, S. Nicol, Modelling the impact ofclimate change on Paciﬁc skipjack tuna population and ﬁsheries, Clim. Change
119 (2013) 95–109.
[67] B. Leroy, T. Peatman, T. Usu, S. Caillot, B. Moore, A. Williams, S. Nicol,
Interactions between artisanal and industrial tuna ﬁsheries: insights from a decadeof tagging experiments, Mar. Policy 65 (2016) 11–19.
[68] J. Lough, A. Sen Gupta, S.B. Power, M.R. Grose, S. McGree, et al., Observed andprojected changes in surface climate of tropical Paciﬁc Islands, in: M. Taylor,
A. McGregor, B. Dawson (Eds.), Vulnerability of Paciﬁc Island Agriculture andForestry to Climate Change, Paciﬁc Community, Noumea, 2016.
[69] E.M.P. Madin, N.C. Ban, Z.A. Doubleday, T.H. Holmes, G.T. Pecl, F. Smith,Socioeconomic and management implications of range-shifting species in marine
systems, Glob. Environ. Change 22 (2012) 137–146.
[70] J. Maina, H. de Moel, J. Zinke, J. Madin, T. McClanahan, J.E. Vermaat, Humandeforestation outweighs future climate change impacts of sedimentation on coral
reefs, Nat. Commun. 4 (2013) 1986.
[71] T.R. McClanahan, N.A.J. Graham, M.A. MacNeil, J.E. Cinner, Biomass-basedtargets and the management of multispecies coral reef ﬁsheries, Conserv. Biol. 29(2015) 409–417.
[72] K.J. Meissner, T. Lippmann, A. Sen Gupta, Large-scale stress factors aﬀecting coral
reefs: open ocean sea surface temperature and surface seawater aragonite
saturation over the next 400 years, Coral Reefs 31 (2012) 309–319.
[73] C. Mellin, M.A. MacNeil, A.J. Cheal, M.J. Emslie, M.J. Caley, Marine protectedareas increase resilience among coral reef communities, Ecol. Lett. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ele.12598.
[74] P.J. Mumby, R.S. Steneck, M. Adjeroud, S.N. Arnold, High resilience marks
underlying sensitivity to phase shifts of Paciﬁc coral reefs, Oikos 125 (2016)
644–655.
[75] S. Nicol, M. Dessert, T. Gorgues, O. Aumont, C. Menkes, P. Lehodey, M. Lengaigne,
Progress report on climate simulations. 10th Regular Session of the Scientiﬁc
Committee of the Western Central Paciﬁc Fisheries Commission. WCPFC-SC102014/EB-IP-02, 2014.
[76] S. Nicol, N. Smith, P. Lehodey, I. Senina, SEAPODYM review with an update about
ongoing developments and preliminary results. Information Paper, 12th Regular
Session of the Scientiﬁc Committee of the Western Central Paciﬁc FisheriesCommission, Bali. WCPFC-SC12-2016/EB-WP-01, 2016.
[77] C. Paillon, L. Wantiez, M. Kulbiki, M. Labonne, L. Vigliola, Extent of mangrove
habitats determines the geographic distribution of a coral reef ﬁsh in a SouthPaciﬁc archipelago, Plos One 9 (8) (2014) e105158.
[78] K. Pakoa, J. Raubani, F. Siaosi, G. Amos, J. Ham, The Status of Sea Cucumber
Fisheries and Resources in Vanuatu, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community,
Noumea, 2013.
[79] T.D. Pickering, B. Ponia, C.A. Hair, P.C. Southgate, E.S. Poloczanska, L. Della
Patrona, et al., Vulnerability of aquaculture in the tropical Paciﬁc to climatechange, in: J.D. Bell, J.E. Johnson, A.J. Hobday (Eds.), Vulnerability of TropicalPaciﬁc Fisheries and Aquaculture to Climate Change, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc
Community, Noumea, 2011, pp. 647–731.
[80] E.K. Pikitch, P.D. Boersma, L.L. Boyd, D.O. Conover, P. Cury, T.E. Essington, et al.,Little ﬁsh, big impact: managing a crucial link in ocean food webs, Lenfest Ocean
Program, Washington, DC, 2012.
[81] I. Pollock, A. Kendrick, 15 Years of Indonesia's national community-driven
development programs: the Kecamatan Development Program (KDP) and the
National Program for Community Empowerment (PNPM), World Bank, Jakarta,
2015.
[82] R. Pomeroy, N.L. Andrew, Managing Small Scale Fisheries: Frameworks andApproaches for the Developing World, Centre for Agricultural Bioscience
International, London, 2011.
[83] M.S. Pratchett, M.S. Munday, S.K. Wilson, N.A.J. Graham, J.E. Cinner,
D.R. Bellwood, et al., Eﬀects of climate induced coral bleaching on coral-reefﬁshes: ecological and economic consequences, Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu. Rev. 46(2008) 251–296.
[84] M.S. Pratchett, P.L. Munday, N.A.J. Graham, M. Kronen, S. Pinca, K. Friedman,
et al., Vulnerability of coastal ﬁsheries in the tropical Paciﬁc to climate change, in:
J.D. Bell, J.E. Johnson, A.J. Hobday (Eds.), Vulnerability of Tropical Paciﬁc
Fisheries And Aquaculture to Climate Change, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc
Community, Noumea, 2011, pp. 493–576.
[85] M.S. Pratchett, D. Cameron, J. Donelson, L. Evans, A.J. Frisch, A.J. Hobday, et al.,Eﬀects of climate change on coral grouper (Plectropomus spp.) and possible
adaptation options, Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11160-016-9455-9.
[86] S.W. Purcell, A. Lovatelli, K. Pakoa, Constraints and solutions for managing PaciﬁcIsland sea cucumber ﬁsheries with an ecosystem approach, Mar. Policy 45 (2014)240–250.
[87] S.W. Purcell, P. Ngaluafe, K.T. Aram, W. Lalavanua, Trends in small-scale artisanalﬁshing of sea cucumbers in Oceania, Fish. Res. 183 (2016) 99–110.
[88] R. Ram, V.R. Chand, P.C. Southgate, An overview of sea cucumber ﬁshery
management in the Fiji Islands, J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 11 (2016) 191–205.
[89] J. Rice, E. Mosksness, C. Attwood, S.K. Brown, G. Dahle, K.M. Gjerde, et al., Therole of MPAs in reconciling ﬁsheries management with conservation of biologicaldiversity, Ocean Coast. Manag. 69 (2012) 217–230.
[90] J. Roeger, S. Foale, M. Sheaves, When ‘ﬁshing down the food chain’ results inimproved food security: evidence from a small pelagic ﬁshery in Solomon Islands,
Fish. Res. 174 (2016) 250–259.
[91] A. Rogers, J.L. Blanchard, P.J. Mumby, Vulnerability of coral reef ﬁsheries to a lossof structural complexity, Curr. Biol. 24 (2014) 1000–1005.

Aquaculture to Climate Change, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community, Noumea,
2011, pp. 101–187.
[40] P. Gehrke, M.J. Sheaves, J.P. Terry, D.T. Boseto, J.C. Ellison, B.S. Figa, J. Wani,
Vulnerability of freshwater and estuarine ﬁsh habitats in the tropical Paciﬁc toclimate change, in: J.D. Bell, J.E. Johnson, A.J. Hobday (Eds.), Vulnerability ofTropical Paciﬁc Fisheries and Aquaculture to Climate Change, Secretariat of the
Paciﬁc Community, Noumea, 2011, pp. 369–431.
[41] P. Gehrke, M.J. Sheaves, D. Bosto, B.S. Figa, J. Wani, Vulnerability of freshwaterand estuarine ﬁsheries in the tropical Paciﬁc to climate change, in: J.D. Bell,
J.E. Johnson, A.J. Hobday (Eds.), Vulnerability of Tropical Paciﬁc Fisheries andAquaculture to Climate Change, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community, Noumea,
2011, pp. 577–645.
[42] R. Gillett, Fisheries in the Economies of Paciﬁc Island Countries and Territories,
Asian Development Bank, Manila, 2009.
[43] R. Gillett, Fisheries in the Economies of Paciﬁc Island Countries and Territories,
Paciﬁc Community, Noumea, 2016.
[44] E. Gilman, Guidelines for coastal and marine site-planning and examples ofplanning and management intervention tools, Ocean Coast. Manag. 45 (2002)
377–404.
[45] H. Govan, Preliminary Review of Public Expenditure of the Fisheries Agencies ofPaciﬁc Island Countries and Territories: Policy, Operational Budget and Staﬃng
Support for Coastal Fisheries, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community, Noumea,
2015, http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4949.9363.
[46] H. Govan, W. Aalbersberg, A. Tawake, J. Parks, Locally-managed Marine Areas: A
Guide for Practitioners. The Locally-Managed Marine Area Network; 2008 〈www.
lmmanetwork.org/Site_Documents/Grouped/LMMAGuide.pdf〉, 2008.
[47] R.Q. Grafton, Adaptation to climate change in marine capture ﬁsheries, Mar.
Policy 34 (2010) 606–615.
[48] N.A.J. Graham, P. Chabanet, R.D. Evans, S. Jennings, Y. Letourneur,
M.A. MacNeil, et al., Extinction vulnerability of coral reef ﬁshes, Ecol. Lett. 14(2011) 341–348.
[49] Q. Hanich, Y. Ota, Moving beyond rights based management: a transparent
approach to distributing the conservation burden in tuna ﬁsheries, Int J. Mar.
Coast. Law 28 (2013) 135–170.
[50] Q. Hanich, M. Tsamenyi, Progress in the implementation of conservation andmanagement measures for bigeye and yellowﬁn tunas in the western and central
Paciﬁc: sharing the conservation burden and beneﬁt, in: M.W. Lodge,
M.H. Nordquist (Eds.), Law of the Sea: Liber Amicorum Satya Nandan, Brill/
Nijhoﬀ Publishers, Leiden/Boston, 2014.
[51] E. Havice, Rights-based management in the Western and Central Paciﬁc Ocean
tuna ﬁshery: economic and environmental change under the vessel day scheme,
Mar. Policy 42 (2013) 259–267.
[52] A. Heenan, R. Pomeroy, J. Bell, P. Munday, W. Cheung, C. Logan, et al., A climateinformed, ecosystem approach to ﬁsheries management, Mar. Policy 57 (2015)
182–192.
[53] A.J. Hobday, E.S. Poloczanska, R. Matear, Implications of Climate Change forAustralian Fisheries and Aquaculture: A Preliminary Assessment: Canberra,
Department of Climate Change, Australia. 〈http://www.cmar.csiro.au/
climateimpacts/reports.htm〉, 2008.
[54] O. Hoegh-Guldberg, S. Andrefouet, K.E. Fabricius, G. Diaz-Pulido, J.M. Lough,
P.A. Marshall, M.S. Pratchett, Vulnerability of coral reefs in the tropical Paciﬁc toclimate change, in: J.D. Bell, J.E. Johnson, A.J. Hobday (Eds.), Vulnerability ofTropical Paciﬁc Fisheries and Aquaculture to Climate Change, Secretariat of the
Paciﬁc Community, Noumea, 2011, pp. 251–296.
[55] A.S. Hoey, D.R. Bellwood, Suppression of herbivory by macroalgal density: acritical feedback on coral reefs? Ecol. Lett. 14 (2011) 267–273.
[56] T.P. Hughes, M.J. Rodrigues, D.R. Bellwood, D. Ceccarelli, Hoegh-Guldberg,
L. McCook, et al., Phase shifts, herbivory and the resilience of coral reefs to climatechange, Curr. Biol. 17 (2007) 360–365.
[57] R.E. Johannes, The renaissance of community-based marine resource managementin Oceania, Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33 (2002) 317–340.
[58] J. Johnson, J. Bell, C. De Young, Priority Adaptations to Climate Change for Paciﬁc
Fisheries and Aquaculture: Reducing Risks and Capitalizing on Opportunities, FAO
Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings no. 28, Food and Agriculture Organisationof the United Nations, Rome, 2013.
[59] J. Johnson, J. Bell, A. Sen Gupta, Paciﬁc Islands ocean acidiﬁcation vulnerability
assessment. Apia; Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Regional Environmental Programme,
2016.
[60] J.E. Johnson, J.D. Bell, V. Allain, Q. Hanich, P. Lehodey, B.R. Moore, et al., The
Paciﬁc Islands: ﬁsheries, aquaculture and climate change (Chapter 11), in:
B. Philips, M. Ramirez (Eds.), The Implications of Climate Change for Fisheries andAquaculture: A Global Analysis, Wiley Publications, New York, 2017in press, .
[61] D. Jovicic, Cultural tourism in the context of relations between mass andalternative tourism, Curr. Issues Tour. 19 (2016) 605–612.
[62] A. Kiss, Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation
funds? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (2004) 232–237.
[63] S. Koshiba, M. Besebes, K. Soaladaob, M. Ngiraingas, A.L. Isechal, S. Victor,
Y. Golbuu, Years of sustainable use of watersheds and coral reefs in Paciﬁc Islands:a review for Palau, Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 144 (2014) 19–26.
[64] R. LeBorgne, V. Allain, S.P. Griﬃths, R.J. Matear, A.D. McKinnon, A.J. Richardson,
J.W. Young, Vulnerability of open ocean food webs in the tropical Paciﬁc toclimate change, in: J.D. Bell, J.E. Johnson, A.J. Hobday (Eds.), Vulnerability ofTropical Paciﬁc Fisheries and Aquaculture to Climate Change, Secretariat of the
Paciﬁc Community, Noumea, 2011, pp. 189–249.
[65] P. Lehodey, I. Senina, R. Murtugudde, A spatial ecosystem and populations
dynamics model (SEAPODYM) – modeling of tuna and tuna-like populations, Prog.

313

Marine Policy 88 (2018) 303–314

J.D. Bell et al.

sustainable use of reef shark populations, Biol. Conserv. 145 (2012) 267–277.
[104] S. Victor, L. Neth, Golbuu, E. Wolanski, R.H. Richmond, Sedimentation inmangroves and coral reefs in a wet tropical island, Pohnpei, Micronesia, Estuar.
Coast. Shelf Sci. 66 (2006) 409–416.
[105] C.C.C. Wabnitz, Paciﬁc Islands ﬂame angelﬁsh probably all belong to the same
stock, SPC Fish. Newsl. 146 (2015) 9–10.
[106] C.C.C. Wabnitz, Marine Aquarium Fish. SPC FactSheet, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc
Community, Noumea, 2015.
[107] C.C.C. Wabnitz, G. Remoissenet, Postlarval capture and culture of Tridacna
maxima giant clams in French Polynesia, SPC Fish. Newsl. 139 (2012) 16–19.
[108] C.C.C. Wabnitz, T. Nahacky, Rapid Aquarium Fish Stock Assessment and
Evaluation of Industry Best Practices in Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia,
Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community, Noumea, 2014.
[109] C.C.C. Wabnitz, T. Nahacky, Best Practices for the Ornamental Trade in Tonga,
Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community, Noumea, 2014.
[110] C.C.C. Wabnitz, A.M. Cisneros-Montemayor, Q. Hanich, Y. Ota Ecotourism,
climate change and reef ﬁsh consumption in Palau: beneﬁts, trade-oﬀs andadaptation strategies. Mar. Policy (this volume).
[111] M. Waycott, L.J. McKenzie, J.E. Mellors, J.C. Ellison, M.T. Sheaves, C. Collier,et al., Vulnerability of coral reefs in the tropical Paciﬁc to climate change, in:
J.D. Bell, J.E. Johnson, A.J. Hobday (Eds.), Vulnerability of Tropical Paciﬁc
Fisheries and Aquaculture to Climate Change, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc
Community, Noumea, 2011, pp. 297–368.
[112] WCPFC. Convention on the conservation and management of highly migratory ﬁshstocks in the Western and Central Paciﬁc Ocean (WCPF Convention). Opened forsignature 5 September 2000. Entered into force 19 June 2004. Pohnpei, 2000;〈http://www.wcpfc.int〉.
[113] C. Wilkinson, J. Brodie, Catchment Management and Coral Reef Conservation: A
Practical Guide for Coastal Resource Managers to Reduce Damage from Catchment
Areas Based on Best Practice Case Studies, Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network
and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville, 2011.
[114] World Bank. Paciﬁc Islands Regional Oceanscape Program. Project Appraisal
Document, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2014. Available at: http://projects.
worldbank.org/P131655?Lang=en.

[92] P.F. Sale, T. Agardy, C.H. Ainsworth, B.E. Feist, J.D. Bell, P. Christie, et al.,Transforming management of tropical coastal seas to cope with challenges of the
21st century, Mar. Poll. Bull. 85 (2014) 8–23.
[93] I. Senina, P. Lehodey, B. Calmettes, S. Nicol, S. Caillot, J. Hampton, P. Williams,
Predicting skipjack tuna dynamics and eﬀects of climate change using SEAPODYM
with ﬁshing and tagging data. Working Paper, 12th Regular Session of the
Scientiﬁc Committee of the Western Central Paciﬁc Fisheries Commission.
WCPFC-SC12-2016/EB-WP-01, 2016.
[94] M. Sharp, W. Sokimi, M. Blanc, Holy mackerel: small ﬁsh, big potential, SPC Fish.
Newsl. 137 (2012) 13–16.
[95] M. Sheaves, R. Baker, R. Johnston, Marine nurseries and eﬀective juvenile
habitats: an alternative view, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 318 (2006) 303–306.
[96] W. Sokimi, Bagan and pole-and-line ﬁshing trials in Kavieng, Papua New Guinea,
SPC Fish. Newsl. 145 (2014) 11–14.
[97] SPC, A Community-based Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management:
Guidelines for Paciﬁc Island Countries. Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community, The
Nature Conservancy, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations,
Noumea, Brisbane, Rome, 2010.
[98] SPC, A New Song for Coastal Fisheries - Pathways to Change: The Noumea
Strategy, Paciﬁc Community, Noumea, 2015.
[99] SPC. Fish and Food Security. Policy Brief 1/2008, Secretariat of the Paciﬁc
Community, Noumea, 2008.
[100] SPC. Status Report: Paciﬁc Islands Reef and Nearshore Fisheries and Aquaculture,
Secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community, Noumea, 2013.
[101] UNFSA. Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations
Convention of the Law of the Sea 10 December 1982, relating to the conservationand management of straddling ﬁsh stocks and highly migratory ﬁsh stocks(UNFSA). Opened for signature 4 August 1995. Entered into force 2001. New
York, (1995) 34 International Legal Materials 1542.
[102] R. van Hooidonk, J.A. Maynard, D. Manzelo, S. Planes, Opposite latitudinal
gradients in projected ocean acidiﬁcation and bleaching impacts on coral reefs,
Glob. Change Biol. 20 (2013) 103–112.
[103] G.M.S. Vianna, M.G. Meekan, D.J. Pannell, S.P. Marsh, J.J. Meeuwig, Socioeconomic value and community beneﬁts from shark-diving tourism in Palau: a314