Marine Policy 100 (2019) 183–191

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Realising the food security benefits of canned fish for Pacific Island countries
a,b,⁎

a,c

d

e

f

Johann D. Bell, Michael K. Sharp , Elizabeth Havice , Michael Batty , Karen E. Charlton ,Joanna Russellf, Wayne Adamsg, Kamal Azmia, Alessandro Romeoc, Colette C.C. Wabnitzh,
Neil L. Andrewa, Leonard Rodwelle, Steve Gu’uraue, Robert GillettiTaAustralian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington VA 22202, USAc
Pacific Community, B.P. D5, 98848 Noumea Cedex, New CaledoniadUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3220, USAe
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, P.O. Box 629, Honiara, Solomon IslandsfSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health, University of Wollongong, NSW 2522, AustraliagLangdale Court, Huntington, Hamilton 3210, New ZealandhInstitute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia AERL, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z4
i
Gillett and Preston Associates, P.O. Box 3344, Lami, Suva, Fijib

ABSTRACT

Canned fish is a healthy alternative to the poor-quality, imported, processed foods implicated in the rise of non-communicable diseases in Pacific Island countries.
Increased availability and consumption of canned fish also promises to help fill the gap between sustainable coastal fish production and recommended intake of fishfor good nutrition. This study estimates the recent contribution of canned products to fish supply in Fiji, Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Solomon Islands, based on thequantities of imported and locally-produced canned fish sold on domestic markets. The greatest quantities of canned fish were sold in PNG, however, average annual
consumption of canned fish per capita was highest in Fiji (8.8 ± 1.3 kg) and Solomon Islands (5.9 ± 0.6 kg), where it supplied an average of 25 ± 4% and
17 ± 2% of recommended dietary fish intake, respectively. Canned tuna comprised an average of 53 ± 2% of the canned fish consumption in Fiji and 92 ± 1% in
Solomon Islands. Key actions needed to maintain/increase per capita consumption of canned fish in Pacific Island countries include promoting the health benefits ofcanned tuna to help combat non-communicable diseases, and facilitating distribution of locally-canned products, especially to the inland population of PNG.
Increasing the market share of locally-canned tuna by assisting national canneries to obtain sufficient supplies of tuna to achieve economies of scale and compete
effectively in both domestic and intra-regional canned fish trade, could create more employment and contribute indirectly to local food security.

1. Introduction
Pacific Island people have always had an extraordinary dependence
on fish for nutrition. Even during the past two decades, as many PacificIsland countries have been undergoing a ‘nutrition transition’ in which
traditional diets based on fresh produce are being increasingly replacedwith highly-processed imported foods that are energy dense but nutrient poor [14], per capita fish consumption has typically been 2–4
times the global average [2,27,29,43]. Fish has been a cornerstone offood security in the region because most Pacific Island countries have a
low land mass: coastline ratio and limited opportunities to produce
other forms of animal protein [47]. In recognition of these circumstances, the Public Health Division of the Pacific Community1 has recommended that Pacific Island countries and territories should plan toprovide access to at least 35 kg of fish per person per year as humanpopulations continue to grow [43].

Until recently, much of the fish consumed in the Pacific Island region has come from coastal fisheries, which are based mainly on coral
reefs [18,41,42]. However, rapid population growth is creating a gap
between how much fish can be harvested sustainably from coastal
fisheries and the quantity of fish recommended for good nutrition[2,3,43,45].
Three interventions, based on increasing access to the region's richand sustainably managed tuna resources for domestic consumption, canhelp to fill this gap. These interventions, which acknowledge the needto keep consumption of tuna within safe levels with respect to total
intake of methyl mercury [5], are: 1) assisting coastal communities tocatch more tuna by fishing around nearshore, anchored fish aggregating
devices (FADs) [5–7,44,46]; 2) improving the local distribution of tunaand bycatch offloaded from industrial purse-seine and longline vessels
in major ports to increase the supply of fish for rapidly-growing urban
and peri-urban populations [5,30,40]; and 3) maintaining/increasing

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jbell@conservation.org (J.D. Bell).
1
www.spc.int.
⁎

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.034
Received 5 May 2018; Received in revised form 13 October 2018; Accepted 15 October 2018
Available online 04 December 20180308-597X/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Marine Policy 100 (2019) 183–191

J.D. Bell et al.

per capita consumption of canned tuna. The latter intervention promises to be of considerable significance for food security across theregion because canned tuna is shelf stable – an attribute that is particularly important for inland communities in Papua New Guinea (PNG),
which have poor access to fresh fish [5]. Elsewhere in the world,
canned fish2 products make an important contribution to average
global fish consumption, which is estimated to be > 20 kg per person
per year [24]. Indeed, since 2010, ~11% of total fish production from
capture fisheries and aquaculture has been processed into canned
products each year, with tuna comprising ~23% of all canned fish [23].
The Regional Roadmap for Sustainable Pacific Fisheries, endorsed by
Pacific Island Leaders in 2015, embraces the need to make tuna more
widely available for local food security throughout the region. The
Roadmap specifies that an additional 40,000 t of tuna is to be madeavailable for domestic consumption per year by 2024, relative to thequantity of locally-caught and locally-processed tuna consumed in 2014[26]. There is particular interest in promoting consumption of fish,
including tuna, to help combat the high levels of obesity and noncommunicable diseases pervading the region (Supplementary material)
due to increased consumption of imported, high-energy, nutrient-poor
foods [5,13–15].
This study describes the benefits of canned fish in general, andcanned tuna in particular, for improving the food security of PacificIsland people; summarises the origin and quantities of canned tuna andother canned fish sold in the region; and assesses recent national patterns of per capita canned fish consumption. It focuses on the threelargest countries in the Pacific Island region – the Melanesian nations ofFiji, PNG and Solomon Islands – because that is where most people in
the region live3 and where most of the locally-canned tuna is produced(Supplementary Table 1). This study also estimates how much additional canned tuna will be needed in these three countries in 2025 and2035 to maintain recent (2012–2014) levels of per capita consumption;assesses how much canned tuna would be needed in 2025 and 2035
under two other scenarios (a 25% and 50% increase in per capita
consumption, respectively), based on differential success of efforts topromote fish in general as a nutritious alternative to high-energy, nutrient-poor foods, and/or reduced access to other supplies of fish; andidentifies key actions and policies that should improve availability of
locally-canned tuna to help meet prospective increases in demand.

3. Origin and consumption of canned fish in Melanesia
3.1. Methods
Import data provided by the Fiji Revenue and Customs Authority,
the PNG Customs Service, and Solomon Islands Customs and Excise
Division were used to estimate the average ± standard deviation (SD)amount of canned tuna imported into each country in tonnes (t). These
data were classified in accordance with the 2012 Harmonised
Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) and 6-digit HS Codes,
ranging from 160411 to 160420 for ‘canned fish’. Trade data were used
to identify the origin of the majority of canned tuna imported into Fiji,PNG and Solomon Islands, including imports from within the region.
Data based on the gross weight of canned tuna were converted to net
weight of edible contents based on information provided by the PacificIsland Food Composition Tables [19] and Food Standards Australia and
New Zealand,4 which state that the net weight of canned tuna is ~80%
of gross weight. Analyses of the origin and average available quantities
of canned fish imported into the three countries were limited to theyears 2012–2014 because trade data for 2015 onwards could not be
obtained due to the lag time in availability of official statistics. The
types of errors that can be associated with the use of trade data to assess
the quantity of canned fish imported into a country are described in the
Supplementary material.
Estimates of the average quantity ± SD of canned tuna produced inFiji, PNG and Solomon Islands available on domestic markets, were
derived from the total weight of canned-tuna products sold locally by
all fish-processing companies (canneries) in these countries from 2012
to 2014 (to match the years for which data for imported canned tuna
were available). Where this information was provided as numbers ofcans sold, conversions were made to the gross weight of canned product. As above, it was assumed that the net weight of locally-produced
canned tuna was ~80% of the gross weight.
Average ± SD rates of per capita consumption of canned tuna inFiji, PNG and Solomon Islands were calculated using estimates of thetotal population in each country in 2012, 2013 and 2014 provided by
the Statistics for Development Division at the Pacific Community.5
These calculations were based on the quantities of imported and locally-produced canned tuna combined. Average ± SD per capita consumption of all canned fish (i.e., canned tuna and other types of canned
fish combined) in each country between 2012 and 2014 were estimatedusing the HS data for other types of canned fish imported into eachcountry, and information from companies in Fiji and PNG producing
canned mackerel from imported fresh fish. Note, however, that thisinformation does not indicate how canned fish consumption is distributed throughout the population, i.e., the ‘accessibility’ pillar of foodsecurity [21].
To provide some information on the accessibility of canned fish,data from recent household income and expenditure surveys (HIES)
were used to investigate whether there were any differences in percapita consumption of canned fish between rural and urban areas. For
the three focal countries during the period 2012–2014, this was possible only for Solomon Islands based on data from the HIES conducted
there in 2012/13. However, the analysis of canned fish consumption inrural and urban areas was also extended to seven other Pacific Island
countries and territories (Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, Palau,
Tokelau, Tonga, Vanuatu and Samoa) using data from national HIES
conducted between 2010 and 2016. This analysis provided a broader
picture of canned fish consumption across much of the region.

2. Benefits of canned tuna
Canned tuna has similar levels of protein, minerals and several vitamins to cooked fresh reef fish, cooked fresh tuna and other canned
fish (Supplementary Tables 2 and 3). Canned tuna is a good source oflong chain omega-3 fatty acids [38], which play an important role in
reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and high blood pressure[22,34,39]. Canned tuna is also an important food for pregnant women
because long chain omega-3 fatty acids are essential for infant brain
development (Supplementary material). Potential problems associatedwith excessive consumption of canned tuna, and canned fish in general,
are also described in the Supplementary material.
The shelf-stable attribute of canned tuna makes it one of the few
options for increasing access to fish at inland locations without the cold
chains required to deliver fresh fish. Canned tuna also provides a nutritious source of animal protein for coastal communities when sea
conditions are too rough for fishing, fish are seasonally scarce, natural
disasters (e.g., cyclones) damage fish habitats, or when restrictions
need to be placed on catching coastal fish to support the recovery ofstocks [17]. Several of these circumstances are expected to occur more
frequently due to the effects of climate change [4,8].

4
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/science/monitoringnutrients/ausnut/
ausnutdatafiles/Pages/fooddetails.aspx.
5
https://sdd.spc.int/en/.

2

Fish is defined in the broad sense to include finfish and invertebrates.
3
www.sdd.spc.int.
184

Marine Policy 100 (2019) 183–191

J.D. Bell et al.

Table 1The origin and quantity in tonnes (t) of canned tuna and other canned fish available in Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands between 2012 and 2014.
Estimated per capita consumption of all canned fish, and canned tuna, is also shown for each country. Net weights represent contents of cans.
Feature of canned fish production and consumption

CountryFijiaWeight of tuna processed for domestic sale (in t)
Imports of canned tuna (net weight in t)bCanned tuna produced and sold domestically (net weight in t)
Total canned tuna available (net weight in t)
Percentage of canned tuna derived from local canneries
Other canned fish produced domestically (net weight in t)e
Imports of other canned fish (net weight in t)f
Total canned fish available (net weight in t)
Estimated human population of countryg
Per capita consumption of all canned fish (kg person−1 yr−1)
Per capita consumption of canned tuna (kg person−1 yr−1)
Percentage of canned fish consumed comprised of tuna

Papua New Guinea

2012

2013

2014

a

a

a

5330
2159
2132c
4291
50
1796
2358
8446
855,500
9.9
5.0
51

6870
710
2748c
3458
79
1638
1185
6281
859,200
7.3
4.0
55

7462
1081
2985c
4066
73
1756
2058
7879
863,100
9.1
4.7
52

2012
6533
5476
2613d
8089
32
4000 h854
12,943
7,227,600
1.8
1.1
62

2013
8780
3651
3512d
7163
49
4000 h1884
13,047
7,398,500
1.8
1.0
55

Solomon Islands
2014
9205
6215
3682d
9897
37
4000 h1455
15,3527,774,900
2.0
1.3
64

2012

2013

a

a

7022
185
2809c
2994
94
0
267
3261
582,000
5.6
5.1
92

8018
539
3207c
3746
86
0
265
4011
610,800
6.6
6.1
93

2014
7495a
239
2998c
3237
93
0
267
3504
626,400
5.6
5.2
92

a

= derived from net weight of canned tuna sold locally divided by 0.4 because the packed weight of fish in a can averages 40% of whole weight of processed fish.
= calculated as 80% of gross weight of imported canned tuna given in Supplementary Table 4.
c= calculated as 80% of gross weight of canned tuna.
d= calculated as 40% of whole weight of fish processed for canning.
e= mackerel, calculated as 80% of gross weight of canned product.
f= mainly mackerel, sardines and pilchards, calculated as 80% of gross weight of canned product.
g= source: Statistics for Development Division, Pacific Community; 2012 values are midpoint between 2011 and 2013.
h= based on information from the company canning mackerel in PNG producing 15,000 t between 2012 and 2014, calculated as 80% of gross weight.
bobtained due to the lag time in availability of official statistics, observations suggest that imports of canned tuna may have increased
since 2014 due to canneries in China and elsewhere in Southeast Asia
seeking a greater share of the market and competing directly withpopular local products and brands. Indeed, it is now easy to find canned
tuna imports in the region labelled to look like local Pacific Island
products. The aggressive marketing of these imports is pitched at aunique segment of the market for canned tuna in the Pacific Island
region – the use of lower-cost, dark-meat canned tuna for flavouring
staples such as cassava and rice (Supplementary material). For example,
dark-meat tuna, so-called ‘blue’ canned-tuna products (named after the
popular ‘Solomon Blue’ described below) are now common on local
markets.

3.2. Imports of canned fish
Imports of canned tuna and other canned fish were significant between 2012 and 2014, particularly in PNG (Table 1), where an averageof 5114 ± 1320 t of canned tuna and 1398 ± 517 t of other canned
fish products were imported each year. The annual average net weightof canned tuna imported into Fiji was 1317 ± 753 t and the averagequantity of other canned fish products was 1867 ± 609 t. The figures
for Solomon Islands were considerably lower – average annual importsof tuna and other canned fish products were 321 ± 191 and266 ± 1 t, respectively. Based on the data available, it was not possible
to determine the reasons for the variation in the quantity of imports to agiven country from year to year (Table 1).

3.4. Sales of locally-canned fish

3.3. Origin of imported canned fish

The average net weight of canned tuna produced in national canneries and sold on the domestic market each year was 3269 ± 574 t in
PNG, 2622 ± 440 t in Fiji and 3005 ± 199 t in Solomon Islands(Table 1). The average annual net weight of canned mackerel producedin the region and sold on domestic markets was estimated to be ~4000 t
per year in PNG, and 1730 ± 82 t in Fiji (Table 1).

Much of the canned fish imported into the region between 2012 and2014 came from Southeast Asia. In Fiji, most imported canned tunacame from Thailand and Indonesia, whereas most of the other canned
fish came from China (Supplementary Table 4). In PNG, the majority ofcanned tuna imported in 2012 came from the Philippines, Indonesia
and to a lesser extent Thailand, whereas in 2013 and 2014 the majority
came from Thailand (Supplementary Table 4). Most of the other canned
fish imported into PNG originated from Thailand and China. In Solomon Islands, the relatively small quantities of canned tuna imported
from Southeast Asia came mainly from Thailand, whereas the majorityof the other imported canned fish originated from the Philippines(Supplementary Table 4).
Imports of canned tuna from other Pacific Island countries wererelatively important in Fiji, where an average of 37% ± 13% of total
imports each year came from either PNG or Solomon Islands(Supplementary Table 4). In contrast, an average of only 3% ± 2% of
all canned tuna imported into PNG each year came from Fiji and Solomon Islands. In Solomon Islands, an annual average of 15% ± 7% of
the relatively small quantities of imported canned tuna came from PNG
and Fiji (Supplementary Table 4).
The patterns and quantities of imports summarised here need to beinterpreted with caution. Although supporting data could not be

3.5. Relative importance of canned tuna from different origins
There were substantial differences in the sources of canned tuna
among the three countries (Fig. 1). Solomon Islands was largely selfsufficient, with an average of 91% ± 4% of all canned tuna sold between 2012 and 2014 coming from the local cannery. The annual
average market share of locally-canned tuna was also relatively high(68% ± 16%) in Fiji. In contrast, PNG relied heavily on imported
canned tuna, with an average of 59% ± 10% of all canned tuna sold in
the country each year originating from Southeast Asia (Fig. 1).
The more limited size of the domestic market and ready access tofish for canning appear to partially explain the high sales of locallycanned tuna in Solomon Islands. However, good marketing has also
played a role. The national cannery's signature ‘Solomon Blue’ productwas the only dark-meat tuna available locally when introduced, and its
185

Marine Policy 100 (2019) 183–191

J.D. Bell et al.

Fig. 1. The average percentage of canned tuna imported mainly from Southeast Asia, produced domestically, or imported from neighbouring Melanesian countries(the region) into Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands between 2012 and 2014. Further details of the origin of canned tuna imported from Southeast Asia are
given in Supplementary Table 4.

[2], canned fish contributes an average of 18 ± 2%, and canned tunacontributes an average of 17 ± 2%, of all fish consumption. In PNG,
average national per capita fish consumption is estimated to be only
13 kg per person per year [2] because > 60% of the population lives
inland, where access to fish is difficult due to poorly developed supply
chains. Canned fish in general, and canned tuna in particular, are estimated to comprise an average of 14 ± 1% and 9 ± 1% of nationalfish consumption in PNG, respectively.
When consumption of canned fish is assessed relative to the recommended quantity of fish for good nutrition for Pacific Island people,
i.e., 35 kg per person per year [43], it provides an average of 25 ± 4%of this target in Fiji, and 17 ± 2% in Solomon Islands. Canned tunaalone is providing an average of 13 ± 1% of recommended annual per
capita fish consumption in Fiji and 16 ± 2% in Solomon Islands. The
recommended consumption of 35 kg of fish per person per year cannot
be applied to PNG for the reasons outlined above [2,5]. However, any
increase in the contribution of canned products to per capita fish consumption in inland areas of PNG will depend largely on improving
physical access to canned fish (Section 4), and increasing purchasing
power.

price remains competitive even in the face of the look-alike imports
mentioned above.
The high dependence of PNG on imported canned tuna can be explained partly by failure of the existing canneries to operate at full
capacity and the fact that the fish-processing companies operating there
have not made the local market a high priority. The need for significant
imports of canned tuna in Fiji can be attributed largely to limited accessto fish for processing locally and the relatively large domestic market.
In both PNG and Fiji, locally-canned tuna faces stiff competition fromimports due to lower costs of production in Southeast Asia and progressive reduction of tariffs on imported canned fish, particularly in
PNG (Supplementary material). However, it is not clear why imports
from the region accounted for 11% of all canned tuna consumed in Fiji
but only 2% in PNG (Fig. 1).
3.6. Consumption of canned fish
When all sources of canned fish were combined, the greatest
quantities per year were consumed in PNG, e.g., > 15,000 t in 2014,
followed by Fiji and Solomon Islands (Table 1). This is not surprising,
given the differences in population size between the countries. However, there were large differences in per capita consumption of canned
fish (Table 1). Average annual national consumption of all canned fish
per person was considerably greater in Fiji (8.8 ± 1.3 kg) and Solomon
Islands (5.9 ± 0.6 kg) than in PNG (1.9 ± 0.1 kg). Canned tunacomprised an average of 53% ± 2% of the canned fish consumption inFiji, 60% ± 5% in PNG, and 92 ± 1% in Solomon Islands (Table 1).
Consumption of all canned fish combined indicates that it is making
a significant contribution to average national fish consumption in all
countries. In Fiji, where average national fish consumption is 21 kg perperson per year [2], canned fish in general accounts for an average of
42 ± 6% of total fish consumption, and canned tuna provides anaverage of 22 ± 2% of all fish consumed. Based on the average national fish consumption of 33 kg per person per year in Solomon Islands

3.7. Consumption based on household income and expenditure surveys(HIES)The results from the latest HIES in Solomon Islands showed thaturban communities consumed more than twice as much canned fish as
rural communities (Table 2). There was considerable variation incanned fish consumption among and within many of the other seven
Pacific Island countries and territories for which recent HIES data wereavailable (Table 2). Average national consumption of canned fish in
Samoa (9.3 kg per person per year) was higher than our estimates forFiji based on production data (8.8 kg), and national consumption ofcanned fish in Tokelau (6.4 kg) was higher than our estimate for Solomon Islands (5.9 kg). The difference in consumption of canned fish in
186Marine Policy 100 (2019) 183–191

J.D. Bell et al.

and territories combined,8 and animal protein is often scarce in the diet[9]. Key actions for increasing the availability of canned tuna in inland
PNG include surveys to assess the nature and size of the market; tailoring canned-tuna products to meet market demand; and upgrading
distribution networks to deliver these products to inland areas. The
Government of PNG could consider subsidising the cost of distributing
locally-canned tuna and other nutritious food to the large inland population by using some of the substantial funds gained from recent
increases in revenue from industrial tuna fishing access fees [31,32].
Allocation of a portion of this revenue for such purposes would helptransfer the benefits of the nation's rich tuna resources to more of its
citizens.

Table 2Estimates of national, rural and urban consumption of canned fish (kg/person/
year, net weight) for Solomon Islands and seven other Pacific Island countries
and territories derived from household income and expenditure surveys (HIES)
conducted between 2010 and 2016.
Country/Territory

National

Rural

Urban

Year

Federated States of Micronesia
NauruaPalau
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tokelaua
Tonga
Vanuatu

3.90
1.93
5.50
9.32
4.93
6.45
2.96
5.14

4.69

2.83

6.14
9.53
3.37

5.36
8.45
8.86

3.10
4.86

2.48
5.95

2013/142012/13201420132012/132015/162015/16
2010

5. Planning to meet future demand for canned tunaa
= breakdown into rural and urban consumption not possible due to thesmall size of the country/territory.

Estimates of how much canned tuna may be needed in Fiji, PNG and
Solomon Islands by 2025 and 2035 if the actions described above are
more or less successful were made based on three scenarios: 1) continued appreciation of canned tuna and availability of other sources offish, resulting in maintenance of the average rates of per capita canned
tuna consumption described here; 2) modest success of campaigns topromote canned tuna as a healthier alternative to other processed foodsin the fight against non-communicable diseases, combined with somedifficulties in obtaining other types of fish, resulting in a 25% increasein consumption of canned tuna per capita; and 3) greater success of
campaigns to promote canned tuna, combined with more substantial
difficulties in obtaining other types of fish, resulting in a 50% increasein consumption. Calculations were made for both locally-canned andimported canned tuna and were based on the assumption that the
proportions of locally-canned and imported canned tuna consumed
remain the same over time.
The additional quantities of canned tuna needed by 2025, relative to2012–2014, vary considerably among the three countries (Fig. 2a). Thisvariation is due to the interplay between present national population
size, existing rates of per capita consumption of canned tuna, and therate of population growth (Tables 1 and 3).
When the focus is placed on the additional quantities of locallycanned tuna required, for the reasons explained in Section 6, only asmall (6%) increase in production would be needed to maintain percapita consumption in Fiji by 2025 under Scenario 1 (Table 4) due tothe low rate of population growth (Table 3). However, a 59% increasein production of locally-canned tuna (1538 t) would be needed in Fiji by2025 under Scenario 3 (Table 4). Although the population in PNG ispredicted to increase by more than two million people by 2025 relative
to 2012–2014 (Table 3), the low per capita consumption of locallycanned tuna means that only a 33% increase in production (1063 t)
would be needed under Scenario 1 by 2025, increasing to 99% (3230 t)
under Scenario 3 (Table 4). In Solomon Islands, the country with thelowest population, relatively rapid population growth (Table 3) will
create the need for a 32% (969 t) increase in production of locallycanned tuna under Scenario 1 and a 98% (2956 t) increase under Scenario 3 by 2025 (Table 4).
The projected increases in locally-canned tuna needed by 2035
under the three scenarios followed similar patterns, however, the volumes of canned tuna required under each scenario are greater (Fig. 2b)
due to predicted population growth. For example, under Scenario 3, a131% increase (4285 t) in locally-canned tuna would be required in
PNG, and a 151% (4546 t) increase would be needed in Solomon Islands(Table 4).

rural and urban areas was not as pronounced in the other sevencountries and territories as it was in Solomon Islands, and the trend wasoften in the opposite direction with higher consumption occurring inrural areas in most cases (Table 2).
4. The challenge of maintaining per capita consumption of cannedtuna
The global food trade, which has increased the availability of highenergy, low-nutrient imported foods in the region [13,15], poses a
significant risk to the vital role that canned tuna and other types of fishplay in local food security [14]. Concerted efforts will be needed tomaintain/increase per capita consumption of canned tuna in Fiji andSolomon Islands, and augment the modest consumption in inland PNG,
as availability of poor-quality, imported food increases and populations
continue to grow. Two key actions that Pacific Island governments cantake to ensure canned tuna continues to make an important contribution to national and maternal nutritional security to help stem the tideof deteriorating public health (Supplementary Table 5) are described
below.
4.1. Promote consumption of fish to help combat the regional ‘nutrition
double burden’6
Campaigns are needed to increase awareness of the health benefitsof eating fish, including canned tuna, and the role that fish can play in
reducing the prevalence of non-communicable diseases in adults andmalnutrition among children. Such campaigns will be facilitated by
1) targeted advertising that highlights the health benefits of fish anddistinguishes canned tuna from other processed foods; 2) imposition ofhigher taxes on unhealthy imported foods [12,25], as proposed under
the Pacific Islands Non-Communicable Diseases Roadmap7; and 3) an endto-end supply chain analysis of the factors (e.g., origin, access, taste andprice) influencing purchases of fish and canned-fish products to identify
and reduce obstacles to consumption of fish in preference to less-nutritious foods. Raising awareness that canned tuna can be a substitutefor fresh fish when catches are affected by storms, natural disasters andthe other factors mentioned in Section 2, should also assist people tomaintain a healthy diet.
4.2. Improve distribution of canned tuna to the population of inland PNG
Increasing access to canned tuna in inland PNG is an important needbecause more people live there than in all other Pacific Island countries

8
In 2013, about 4,440,000 people were estimated to live more than 5 km
from a river or the coast in PNG, whereas the combined population of all other
Pacific Island countries and territories was 3,168,000 (source: Statistics forDevelopment Division, Pacific Community).

6

http://www.policyforum.net/the-pacifics-double-burden-of-disease/.
7
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/07/11/pacific-islandsnon-communicable-disease-roadmap.
187

Marine Policy 100 (2019) 183–191

J.D. Bell et al.

Pacific Island countries.
Such analysis is beyond the scope of this paper. However, as astarting point, efforts to maintain the market share of locally-canned
tuna may be complemented by exploring whether the Melanesian
Spearhead Group Trade Agreement9 and the Pacific Island Country
Regional Trade Agreement10 could enable canneries in Pacific Island
countries to compete more effectively with companies from Southeast
Asia. In particular, it will be important to explore whether these
agreements could support increased production and intraregional tradeof canned tuna, enabling canneries in Fiji, PNG and Solomon Islands togain a greater share of imported tuna sales in each other's domestic
markets. The greatest potential to increase intraregional trade ofcanned fish is in PNG, where only 2% of imported tuna came from Fijior Solomon Islands between 2012 and 2014 (Fig. 1). The Parties to the
Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus11 also
have some rights to protect infant industries12 or give accelerated
preferential access to other Parties [20]. However, the absence of PNG
and Fiji from PACER Plus for the foreseeable future [20] considerably
reduces the potential of this vehicle to boost intraregional trade inprocessed fish. PACER Plus also has limited scope for assisting the Pacific Island countries that have signed the agreement, other than perhaps Solomon Islands, with fish processing/trade because they are
unlikely to have the potential economies of scale and competitive cost
structures to support successful export industries for processed fish[48].

Fig. 2. Additional quantities (tonnes, net weight) of locally-canned tuna (darkblue) and imported canned tuna (light blue) needed by 2025 and 2035 under
the three scenarios (see text) in Fiji, Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Solomon
Islands.

7. Policy implications
Suggested policies to support the actions described in Section 6 aresummarised in Table 5. Some of these suggestions are already being
implemented. For example, in 2018, the Government of PNG will
provide licensing rebates for foreign fleets offloading fish for processing
locally [37], and the Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office13 has assisted the Marshall Islands to establish a micro-cannery to process fish
for local consumption. Although this small-scale cannery faces economic challenges not encountered by efficient industrial canneries, andthe cost of importing empty cans is high, it benefits from a supply of
free fish from transhipping operations in Majuro lagoon. These fish aretuna that are too small to sell to other processors, or non-tuna bycatchthat would otherwise be discarded.
Although the actions summarised in Table 5 have much potential toassist canneries in Fiji, PNG and Solomon Islands to maintain/increase
their share of the domestic markets for canned tuna, they are exposed tosome risks. Examples of these risks include 1) the effects of demand for
dark-meat tuna from the pet-food trade on incentives to use dark-meattuna for local consumption; 2) the influence of strong El Niño and La
Niña episodes on the locations where tuna are caught [35,36] and theconsequent impacts on minimum deliveries of tuna to enable canneries
to achieve economies of scale; and 3) a general lack of experience incanning fish, including stringent oversight of the necessary heat

6. Actions needed to increase production of locally-canned tuna
The quantities of locally-canned tuna needed to maintain per capita
consumption, or to capitalise on Scenarios 2 and 3 (Table 4), are basedon the assumption that the existing market share of locally-canned tunain Fiji, PNG and Solomon Islands will be maintained. This is by nomeans certain, given the strong competition from imports. There are,however, a number of actions (in addition to those described in Section4) that the three countries could take to maintain (or increase) theirshare of future domestic markets for canned tuna. These actions centre
around 1) increasing the competitiveness of tuna processed in the region; 2) ensuring that local canneries have sufficient supplies of tuna tomeet demand and achieve economies of scale; and 3) improving accessto locally-canned tuna.
A strong incentive for implementing these measures is that increased employment in the fish-processing sector also provides another(indirect) way for canned tuna to contribute to local food security – theadditional jobs in canneries needed to increase production should
provide more households with income to purchase food, thus improving
the ‘access’ pillar of food security [21]. The role of domestic cannedtuna production in contributing to food security could be enhanced
further if national canneries also succeeded in replacing some of theimported canned tuna. Reducing the dependence on imported canned
tuna would also have the advantage of lowering exposure to variationin external market forces that may affect the supply of products fromoverseas [16].
Tariffs applied at different stages of the value chain can influence
the direction and volume of trade [10]. For example, relatively low
tariffs on tuna loins could provide incentives for investment in canning
operations or improve supply into existing canneries in the region.
However, tariffs are just one of many factors – alongside labour efficiency, transportation costs and input costs – influencing investment
decisions in island states [11,33]. Understanding the impacts of any
specific policy would require research and detailed analysis of opportunities and challenges associated with using trade and investment
policies to expand local production and availability of canned tuna in

9Trade Agreement among the Melanesian Spearhead Group Countries. Agreed on
27 October 2005 in Port Moresby. Available at http://www.msgsec.info/index.
php/publicationsdocuments-a-downloads/msg-trade-agreement-2005.
Accessed on 6 December 2017.
10
Pacific Island Countries Trade Agreement (PICTA). Agreed on 18 August 2001
atNauru.
http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/attachments/
documents/PICTA.pdf. Accessed on 6 December 2017.
11
Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus (PACER Plus). Signed byAustralia, Cook Islands, Kiribati, New Zealand, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, Solomon
Islands, Tonga and Tuvalu 14 June 2017 in Nuku’alofa, and by Vanuatu on 7
September 2017 in Apia. Available at http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/
pacer/Pages/pacific-agreement-on-closer-economic-relations-pacer-plus.aspx.
Accessed on 6 December 2017.
12
PACER Plus Article 9.
13
www.pnatuna.com/.
188

Marine Policy 100 (2019) 183–191

J.D. Bell et al.

Table 3
Predicted population growth in Fiji, Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Solomon Islands by 2025 and 2035, together with projected quantities of locally-canned andimported canned tuna needed in tonnes (t) to maintain per capita consumption of canned tuna (relative to the average for the period 2012–2014) (Scenario 1) in
2025 and 2035. Numbers in brackets indicate the increased production of canned tuna required in tonnes, relative to 2012–2014. Calculations are based on theassumption that the proportions of locally-canned and imported canned tuna consumed remain the same over time.
Averagepopulation

Predicted populationa(2012–2014)

2025

2035

Fiji

859,250

909,300

962,600

PNG

7,467,000

9,846,300

11,446,000

Solomon Islands

606,400

802,800

1,017,000

CountryaOrigin ofcanned tuna

Local
Imported
Local
Imported
Local
Imported

Average net weight (t)of canned tuna sold(2012–2014)

Average per capita
consumption(kg.pers−1.year−1)(2012–2014)

2025

2035

2622
1317
3269
5114
3005
321

3.05
1.53
0.44
0.68
4.95
0.53

2773 (151)
1391 (74)4332 (1063)
6695 (1581)
3974 (969)425 (104)

2936 (314)1473 (156)5036 (1767)
7783 (2669)
5034 (2029)
539 (218)

Total canned tuna needed (t)[additional tuna needed (t)]Source: Statistics for Development Division, Pacific Community.

Table 4
Additional quantities in tonnes (t) of locally-canned tuna needed by 2025 and 2035 in Fiji, Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Solomon Islands under the three proposed
scenarios relative to average quantities sold on the domestic market for the period 2012–2014 (see Table 3). Numbers in brackets indicate the percentage increase inlocally-canned tuna required. Calculations are based on the assumption that the proportions of locally-canned and imported canned tuna consumed remain the sameover time.
Country

Fiji
PNG
Solomon Islands

2025

2035

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

151
(6%)
1063
(33%)
969
(32%)

845
(32%)
2146
(66%)
1962
(65%)

1538
(59%)
3230
(99%)
2956
(98%)

314
(12%)
1767
(54%)
2029
(67%)

1049
(40%)
3026
(93%)
3288
(109%)

1783
(68%)
4285
(131%)
4546(151%)

treatment of fish placed in cans to avoid the risk of histamine poisoning[1] and botulism, in some of the smaller Pacific Island countries that
may wish to consider micro-canneries.
It is also possible that increased sales of canned tuna by local canneries on domestic markets may not result in more jobs if there is a
substantial decline in sales to export markets. In this regard, it is particularly important for PNG to maintain preferential access to theEuropean market, including under its Interim Economic Partnership
Agreement with the European Union. Solomon Islands could also accede to this agreement (which has global sourcing provisions) tobroaden options for the supply of raw materials for local processing,and in case its status as a Least Developed Country (which provides
tariff preferences) is revised. The suggested supporting policies listed inTable 5 should be tailored to minimise these risks.
To measure the potential and outcomes of the recommended actions
and supporting policies, better access will be needed to data on 1) theamount of locally-canned tuna sold on domestic markets, and 2) thequantities, quality and origin of imported canned tuna. Recent improvements to HIES, which partition fish consumption into a wider range of fish
types, including canned tuna, will help to provide this information.
However, the typical 5-year cycle of HIES means that timely access to dataon canned tuna imports, and to domestic sales of locally-canned tuna, willbe the best source of information in most years.
Our analysis also provides part of the information required to establish the baseline for the tuna food security goal of the Regional
Roadmap for Sustainable Pacific Fisheries so that the associated annual
Report Card14 can be completed. To determine whether an additional
40,000 t of tuna has been made available for local nutrition each yearby 2024, Pacific Island fisheries managers need to know how much
14

locally-caught tuna was used for domestic consumption before theRoadmap was released in 2015. Our study shows that in 2014, a total of~24,000 t of whole tuna was processed in Fiji, PNG and Solomon Islands to produce canned tuna for local markets (Table 1). In addition, aloose estimate indicates that another 24,000 t of tuna is likely to havebeen caught per year in the region by small-scale commercial fishers[28]. To establish the baseline, the quantity of locally-canned tunaneeds to be added to revised estimates of the small-scale commercial
tuna catch, the amounts of tuna caught by subsistence fishers (derived
from HIES), and the quantity of tuna offloaded at regional ports duringtranshipping operations for local consumption.
8. Conclusions
Canned tuna processed in the Pacific Island region makes a substantial contribution to the recommended consumption of 35 kg of fish
per person per year for people in Fiji (13%) and Solomon Islands (16%).
Canned tuna is particularly beneficial because it provides a non-perishable source of nutritious food for communities at times when, and inplaces where, other supplies of fish are low. A key challenge for Fiji andSolomon Islands will be to maintain, and preferably increase, the percapita consumption of locally-canned tuna as their populations grow.
The key challenge for PNG, where canned fish in general contributes anaverage of only ~2 kg of fish per person per year nationwide, will be tofind ways to distribute locally-canned tuna to inland areas to improve
the nutrition of the large population living there.
Addressing these challenges by implementing the actions and supporting policies summarised in Table 5 will assist Fiji, PNG and Solomon Islands to harness the direct and indirect benefits of canned tunafor nutrition of coastal, urban and inland communities. It will also assist
national governments to achieve the food security goal of the Regional
Roadmap for Sustainable Pacific Fisheries.

http://www.ffa.int/system/files/Tuna_Card_web_0.pdf.
189

Marine Policy 100 (2019) 183–191

J.D. Bell et al.

Table 5
Suggested policies to support the aims of actions implemented to maintain (or increase) the market share of locally-canned tuna in Fiji, Papua New Guinea andSolomon Islands.
Aim of action
Suggested supporting policies for governments and/or regional agencies
Increase the competitiveness of locally-canned tuna
Specify minimum quality and nutritional standards for both locally-produced and imported canned tuna
Explore the extent to which national and regional economic and trade policies can facilitate import of materials (e.g., cans) needed by local fish-processing companies
Develop incentives for companies allocating more dark-meat tuna products for human consumption
Improve efficiency of state-owned enterprises providing services for fish processing (water, electricity and port services)
Link concessions for access fees to actual processing volumes, or develop other financial mechanisms to support processing
Provide training for workers to improve efficiency and reduce absenteeism
Expand the fish-processing sector to provide economies of scale
Ensure local canneries have sufficient supplies of tuna to meet demand and achieve economies of scale
Mandate minimum deliveries of tuna to local canneries using licence offloading requirements, or rebates/incentives
Arrange tax concessions for companies landing and processing tuna
Provide incentives for purse-seine vessels to tranship catches in Fiji
Improve access to locally-canned tuna
Promote the health benefits of canned tuna to raise awareness of the advantages and availability of the products
Provide tax incentives for companies allocating more tuna for sale on the local market
Link fishing access arrangements for vertically-integrated companies operating canneries to minimum domestic sales levels at affordable prices
Support micro-canneries in smaller Pacific Island countries where access to low-cost fish, e.g. bycatch from industrial fishing fleets, would make such enterprises profitable; consider
prohibiting the discarding of non-tuna bycatch species to increase the supply of fish for processing operations
Allocate tuna licence revenue to supporting infrastructure for domestic production and supply chains to inland areas

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Acknowledgements

oceanic fisheries resources for small-scale fishers for food security in Pacific Island
countries, Mar. Policy 88 (2018) 315–322.
[8] J.D. Bell, V. Allain, A. Sen Gupta, J.E. Johnson, J. Hampton, et al., Climate change
impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptations: Western and Central Pacific Ocean marine
fisheries. In: M. Barange, T. Bahri, M.C.M Beveridge, K.L. Cochrane, S. Funge-Smith,
F. Poulain (Eds.), Impacts of Climate Change on Fisheries and Aquaculture:
Synthesis of Current knowledge, Adaptation and Mitigation Options. FAO Fisheries
and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 627. Rome, 2018, pp. 305–324.
[9] R.M. Bourke, A.G. Allen, J.G. Salisbury (Eds.), Food security for Papua New Guinea.
in: Proceedings of the Papua New Guinea Food and Nutrition 2000 Conference,
26th to 30th June, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research,
Canberra, 2000.
[10] L. Campling, Trade politics and the global production of canned tuna, Mar. Policy
69 (2016) 220–228.
[11] L. Campling, E. Havice, Industrial development in an island economy: US trade
policy and canned tuna production in American Samoa, Isl. Stud. J. 2 (2007)
209–228.
[12] J.C. Caro, S.W. Ng, L. Smith Taillie, B.M. Popkin, Designing a tax to discourage
unhealthy food and beverage purchases: the case of Chile, Food Policy 71 (2017)
86–100.
[13] S. Cassels, Overweight in the Pacific: links between foreign dependence, global foodtrade, and obesity in the Federated States of Micronesia, Glob. Health 2 (2006),
https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-2-10.
[14] K.E. Charlton, J. Russell, E. Gorman, Q. Hanich, Q., A. Delisle, et al., Fish, foodsecurity and health in Pacific Island countries and territories: a systematic literature
review, BMC Public Health 16 (2016) 285, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-0162953-9.
[15] M.H. Cheng, Asia-Pacific faces diabetes challenge, Lancet 375 (2010) 2207–2210.
[16] J. Clapp, Food self-sufficiency: making sense of it, and when it makes sense, Food
Policy 66 (2017) 88–96.
[17] K.L. Cochrane, N.L. Andrew, A.M. Parma, Primary fisheries management: aminimum requirement for provision of sustainable human benefits in small-scale
fisheries, Fish. Fish. 12 (2011) 275–288.
[18] P. Dalzell, T. Adams, N. Polunin, Coastal fisheries in the Pacific islands, Oceanogr.
Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 33 (1996) 395–531.
[19] C. Dignan, B. Burlingame, S. Kumar, W. Aalbersberg, The Pacific Islands Food
Composition Tables, 2nd ed., Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, 2004.
[20] M. Dornan, PACER Plus is not much to celebrate. East Asia Forum. 2 June. Available
at 〈http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2017/06/02/pacer-plus-is-not-much-tocelebrate/?Utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=
newsletter2017-06-04〉. Accessed on 12 December 2017.
[21] FAO, An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security, Food Security
Programme, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, 2008.
[22] FAO, Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on the Risks and Benefitsof Fish Consumption. Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 978, Food andAgriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, 2011.
[23] FAO, Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics 2015, Food and Agriculture Organisation of
the United Nations, Rome, 2017.
[24] FAO, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture, Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations, Rome, 2018.
[25] FAO, FNU, Effects of Food Taxation in Tonga: A Snapshot. Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations, Rome; and Fiji National University, Nasinu, Fiji,
2017.

Information on the quantities of locally-canned tuna and mackerelsold on the domestic market was kindly provided by Ban Singh from
Pacific Fishing Company Ltd (Fiji), Saman Kithsiri from Viti Foods Ltd(Fiji), Jim Alexander from Soltuna (Solomon Islands) and Roslan
Wahed from International Food Corporation (PNG). Navneel Prasadfrom the Pacific Community generously assisted in obtaining data on
tuna imports. Alfred (Bubba) Cook, Kim Friedman, Thomas GloerfeltTarp and Antony Lewis provided helpful comments about the use andtrade of canned fish in the Pacific Island region, which improved themanuscript, and Aymeric Desurmont kindly prepared Fig. 2. Michael
Sharp, Alessandro Romeo and Neil Andrew were supported by theAustralian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)
project FIS/2015/031. Kamal Azmi received support from an AustralianGovernment Research Training Program Scholarship. Karen Charlton
and Joanna Russell obtained a University of Wollongong Global Challenges grant for this work.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.034.
References[1] F. Adams, F. Nolte, J. Colton, J. Debeer, L. Weddig, Precooking as a control for
histamine formation during the processing of tuna: an industrial process validation,
J. Food Prot. 81 (2018) 444–445.
[2] J.D. Bell, M. Kronen, A. Vunisea, W.J. Nash, G. Keeble, et al., Planning the use offish for food security in the Pacific, Mar. Policy 33 (2009) 64–76.
[3] J.D. Bell, C. Reid, M.J. Batty, E.H. Allison, P. Lehodey, et al., Implications of climatechange for contributions by fisheries and aquaculture to Pacific Island economies
and communities. 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. 733–801.
[4] J.D. Bell, A. Ganachaud, P.C. Gehrke, S.P. Griffiths, A.J. Hobday, et al., Mixed responses of tropical Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate change, Nat. Clim.
Change 3 (2013) 591–599.
[5] J.D. Bell, A. Allain, E.H. Allison, S. Andréfouët, N.L. Andrew, et al., Diversifying theuse of tuna to improve food security and public health in Pacific Island countries
and territories, Mar. Policy 51 (2015) 584–591.
[6] J.D. Bell, A. Albert, S. Andréfouët, N.L. Andrew, M. Blanc, et al., Optimising the useof nearshore fish aggregating devices for food security in the Pacific Islands, Mar.
Policy 56 (2015) 98–105.
[7] J.D. Bell, A. Albert, G. Amos, C. Arthur, M. Blanc, et al., Operationalising access to190

Marine Policy 100 (2019) 183–191

J.D. Bell et al.
[26] FFA, SPC, Future of Pacific Fisheries: A Regional Roadmap for Sustainable PacificFisheries. Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara, and Pacific Community,
Noumea, 2015.
[27] R. Gillett, Fisheries in the Economies of Pacific Island Countries and Territories,
Asian Development Bank, Manila, 2009.
[28] R. Gillett, Bycatch in Small-scale Tuna Fisheries: A Global Study. Fisheries andAquaculture Technical Paper. No. 560, Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, Rome, 2011.
[29] R. Gillett, Fisheries in the Economies of Pacific Island Countries and Territories,
Pacific Community, Noumea, 2016.
[30] R. Gillett, M.I. Tauati, Fisheries of the Pacific Islands: Regional and National
Information. Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper no. 625, Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations, Apia, 2018.
[31] 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.
[32] E. Havice, Unsettled sovereignty and the sea: mobilities and negotiated control overhighly migratory tuna, Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 108 (2018) 1280–1297.
[33] E. Havice, L. Campling, Articulating upgrading: island developing states and canned
tuna production, Environ. Plan. A 45 (2013) 2610–2627.
[34] P.M. Kris-Etherton, W.S. Harris, L.J. Appel, Fish consumption, fish oil, omega-3
fatty acids, and cardiovascular disease, Circ.: J. Am. Heart Assoc. 106 (2002)
2747–2757.
[35] P. Lehodey, M. Bertignac, J. Hampton, A. Lewis, J. Picaut, El Niño Southern
Oscillation and tuna in the western Pacific, Nature 389 (1997) 715–718.
[36] P. Lehodey, J. Hampton, R.W. Brill, S. Nicol, I. Senina, et al., Vulnerability ofoceanic 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.
433–492.
[37] Loop Business, New fisheries system to be in place. Loop, 17 December. 〈Http://

www.looppng.com〉.
[38] A. Maqbool, B. Strandvik, V.A. Stallings, The skinny on tuna fat: health implications, Public Health Nutr. 14 (2011) 2049–2054.
[39] D. Mozaffarian, E.B. Rimm, Fish intake, contaminants, and human health: evaluating the risks and the benefits, JAMA 296 (2006) 1885–1899.
[40] M.A. McCoy, An Assessment of the Potentials for Tuna Fisheries and Related SmallScale Businesses to Contribute to Food Security in three Pacific Island Countries.
Gillett, Preston and Associates, Suva, 2013.
[41] S. Pinca, M. Kronen, K. Friedman, M. Magron, L. Chapman, et al., Regional
Assessment Report: Profiles and Results from Survey Work at 63 Sites Across 17
Pacific Island Countries and Territories, Secretariat of the Pacific Community,
Noumea, 2010.
[42] M.S. Pratchett, P.L. Munday, N.A.J. Graham, M. Kronen, S. Pinca, 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 PacificFisheries and Aquaculture to Climate Change, Secretariat of the Pacific Community,
Noumea, 2011, pp. 493–576.
[43] SPC, Fish and Food Security. Policy Brief 1/2008. Secretariat of the PacificCommunity, Noumea, 2008.
[44] SPC, Fish Aggregating Devices. Policy Brief 19/2012. Secretariat of the PacificCommunity, Noumea, 2012.
[45] SPC, A New Song for Coastal Fisheries – Pathways to Change: The Noumea Strategy.
Pacific Community, Noumea, 2015.
[46] SPC, Sustainable National Artisanal FAD Programmes: What to Aim For. Policy
Brief 31/2016. Pacific Community, Noumea, 2016.
[47] M. Taylor, A. McGregor, B. Dawson (Eds.), Vulnerability of Pacific Island
Agriculture and Forestry to Climate Change, Pacific Community, Noumea, 2016.
[48] World Bank and Nicholas Institute, Tuna Fisheries. Pacific Possible Series, WorldBank Group, Sydney, 2016 (Available at), 〈http://documents.worldbank.org/
curated/en/966441503678446432/Tuna-fisheries〉.

191